|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT No. 21: See, thought, with its presumptive nature, being puffed up with its own importance, cannot fathom that it has no part in intelligence. Think about it. Consider, possibly, that none of us is intelligent.RESPONDENT No. 23: Us, as many human beings comprising mankind or a group of posters in this list, is a perception of thought. Action driven by this perception – Konrad’s economic theory, Richard’s one-to-one sincere and candid conversation of redemption, and your self-correction attitude – is delusion. Just unintelligent. To see this, is intelligence. RESPONDENT: If there is a fragmentation of many conflicting parts, there is a need for a central coordinating part to act in the best interest of the group. If the underlying unity of the parts is uncovered, there is no longer a need for a governing centre and it falls away without effort to remove it. RICHARD: As far as I am concerned, the underlying unity already exists. It is that we are all fellow human beings. Finding ourselves born into this mess that is human relationship, we seek to understand ourselves and each other and thus be free of it once and for all. We share our discoveries with each other, for we are all well-meaning and wish only for the best. RESPONDENT: If the many are reduced to one, what is the one reduced to? RICHARD: When it is understood that the one is the epitome of the many and that ‘I’ am the ‘many’ and the ‘many’ is ‘me’ ... ‘I’ self-immolate at the core of ‘being’. Then I am this material universe’s infinitude experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. A desirable side-effect is peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT No. 20: Are you speaking about existing without self? RICHARD: Yes, but not only without a self ... without a ‘Self’ as well. One is well-advised to pay
attention to those basic instincts that give rise to what the Christians coyly call ‘Original Sin’ RESPONDENT: Obviously what disappears can not be original face, which is nothingness. RICHARD: Oh, yes it can ... and does. At the risk of sounding like No. 22, ‘nothingness’ is a concept. People, seeing everything to be transient, seek permanence and posit an enduring ‘nothingness’ ... then yearn to live in it. It being a massive delusory hallucination, only a rare few succeed. Yet all this while, this physical universe – being infinite and eternal – is permanent. Why do people look for something beyond it? Something metaphysical? RESPONDENT: Nor does the ground in being drop away as it is the space that contains what is transient. RICHARD: No, it is this physical universe that contains what is transient ... which transitoriness is only matter re-arranging itself, anyway. Why posit something immaterial? RESPONDENT: What drops away is imagery. RICHARD: Only to be replaced by a more subtle imagery born out of the affective faculties. RESPONDENT: Whether it is called peace-on-earth that was already always there, or original face, or ground in being, the image is not what is pointed to. RICHARD: Peace-on-earth is not ‘there’ ... it is here. It is not an image ... it is actual. It is not being pointed to ... it is being lived and described. RESPONDENT: The image of being a flesh and blood body existing separately in time drops away. RICHARD: Not so ... one is this flesh and blood body, as an actuality, being here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space. There is no immortality, though. RESPONDENT: No one ‘in’ a body, no one that ‘is’ a body, no one to get out of a body, etc. RICHARD: Agreed ... no identity whatsoever. Not even an ‘Original face’ ... which is an enduring identity. RESPONDENT: The description you quoted is excellent. Thanks. (‘Original
Face’: This face, through endless kalpas without beginning, has never varied. It has never lived or died, appeared or
disappeared, increased or decreased. It’s not pure or impure, good or evil, past or future. It’s not true or false. It’s not
male or female. It doesn’t appear as a monk or a layman, an elder or a novice, a sage or a fool, a Buddha or a mortal. It
strives for no realisation and suffers no karma. It has no strength or form. It’s like space. You can’t possess it and you can’t
lose it. Its movements can’t be blocked by mountains, rivers, or rock walls ... No karma can restrain this real face. But this
face is subtle and hard to see. It’s not the same as the sensual face. Everyone wants to see this face, and those who move their
hands and feet by its light are as many as the grains of sand, but when you ask them, they can’t explain it. It’s theirs to
use. Why don’t they see it? Only the wise know this face, this face called liberation. Neither life nor death can restrain this
face. Nothing can. It’s also called the Unstoppable, the Incomprehensible, the Sacred, the Immortal and the Great Sage. Its
names vary but not its essence’). RICHARD: Yes, it is an excellent description of that enduring identity that is so persistent that no one considers that it is vital to be free of it ... if one is to have peace-on-earth.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 2): The pertinent question to ask oneself is: ‘Why do I have the need to
relate to anyone at all?’ RESPONDENT No. 2: Thanks for responding, so many answers to my little
question, I am overwhelmed. I relate to others because I am human. Why ask why? RESPONDENT: Or is it rather that ‘you’ exist only in relationship and clear seeing of that relationship is right action? RICHARD: Or, rather, ‘you’ exist only in relationship and clear seeing of that relationship is the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and thus all relationship. RESPONDENT: Are you relating so as to cause resentment or to invite attack? Are you attacked at random so that you need only step aside? What is actually happening? RICHARD: What is actually happening is that ‘I’ am the problem ... the demise of ‘me’ is the end of the problem.
RICHARD: Rather, ‘you’ exist only in relationship and clear seeing of that relationship is the beginning of the end of ‘me’ and thus all relationship. RESPONDENT: Would you expand on what you mean by relationship in this context? RICHARD: Relationship is being and belonging. One is affirmed, supported and encouraged to continue to be a someone – a ‘being’ – via relationship ... whether belonging is flattering or insulting; whether it is loving or hating; whether it is life-supportive or life-threatening. RESPONDENT: ‘You’ are writing messages in response to the messages of others. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware is reading and writing ... no ‘me’ is required at all. The species of the same genus recognise species of the same ilk ... we are fellow human beings. No sentiment – let alone mawkishness – is needed to interact. RESPONDENT: In terms of activity, you exist only in relationship to that with which you interact: other people, animals, the environment, or thoughts, feelings and sensations that arise and are observed. RICHARD: This flesh and blood body exists regardless of whether interaction takes place or not ... either extrinsic or intrinsic (like in deep sleep). Except that there are no feelings whatsoever ... there is physical sensation only with thought operating when required by the circumstances. There is no ‘I’ as a ‘thinker or ‘me’ as a ‘feeler’. Thus my awareness of being here as this flesh and blood body is that I am these on-going physical sensations ... rather than a ‘me’ having them. RESPONDENT: The centre that is identified as ‘me’ may drop away and only then is there an actual connectedness rather than relating to and through images. This is understood through direct experience. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no connectedness – actual or otherwise – as there is no ‘me’
to be connected. Connection is affective ... which is why ‘vibes’ * RESPONDENT to No. 2: Are you relating so as to cause resentment or to invite attack? Are you attacked at random so that you need only step aside? What is actually happening? RICHARD: What is actually happening is that ‘I’ am the problem ... the demise of ‘me’ is the end of the problem. RESPONDENT: If ‘I’ is taken as psychological division, then I agree ‘I’ am the problem. RICHARD: ‘I’ am nothing else but a psychological entity ... divided or whole. ‘I’ am an emotional-mental construct born out of the instinctual passions. ‘I’ am nothing but a problem ... to this body and all others. RESPONDENT: Setting up the demise of the ‘me’ as a state to arrive at seems like a gaining idea that often promotes conflict ... what ‘should be’ versus ‘what is’. RICHARD: Yes ... except that the only alternative is to continue to live with the malice and sorrow engendered by ‘me’. Then one attempts to deal with it by psychological means ... an ultimately futile endeavour. When one has a PCE – and remembers it clearly – one only wants to live that continuously. One could not
care less about ‘what is’ RESPONDENT: It is possible to be free of identification with the known right now. That doesn’t mean that conditioned reactions never occur or that observation is unnecessary and there is nothing more to learn. RICHARD: With the demise of ‘me’ there are no more conditioned reactions ever; no observation is necessary at all; there is nothing whatsoever to learn (other than acquiring technical skills). Living is clean and easy all of the time – twenty four hours a day, seven days a week – for the remainder of one’s life. Which is why I use descriptive words like ‘ambrosial’, ‘paradise’, ‘fairy tale-like quality’ ... and so on.
RESPONDENT No. 00: ‘Mindfulness of Feeling’. (By Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana). <ARTICLE SNIPPED FOR SPACE> RICHARD: I read the article you posted through twice and I am referring to it again as I write. As you were interested enough in the subject of feelings to post the article, what was it that you wished to discuss? There are several issues I could raise, but of course I cannot have a dialogue with Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana on this List.
RESPONDENT: Emotions seem to be reactions involving sensations but they are immediately evaluative. RICHARD: They are reactions, yes. Are all affective feelings reactive? Are sensate feelings – void of the affective reaction – at all reactionary? Which of the two is the peaceful way to operate and function in the world of people, things and events? RESPONDENT: In a way, they are another feedback loop. The two emotional extremes of distress or flat affect are usually symptomatic of disorder. Krishnamurti spoke of dying to one’s emotions but that does not in my opinion mean that emotions (or thoughts) are avoided. RICHARD: One would not want to avoid anything whatsoever ... one is scrupulously honest with oneself because, after all is said and done, it is one who has to live this life. Dishonesty is not ‘bad’ ... it is silly. RESPONDENT: Only what is allowed to flower can die away. RICHARD: Do you mean by this that the affective feelings can end completely? That is: no affective faculties for the remainder of one’s life? If not, then what does ‘flower and die away’ mean? RESPONDENT: The emotional ‘body’ moves between the poles of like and dislike and when there is a free movement without inhibition or direction, there is great energy. RICHARD: Is this ‘great energy’ affective in origin? * RICHARD: [Point No. 2.]: ‘He talks of people ‘clinging to the pleasant feeling and rejecting the unpleasant’ in contrast to the more enlightened one ‘neither clinging to the pleasant nor rejecting the unpleasant’ ... do you consider this approach valid?’ RESPONDENT: If there is no identification with thought or feeling or any function, there is no clinging or grasping. So it is a matter of being free to observe, i.e.: no identification. RICHARD: What if there were no one to identify with ‘thought or feeling or any function’in the first place? Would this not eliminate the on-going necessity to be ‘non-clinging’ and ‘non-grasping’? That sounds like hard work to me ... always having to be alert because clinging and grasping will always come sweeping back in when vigilance is inevitably relaxed. Besides, what does ‘flower and die away’ mean, anyway, if it comes back again? You see, because Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana does not differentiate between affective feelings and sensate feelings, he has to ‘neither cling to the pleasant nor reject the unpleasant’. Thus, with this grab-bag of sensate and affective feelings undifferentiated, one would have to allow the whole dang lot to ‘flower and die away’ ... and one would be simply numb. One would be able to sit upon a hot stove and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising! Also, one misses out on the sheer delight of the eyes resting upon colour and shape; one misses out on the joy of the nose inhaling aromas; one misses out on the lusciousness of the tongue tasting food; one misses out on pleasure of the ears hearing sound; one misses out on the delight of the skin touching and being touched. All this is because people like Mr. Bhanthe Henepola Gunaratana (presumably of the Buddhist Tradition) cannot be bothered differentiating between the affective feelings and the sensate feelings. What manner of wisdom is this? * RICHARD: [Point No. 3.]: ‘He says: ‘We defend ourselves saying, ‘I have every right to defend my feelings when somebody hurts my feelings’. When you universalise your feelings you become more mindful about not saying anything to hurt anybody’. Is this a healthy approach?’ RESPONDENT: It is not clear what he meant by universalising feelings. RICHARD: He meant that scriptural adage about doing unto others as you would have them do unto you ... thus the affective feelings rule the world. RESPONDENT: Feelings or reactions are factual and have an effect and as such are treated with due respect. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and therein lies the problem. This ‘respect’ ultimately means respect for physical force, for if one upsets another’s feelings sufficiently, they will become violent. Thus, through violence, people’s precious feelings rule the world ... and look at the mess it is in. * RICHARD: [Point No. 4.]: ‘He teaches: ‘Pay total attention to your own feeling and begin to notice the pleasant feeling behind your unpleasant feeling’. This is in contradiction to No. 2 above’. RESPONDENT: Paying full attention is not grasping after. There is a difference between trying to avoid or alter the unpleasant, and seeing what is pleasant, interesting, or instructive in what is superficially an unpleasant feeling. RICHARD: But ... do you not see that his advice about ‘neither clinging to the pleasant nor rejecting the unpleasant’ is only skin-deep? He actually wants to get past the superficial and cling to the deeper feelings (affective feelings). In fact, if he were to go all the way, he would become those deepest (affective) feelings ... he would ‘be’ them’ (and we all know what they are ... Love and Compassion). He would ‘be’ Love. He would ‘be’ Compassion. Then he would say that Love and Compassion are not feelings at all ... he would say that they are a state of being. Golly gosh ... he would be a Buddha! * RICHARD: [Point No. 5.]: ‘He finishes with: ‘If you mindfully watch your own mind and feelings, you can see very clearly and unequivocally that what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’. As all sentient beings are born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire – bestowed by blind nature – how do you think he could say that ‘what you feel is your own creation and that you are totally responsible for it’?’ RESPONDENT: What is brought about mechanically or blindly continues unless there is awareness and understanding of how it is these energies, compulsions, habits, etc are actually operating. They operate through identifications and attachments. It is our responsibility to bring about a natural order which means to understand what is disordered. RICHARD: But the ‘natural order’ is these instinctive passions ... or do you say that what blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth is un-natural? Is this understanding of yours not back-to-front? Why not do something un-natural? Why not dispense with what is the ‘natural order’? After all, it has bought nothing but mayhem and misery thus far in human history. * RICHARD: [Point No. 6.]: ‘He finishes with: ‘Mindfully watching the continuous change of your own feelings can make you abstain from emotional reactions and make you see the truth of your own feelings. Mindfulness of feelings will not cause you to think obsessive thoughts or abusive thoughts or harmful thoughts. By unmindful thinking you abuse your mind. The abused mind always generates abusive feelings, which always is painful’. Do you think that it is the mind that generates feelings – be they pleasant or unpleasant – as he says?’ RESPONDENT: Yes, it seems that egoistic feelings stem from what he calls an abused mind. RICHARD: You say ‘it seems’ ... do feelings, in fact, originate in the mind? (Bearing in mind that he means, by the term ‘mind’, thought and thinking ... and not the physical brain). It has been demonstrated that the basic passions originate in the brain-stem (popularly called the ‘reptilian brain’) of all sentient beings ... even those without a cerebral cortex. As thinking and thought exist only in the human cerebral cortex, how can he say that ‘emotional reactions’ (which all animals have) are generated by the mind? Does he know what he is talking about? Is his wisdom, in fact, nothing but psittacisms? Did Mr. Gotama the Sakyan (if there ever was such a flesh and blood person anyway) know about the ‘reptilian brain’ being the seat of passion? Is this why Buddhism has been ineffective in bringing about Peace On Earth despite two and a half thousand years in which to do so? There is as much suffering now as back then. RESPONDENT: The more mind is identified, not aware, not free to observe, the greater the suffering. The mind that is boundless, not entangled with transient thoughts, feelings and sensations is ecstatic. RICHARD: Yeah ... and therein lies the enticement of those deeper feelings: ‘ecstatic’, eh? Ecstasy is affective. Self-aggrandisement once again.
RICHARD (to No. 23): The main trouble with enlightenment is that whilst the identity as ego
dissolves, the identity as soul remains intact. No longer identifying as a personal ego-bound identity, one then identifies as an
impersonal soul-bound identity ... ‘I am That’ or ‘I am God’ or ‘I am The Supreme’ or ‘I am The Absolute’ or ‘I
am The Buddha’ and so on. This is the delusion, the mirage, the deception. RESPONDENT: If there is someone that is enlightened that is duality is it not? The ‘someone’ is but image. Is an image enlightened? RICHARD: Oh yes ... but let us make sure that we do not fall into that ‘it is only an image therefore nothing has to happen’ intellectual trap, eh? An enlightened person definitely has dissolved their ego. That is, the ‘ego-death’ that they speak of is the factor that sets them apart from normal people. This is not under dispute. What I am saying is that the death of ‘I’ as ego is to but go half-way ... the other half of the identity is ‘me’ as soul. When ‘me’ as soul like-wise dies ... then here is an actual freedom. No identity whatsoever. When someone asks me: ‘Who are you ... are you ‘That’? (or are you ‘God’ or are you ‘The Supreme’ or are you ‘The Absolute’ or are you ‘The Buddha’ and so on) I say: Wrong question. Because there is no ‘who’ (a psychological or psychic ‘being’ or ‘Being’) inside this body whatsoever. The accurate answer is: ‘What I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware and most assuredly living in this very actual physical world as-it-is’. There is no ‘Greater Reality’ in some other dimension ... other than in passionate imagination, that is. * RICHARD: For many years I sought genuine exploration and discovery of what it means to live a fully human life, and in October 1992 I discovered, once and for all, what I was looking for. Since then I have been consistently living an incomparable condition which I choose to call actual freedom – and I use the word ‘actual’ because this freedom is located here in this very world, this actual world of the senses. It is not an affective, cerebral or psychic state of being; it is a physical condition that ensues when one goes beyond spiritual enlightenment’s ‘Greater Reality’. RESPONDENT: Is there actually someone that loses a ‘me’ and then loses another deeper ‘me’? RICHARD: There is actually a flesh and blood body that loses a ‘me’ and then loses another deeper ‘me’ ... yes. But a ‘someone’ cannot lose a ‘me’ (what I call ‘I’ as ego for clarity) – or the deeper ‘me’ (what I call ‘me’ as soul for clarity) – because that ‘someone’ is that self-same ‘I’ and ‘me’ ... which is identity. This identity is not an accessory that a ‘someone’ can shuck off (a ‘someone’ is not actual). RESPONDENT: Or is that being in time an illusion of thought? RICHARD: No, time is not an illusion ... time – and space – are actual. However, mostly people are ‘out of time’ inasmuch as they miss out on being here where ‘their’ body is at this moment in time (and this place in space). As time is eternal – just as space is infinite – to be here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe. (I am using the word ‘infinitude in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As me, the universe can be intelligent and observe and reflect upon itself. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is running this universe ... that is to commit the vulgar error of anthropomorphism. What I am saying is that there is nothing prior to this tangible universe ... nothing that is ‘primary’
or ‘formless’ or ‘inchoate’ that gives rise to this palpable universe. In other words ‘noumenon’ And it is a phenomenal actuality ... if I may pun a little! * RICHARD: The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension. RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are a flesh and blood body, an object separate from other objects, that is the everyday reality of the ‘real world’ is it not? RICHARD: Oh dear ... if only you had written: ‘If ‘you’ are [in] a flesh and blood body, an object separate from other objects, then that is the everyday reality of the ‘real world’ is it not?’ For then we would be in agreement. You see, if ‘you’ – as an identity – try to avoid extinction of ‘self’/‘Self’ by shifting identification from being an ‘I’ as ego and the ‘me’ as soul into being an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as this body ... then one is fooling oneself in a most insidious way. One must be scrupulously honest with oneself in order to be totally free of the Human Condition. There are three ‘worlds’ altogether ... but only one is actual. Thus I say, as you quoted me above, that: ‘The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension’. To put it bluntly: ‘you’ who are but an illusion, must die an illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are not, there is awareness that is a dimension or space not of thought and there are physical bodies. Is that what you mean? RICHARD: Yes ... only thought does not have to stop for this – initially ‘other’ – dimension (or ‘space’ if you will) to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. And if one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters then because physical death is oblivion.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 23): The main trouble with enlightenment is that whilst the identity as ego
dissolves, the identity as soul remains intact. No longer identifying as a personal ego-bound identity, one then identifies as an
impersonal soul-bound identity ... ‘I am That’ or ‘I am God’ or ‘I am The Supreme’ or ‘I am The Absolute’ or ‘I
am The Buddha’ and so on. This is the delusion, the mirage, the deception. RESPONDENT: If there is someone that is enlightened that is duality is it not? The ‘someone’ is but image. Is an image enlightened? RICHARD: Oh yes ... but let us make sure that we do not fall into that ‘it is only an image therefore nothing has to happen’ intellectual trap, eh? An enlightened person definitely has dissolved their ego. RESPONDENT: See the circular nature of what is asserted? A person (ego) dissolves the ego and becomes enlightened. It may be that there is conditioning that has dissolved but there never was anyone apart from that conditioning to act upon it and proudly claim ‘I’ am free or enlightened. That idea of becoming is self-image, i.e.: ego. RICHARD: Yet enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. * RICHARD: The ‘ego-death’ that they speak of is the factor that sets them apart from normal people. This is not under dispute. What I am saying is that the death of ‘I’ as ego is to but go half-way ... the other half of the identity is ‘me’ as soul. When ‘me’ as soul like-wise dies ... then here is an actual freedom. No identity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: The thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image. RICHARD: When another person tells me – or demonstrates to me – that their identity is still intact it is not me making an image about them, surely ... it is so. It is a fact. RESPONDENT: When ‘I’ am not, there are no such images. RICHARD: Correct ... and then, when you inform your fellow human being of this fact – that there is no ‘I’ extant in this body – they will probably say to you something like: ‘The thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’. And why? Envy, perhaps? Who knows why? However ... I think it is silly, for whatever reason it is, because it blocks their progress. RESPONDENT: There is awareness that is not divided by self-reflection. RICHARD: Precisely. Therefore why object when another informs you of this fact being an actuality in his life and tell him that ‘the thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’? What is achieved by making such an inaccurate observation? * RICHARD: When someone asks me: ‘Who are you ... are you ‘That’? (or are you ‘God’ or are you ‘The Supreme’ or are you ‘The Absolute’ or are you ‘The Buddha’ and so on) I say: Wrong question. Because there is no ‘who’ (a psychological or psychic ‘being’ or ‘Being’) inside this body whatsoever. The accurate answer is: ‘What I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware and most assuredly living in this very actual physical world as-it-is’. There is no ‘Greater Reality’ in some other dimension ... other than in passionate imagination, that is. For many years I sought genuine exploration and discovery of what it means to live a fully human life, and in October 1992 I discovered, once and for all, what I was looking for. Since then I have been consistently living an incomparable condition which I choose to call actual freedom – and I use the word ‘actual’ because this freedom is located here in this very world, this actual world of the senses. It is not an affective, cerebral or psychic state of being; it is a physical condition that ensues when one goes beyond spiritual enlightenment’s ‘Greater Reality’. RESPONDENT: Is there actually someone that loses a ‘me’ and then loses another deeper ‘me’? RICHARD: There is actually a flesh and blood body that loses a ‘me’ and then loses another deeper ‘me’ ... yes. But a ‘someone’ cannot lose a ‘me’ (what I call ‘I’ as ego for clarity) – or the deeper ‘me’ (what I call ‘me’ as soul for clarity) – because that ‘someone’ is that self-same ‘I’ and ‘me’ ... which is identity. This identity is not an accessory that a ‘someone’ can shuck off (a ‘someone’ is not actual). RESPONDENT: There is a body and brain which has been conditioned, genetically, physically and psychologically. The question is whether that particular conditioning which is a structuring in memory that we call ‘me’ can be dissolved. RICHARD: Can the identity – ‘I’ as ego and the ‘me’ as soul – cease to exist? Yes. RESPONDENT: It is clear that it will never be dissolved through its own operation, i.e.: by ‘my’ effort. Is that what you claim? RICHARD: Yes and no ... and I am not being tricky here. Yes, in that ‘I’ bring about this ‘death’ in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. And no, in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. The extinction of identity – both an ego death and a soul death – is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. RESPONDENT: Is it that being in time an illusion of thought? RICHARD: No, time is not an illusion ... time – and space – are actual. However, mostly people are ‘out of time’ inasmuch as they miss out on being here where ‘their’ body is at this moment in time (and this place in space). RESPONDENT: The reference was to psychological time. There is an idea of an entity that is moving in time from one experience to the next. That idea is useful but the entity is but memory. It is not actual. Physical time seems to be an actual movement but it can not be known. It is remembered. RICHARD: Only now is actual. Yesterday – when it was happening – was actual ... and was now. Tomorrow – when it does happen – will be actual ... and will be now. Thus it is already always now ... and it is all happening here. There is only this moment in time and this place in space. Experiencing this – which is only possible when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are not – is to apperceptively know infinitude. Thus physical time can indeed be known ... ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul will never know it, however. * RICHARD: As time is eternal – just as space is infinite – to be here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe (I am using the word ‘infinitude in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As me, the universe can be intelligent and observe and reflect upon itself. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is running this universe ... that is to commit the vulgar error of anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: Observation and reflection from memory of limited past experience is thought is it not? RICHARD: Yes ... only in a normal person there is always an affective component that makes it real. RESPONDENT: The intelligence that is the universe is not limited to memory stored in a particular brain. RICHARD: Just what ‘intelligence that is the universe’ is this that you are referring to? The only intelligence that the universe has is as a human being ... which means this brain. Surely you are not bringing the ‘intelligence’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti revered into this discussion ... that ‘intelligence’ is nothing but what is known in the West as the ‘Omniscience of God’. RESPONDENT: When the brain is operating from programming, is there any room for that energy and intelligence of the universe to contact the brain? RICHARD: You are talking about becoming one with god ... by whatever name. RESPONDENT: There is not. Because there is no silence, no space (and thus no contact), intelligence is thought to exist outside of what is, beyond the universe structured by thought. But that is like saying the ocean is outside of the wave. The movement of a wave is particular but there never was a wave apart from ocean. RICHARD: I have heard all this before – I lived it for eleven years – and it is self-aggrandisement. This is Eastern Mysticism ...‘I am everything and Everything is Me’. * RICHARD: What I am saying is that there is nothing prior to this tangible universe ... nothing that is
‘primary’ or ‘formless’ or ‘inchoate’ that gives rise to this palpable universe. In other words ‘noumenon’ RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are a flesh and blood body, an object separate from other objects, that is the everyday reality of the ‘real world’ is it not? RICHARD: Oh dear ... if only you had written: ‘If ‘you’ are [in] a flesh and blood body, an object separate from other objects, then that is the everyday reality of the ‘real world’ is it not?’ For then we would be in agreement. RESPONDENT: Whether I am ‘in’ a body or I ‘am’ a body, there is still isolation and separation is there not? RICHARD: No ... if it is an ‘I’ that is in the body there is separation. If there is no ‘I’ whatsoever, then there is no ‘one’ to be separate. Then the first person pronoun refers to this flesh and blood body only ... no identity anywhere at all. RESPONDENT: There is of course physical separation. But the ‘me’ that is a physical body is constructed by thought from memory. RICHARD: Any ‘me’ – any psychological or psychic identity – is an emotional-mental construct. This flesh and blood body is not such a construct ... this is actual. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is not of thought and is not identified with a particular body. RICHARD: Your ‘omniscience of god’ type ‘intelligence’ is not ‘identified with a particular body’ ... that is for sure. However, it is a product of a fertile imagination ... it is an affective fantasy. * RICHARD: You see, if ‘you’ – as an identity – try to avoid extinction of ‘self’/‘Self’ by shifting identification from being an ‘I’ as ego and the ‘me’ as soul into being an ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ as this body ... then one is fooling oneself in a most insidious way. One must be scrupulously honest with oneself in order to be totally free of the Human Condition. There are three ‘worlds’ altogether ... but only one is actual. Thus I say, as you quoted me above, that: ‘The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension’. To put it bluntly: ‘you’ who are but an illusion, must die an illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are not, there is awareness that is a dimension or space not of thought and there are physical bodies. Is that what you mean? RICHARD: Yes ... only thought does not have to stop for this – initially ‘other’ – dimension (or ‘space’ if you will) to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. RESPONDENT: Yes. I would not call it apperceptive thought. RICHARD: Why not? Thought sans ‘thinker’ is apperceptive thought. RESPONDENT: There is thought that is brain activity and there is intelligence or pure perception that is not a result of brain activity. RICHARD: You are confusing the ‘thinker’ with thought itself. Without the ‘thinker’ any brain activity is clear and clean and pure ... which includes thinking. RESPONDENT: The two can operate in harmony or in conflict. RICHARD: No ... the ‘thinker’ can only die. Any ‘harmony’ is but a sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) in order for the cunning identity to stay in existence. After all, it is charged by blind nature to survive. * RICHARD: And if one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters at all then because physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: There is death because there is belief in a ‘me’’ that has continuity. RICHARD: Not so ... physical death is a fact whether there is a continuous ‘me’ or not. RESPONDENT: What seems to either continue or die is an illusion. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT: A wave does not die because it never was truly separate. RICHARD: This is that ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ stuff again. Physical death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: If it is directly seen that in fact there is no separation, is there selfish concern about ‘my’ death? RICHARD: Whoa up there! You wish to survive physical death and live forever ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. How much more selfish can you get than that?
RICHARD: Enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti did not claim that he (thought) dissolved the ego. RICHARD: Indeed not ... he was quite clear at the time about how his ego got dissolved. He wrote:
RESPONDENT: He pointed to the fact that the psyche can not be changed through psychological time which is an illusion of becoming. RICHARD: Correct ... it is an instantaneous happening wherein ‘I’ die. It is where ‘I’ can no longer distinguish between ‘me’ doing ‘it’ and ‘it’ happening to ‘me’. Cause and effect (which is the normal way of making things happen in the real-world) meet each other and – everything being thus simultaneous – only now is actual and I am here doing what is happening. RESPONDENT: When there is belief that I have ‘achieved’ enlightenment, then there is teaching of method through knowledge. RICHARD: Yes ... such people are called ‘Pundits’ in India. RESPONDENT: But what transforms conditioning is an energy that is unconditioned. RICHARD: The only unconditioned ‘energy’ is the unlimited physical energy of this very material universe ... unless you are referring to ‘God’s Energy’ like in the description above? RESPONDENT: It is not mine to teach. RICHARD: Indeed ... until one is free from the Human Condition it would be a case of the blind leading the blind. There has been such people however, throughout history, and they have always brought ‘Teachings’ to a benighted humanity. * RICHARD: The ‘ego-death’ that they speak of is the factor that sets them apart from normal people. This is not under dispute. What I am saying is that the death of ‘I’ as ego is to but go half-way ... the other half of the identity is ‘me’ as soul. When ‘me’ as soul like-wise dies ... then here is an actual freedom. No identity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: The thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image. RICHARD: When another person tells me – or demonstrates to me – that their identity is still intact it is not me making an image about them, surely ... it is so. It is a fact. RESPONDENT: Reactions demonstrate one kind of conditioning but thought patterns do as well. To act from an ideal as to what is desired, what ‘should be’ such as a wonderful ego-less state is a grasping that characterises self-thought. RICHARD: On the contrary, people do not want to be free of the Human Condition anywhere near enough. Until one’s search becomes what others would call ‘obsessive’ it is but dabbling. Peace-on-earth is something to dedicate oneself to with the whole of one’s being ... it is what is called ‘commitment’. RESPONDENT: The ideal state of being is just a projected image. That projection can never lead to seeing what is immeasurable, what is free of thought and time. RICHARD: Aye ... to envisage that which is ‘free of thought and time’ is obviously a projected image. Because thought is essential to operate and function in this world of people, things and events ... and time is actual. Anybody who fondly imagines that time does not exist and that one can dispense with thought is definitely dreaming. RESPONDENT: When ‘I’ am not, there are no such images. RICHARD: Correct ... and then, when you inform your fellow human being of this fact – that there is no ‘I’ extant in this body – they will probably say to you something like: ‘the thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’. And why? Envy, perhaps? Who knows why? However ... I think it is silly, for whatever reason it is, because it blocks their progress. RESPONDENT: What is the idea of being a someone that progresses, achieves, becomes better if not self-image which is psychological error? RICHARD: Who are you talking about? Speaking personally, I am not ‘progressing’ for I am already here ... now. I am not ‘achieving’ for I am always here ... now. I am not ‘becoming better’ ... I am already always the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe personified. RESPONDENT: There is awareness that is not divided by self-reflection. RICHARD: Precisely. Therefore why object when another informs you of this fact being an actuality in his life and tell him that ‘the thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’? What is achieved by making such an inaccurate observation? RESPONDENT: Is it inaccurate? RICHARD: Wildly inaccurate. RESPONDENT: There is either self-image or not. RICHARD: There is no ‘self’ here to have or form any image whatsoever. I could not form an image if I tried ... that faculty disappeared when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul disappeared. RESPONDENT: If there is a thought of someone that has achieved or attained, that seems like an image of a being in time which is a fiction. RICHARD: Precisely ... that is why ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must die. Only psychological and psychic self-immolation will make the actual apparent. Then one is living here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space as a flesh and blood body only. Anything else – like ‘being’ and ‘timeless’ – is fiction. RESPONDENT: There is a body and brain which has been conditioned, genetically, physically and psychologically. The question is whether that particular conditioning which is a structuring in memory that we call ‘me’ can be dissolved. RICHARD: Can the identity – ‘I’ as ego and the ‘me’ as soul – cease to exist? Yes. RESPONDENT: It is clear that it will never be dissolved through its own operation, i.e.: by ‘my’ effort. Is that what you claim? RICHARD: Yes and no ... and I am not being tricky here. Yes, in that ‘I’ bring about this ‘death’ in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. And no, in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. RESPONDENT: By the universe experience of itself I understand you to mean undivided awareness. But awareness that is undivided is not identified with the physical body. RICHARD: The phrase I use is ‘apperceptive awareness’ ... because that can only happen when there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to be aware. Awareness happens of itself (the word ‘undivided’ indicates a divided self now made into a whole self ... in a word: ‘wholeness’). Thus there is no identity ... therefore no identification is possible. Such an apperceptive awareness – which is the universe experiencing itself as a human being – is only possible when there is this physical body being alive and breathing. RESPONDENT: In fact the body and all other apparent objects in time are seen directly to be luminous and empty, lacking any true division. RICHARD: What you are describing here is a dream state wherein nothing is intrinsically genuine in itself ... all objects are only apparently existing and this ‘wholeness’ is all there is. You have already used the word ‘timeless’ ... what about ‘spaceless’? Then the next step is ‘Unborn’ and ‘Undying’ ... and away you go down the slippery-slope of Eastern Mysticism like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. RESPONDENT: So I don’t understand why you claim there is only a flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Because ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul have become extinct, that is why. All that is left is what is actual ... this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. * RICHARD: As time is eternal – just as space is infinite – to be here now as this flesh and blood body only is to be living an ongoing experiencing of this infinitude of this very material universe (I am using the word ‘infinitude in its ‘a boundless expanse and an unlimited time’ meaning). Therefore, infinitude – having no opposite and thus being perfection itself – is personified as me ... a flesh and blood body only. Hence my oft-repeated refrain: ‘I am the material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As me, the universe can be intelligent and observe and reflect upon itself. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is the source of this universe ... that is to commit the vulgar error of anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: It is quite evident that there are different fields that operate independently. If there were not, there would be no need to discuss dissolution of conditioning. RICHARD: And each flesh and blood body has its own native intelligence. When the flesh and blood body is freed from its ‘walk-in’, the universe can experience itself intelligently. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is running this universe ... that was Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti committing the vulgar error of anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: Observation and reflection from memory of limited past experience is thought is it not? RICHARD: Yes ... only in a normal person there is always an affective component that makes it real. RESPONDENT: I don’t follow this, makes what real? RICHARD: The past. Therefore a real future. Therefore a real continuity. Therefore a real and contiguous ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: The intelligence that is the universe is not limited to memory stored in a particular brain. RICHARD: Just what ‘intelligence that is the universe’ is this that you are referring to? The only intelligence that the universe has is as a human being ... which means this brain. Surely you are not bringing the ‘intelligence’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti revered into this discussion ... that ‘intelligence’ is nothing but what is known in the West as the ‘Omniscience of God’. RESPONDENT: There seems to be intelligence that is not a product of brain activity that is creative and accounts for insight. RICHARD: Yes, it is the body’s native intelligence ... and it is the brain in action without any ‘thinker’ that produces insights. RESPONDENT: It is there when the conscious mind is quiet. RICHARD: Intelligence is here when the ‘thinker’ is not. It is great fun being conscious. RESPONDENT: Observe and it will be very clear that it is not a function of memory. RICHARD: This body’s native intelligence makes full use of memory ... it draws upon past experience and anticipates future possibilities. This is intelligence in action. Get rid of the ‘thinker’ and you will see that memory is an asset and not a liability. RESPONDENT: When the brain is operating from programming, is there any room for that energy and intelligence of the universe to contact the brain? RICHARD: You are talking about becoming one with god ... by whatever name. RESPONDENT: There is only one reality. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there are two realities. To wit: the ‘everyday reality’ that 5.8 billion people live in and the ‘Greater Reality’ that .000001 of the population live in. The first is an illusion and the second a delusion. There is only one actuality though. But getting back to the subject at hand: this ‘intelligence’ that you say ‘contacts the brain’ does sound to me like something disembodied floating around in the ether. If it is not ‘that which is sacred, holy’ then what is it? RESPONDENT: So there is no one to become one with anything. Expose what is not actual and what is left? RICHARD: What is left is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. Which is where I am this very material universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being. If there is no one to become one with anything ... then oneness disappears. When oneness disappears ... so too does love. Because oneness is love in action. * RICHARD: There are three ‘worlds’ altogether ... but only one is actual. The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension. To put it bluntly: ‘you’ who are but an illusion, must die an illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. Thought does not have to stop for this actual world – which is what this initially ‘other’ dimension is – to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. RESPONDENT: Yes. I would not call it apperceptive thought. RICHARD: Why not? Thought sans ‘thinker’ is apperceptive thought. RESPONDENT: There is thought that is brain activity and there is intelligence or pure perception that is not a result of brain activity. RICHARD: You are confusing the ‘thinker’ with thought itself. Without the ‘thinker’ any brain activity is clear and clean and pure ... which includes thinking. RESPONDENT: I agree that brain activity free of conditioning is clear. But perception is from silence, whereas thought is from memory. RICHARD: Yes, perception when the ‘perceiver’ is momentarily silent creates the illusion that the ‘thinker’ is but a product of thought and memory. It is not. ‘I’ am an emotional-mental construct and when the ‘feeler’ and its feelings are not then the ‘thinker’ is not. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul am not then thought can operate from memory to its heart’s content without getting told off by some interfering ‘self’ posing as a bona fide spiritual seeker. RESPONDENT: That silence is not in or of the body/brain. RICHARD: Well, Eastern spiritual mysticism does posit this silence that you are talking of as being ‘That’ which is beyond time and space now, does it not? And as they say that when the body physically dies they will cast it of as a suit of old clothes ... so it cannot be ‘in or of the body/brain’ at all. This is why I have been saying to you for months now that you are hooked into Eastern Mysticism ... just like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. RESPONDENT: It is a different dimension or space entirely. RICHARD: Yea verily ... it is beyond both time and space. It is prior to the universe ... in fact it creates maintains and destroys time and space. The Indians identify this activity as being done by ‘Brahma’, ‘Vishnu’ and ‘Shiva’ ... and they are aspects of ‘Brahman’. And ‘Brahman’ is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘intelligence’. RESPONDENT: The two can operate in harmony or in conflict. RICHARD: No ... the ‘thinker’ can only die. Any ‘harmony’ is but a sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) in order for the cunning identity to stay in existence. After all, it is charged by blind nature to survive. RESPONDENT: Harmony means that thought operates and yet there is silence. They are in harmony when there is no centring in the self, no thinker. RICHARD: Aye ... the ‘thinker’ has disappeared into the heart and is busily being as humble as all get-out in the hope that no one will notice that it is still in existence. The ‘feeler’ joins in on this act and both become ‘Pure Being’. They then tell other gullible wannabes that ‘True Love’ is not a feeling ... it is a state of being. * RICHARD: And if one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters at all then because physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: There is death because there is belief in a ‘me’’ that has continuity. RICHARD: Not so ... physical death is a fact whether there is a continuous ‘me’ or not. RESPONDENT: Of course the body ends but there never was anyone living inside the body. If there is a thought and belief that I am this body in time, that thought is the ‘me’. RICHARD: Perhaps this is an opportune time to ask you a question: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/ brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: What seems to either continue or die is an illusion. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT: If ‘I’ am not, there is death or impermanence in each moment. RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Yet what is timeless is also there each moment so it is not a problem. RICHARD: Does that which is perceiving ‘timeless’ cease to exist when the flesh and blood body called No. 12 physically dies? RESPONDENT: A wave does not die because it never was truly separate. RICHARD: This is that ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ stuff again. Physical death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: If it is directly seen that in fact there is no separation, is there selfish concern about ‘my’ death? RICHARD: Whoa up there! You wish to survive physical death and live forever ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. How much more selfish can you get than that?
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Four) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ 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 |
