|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 34
RESPONDENT: The fundamental and most important aspect of a human being, Richard, concerning the overall effects to the mind of mankind – and consequently to mankind as a collectivity – is his ability to overcome fragmentation. All violence and incongruities in our planet are a direct consequence of fragmentation, isn’t it? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Please keep in mind that I have some difficulties with the language. It is the fact that one feels to be an isolated being that brings with it this sense of isolation, insecurity, fear and the following violence. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: If a man keeps an eye on pacifism, the other eye will be focused in his own right for peace. If a man looks at human rights with one eye, the other will be on his own ones obviously. RICHARD: Aye ... but ‘human rights’ are a human construct – an agreement between human beings to conduct themselves in a certain way in relation to other human beings – and are designed to counter the insalubrious effects of the instinctual passions bestowed upon all sentient beings by blind nature via genetic inheritance. A ‘right’ is a legal entitlement ascribed to a person or persons with an equitable or fair claim to the terms of that agreement. A ‘right’ is therefore something ‘given’ by humans to humans – and to a certain extent to other animals – but what is given can be taken away ... at the point of a gun. There are no ‘rights’, in actuality, other than what human beings agree on ... and ‘rights’ have to be enforced at the point of a gun, anyway. Thus, where you say ‘if a man keeps an eye on pacifism, the other eye will be focused in his own right
for peace’ the flaw in this argument becomes immediately obvious: nobody actually has any ‘right’ for peace –
apart from whatever pseudo-peace others are inclined to grant – so long as they nurse malice (and sorrow) to their bosom. To
adopt a policy of pacifism When the cause of malice (and sorrow) is eliminated, then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent ... and it far exceeds any pseudo-peace obtained with a hypocritical vow and/or policy of pacifism (non-violence). RESPONDENT: Integrity, non-fragmentation, is a ‘quality’ (sorry) that agglutinates all possible good qualities for mankind, according to natural intelligence. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘good qualities’ only exist to counter the ‘bad qualities’. When the source of malice and sorrow is eliminated, the ‘good’ vanishes along with the ‘bad’ ... then there is a freed intelligence. A ‘natural intelligence’ is an intelligence hindered by the instinctual passions, like fear and aggression and nurture and desire, and will seek to heighten the tender feelings so as to diminish the savage feelings. RESPONDENT: What a man does in this life is of much lesser importance (read, write, speak, teach, etc.), because it is the ‘amount’ of non-fragmented souls that will make the obvious difference, in this mind as an entirety. RICHARD: If by ‘souls’ you mean each individual human being as a flesh and blood body and not some bodiless psychic entity and if by the phrase ‘this mind as an entirety’ you mean human beings as flesh and blood bodies collectively and not some bodiless ‘Universal Mind’, then what one does unilaterally is of far-reaching importance as regards global peace-on-earth. When there are 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth ... then, and only then, will there be global peace-on-earth. As for ‘reading, writing, speaking, teaching, etc.’, is it not marvellous that we are able to be discussing these matters of great momentousness ... and momentous not only the individual, but for all of the humans that are living on this verdant planet? It is not an amazing thing that we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input? One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to dismiss communication so cavalierly for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. Speaking personally, I am very appreciative of all those peoples who have spoken, written and taught ... if it were not for them communicating their experiences I could not be where I am today. RESPONDENT: It is really just a matter of pondering. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is a matter of getting off one’s backside and discovering the source of malice and sorrow within oneself. RESPONDENT: The influences can only reach mankind through the individuals, because that is the mind of mankind. Mysticism? Please not. Nothing can be more effective to change man – if that is the concern, which is not my case really, it’s not necessary – then get out of time. RICHARD: Where you say ‘Mysticism? Please not’ and then follow it (after some platitudes) with ‘get out of time’ do you realise that you contradict yourself? Because to ‘get out of time’ successfully one has to be living the ‘timeless’ ... which is mysticism! The ending of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: And be responsible (as No. 14 says), or transcend fragmentation (the same). I wonder if you agree. RICHARD: You may stop wondering ... I do not agree. Nobody is responsible for being born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... it is nothing but a rather clumsy software package genetically inherited by all sentient beings as a rough and ready start to life. If No. 14 wishes to self-aggrandise himself by taking an obviously ineffective ‘infinite responsibility’ for what the blind forces of nature have produced ... then that is his business. And if you wish to be equally ineffective in making apparent the already always existing peace-on-earth by ‘transcending fragmentation (the same)’ then that is your business. Provided one complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols of the country one lives in, one will be left free to live one’s life as foolishly or as wisely as one chooses to. It is your life you are living and in the final analysis it is only you who reaps the rewards or suffers the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do.
RESPONDENT No. 12: Why isn’t it clear that any ideation of self-mastery (e.g. belief that ‘I’ am free of conditioning or ‘I’ am infinitely responsible or ‘I’ have transformed myself and this change is permanent or that ‘I’ have taken on the blind forces of nature and brought them to an end in this flesh and blood body) is self-aggrandizement, thought praising itself for purported accomplishments? RICHARD: Given that you say, in your example, that it is an ‘ideation of self-mastery’ and
that, furthermore, it is a ‘belief that ‘I’ am free of conditioning or ‘I’ am infinitely responsible’ and so
on, then that very ‘ideation’, that very ‘belief’ in itself would be preventing clarity that it is all ‘self-aggrandizement’.
And, in your example, it would be feeling-fed thought that is ‘praising itself for purported accomplishments’ ...
thought alone is not the source of all the ills of humankind. Thought is a very useful tool in undoing the well-meant but
uninformed peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning that one receives from the moment one first
emerges as a baby into the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. To be at all effectual one must dig deep into one’s affective
feelings, deep down past the superficial emotions into the depths of one’s being and see that malice and sorrow antidotally
generates love and compassion. Because if one does not, one may find oneself as malice and sorrow sublimating oneself into Love
and Compassion – one will cease having one’s feelings happen to oneself and instead became those sublimated feelings as an
on-going transcendent State Of Being – one will be Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. In other words: an infinitely expanded
identity that is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. To become free of the human condition requires the
elimination of the instinctual passions ... not merely a transcendence of malice and sorrow. It does mean the end of ‘me’,
however, as an identity in ‘my’ totality ... and not just ‘I’ as ego. RESPONDENT: Absolutely correct (last sentence). But then perception is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. RICHARD: As there is still a flesh and blood body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events then it is patently obvious that there is form (physical body and physical world); time (waking and sleeping) and space (walking and talking). Thus the perception of a human being freed of the human condition (a flesh and blood body sans identity as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is here in space and now in time as physical form known as a human being. It requires a remarkable sleight of hand (or should I say ‘sleight of mind) to say that this perception is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. RESPONDENT: One can never be free of all human condition, because vision still ranges from infra-red to ultra-violet. Hearing ranges from 20 to 20.000 Hz. RICHARD: The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. Contrary to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan maintained, being a flesh and blood body in this physical world of people, things and events is not the source of the problem known as ‘The Human Condition’ ... it is the psychological and psychic identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – that is a ‘walk-in’ in this flesh and blood body that both creates and suffers from malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: One still has a human body. RICHARD: Not so ... when one is freed from the human condition one is this flesh and blood body. It is only the psychological and psyche identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – that is a ‘walk-in’ that ‘has a human body’. There is a vast difference betwixt ‘is a flesh and blood body’ and ‘has a body’. Only a ‘walk-in’ can ‘have’ a body ... as a possession. RESPONDENT: One can be free of the illusion of a centred known observer. RICHARD: Indeed ... if one actualises the fact that one is this flesh and blood body then the ‘centred known observer’ (the psychological and psychic identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – that is a ‘walk-in’) that has a flesh and blood body will have become extinct. Usually, though, it is popularly thought that ‘I’ as ego is the ‘centred known observer’ and that by ‘realising who ‘I’ really am’ (‘me’ as soul) one’s feeling-sense of identity shifts from the head (where ‘I’ as ego am most prominently experienced) to the heart (where ‘me’ as soul am most prominently experienced) whereupon one ceases ‘becoming’ and starts ‘being’. This ‘being’ (quite often capitalised as ‘Being’) goes under many names ... but the most profound seekers call it ‘The Nameless’. And the ‘Nameless One’ is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. This is why the ‘Nameless One’s wisdom actively perpetuates all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. This is because malice and sorrow (which is the personal ‘self’) is not extinguished but has become sublimated and transcended along with a transformation of the antidotally generated love and compassion into Love Agapé and Divine Compassion (which is the impersonal ‘Self’). Thus malice and sorrow constitute the hidden under-belly of divinity ... which is why the battle between ‘Good’ (God) and ‘Evil’ (Devil) has continued unabated down through the ages. Hence religious wars (the diabolical under-pins divinity). The ending of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides requires the ending of malice and sorrow ... which involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom?
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): Thought is a very useful tool in undoing the well-meant but uninformed
peer-group conditioning, parental conditioning and social conditioning that one receives from the moment one first emerges as a
baby into the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. To be at all effectual one must dig deep into one’s affective feelings,
deep down past the superficial emotions into the depths of one’s being and see that malice and sorrow antidotally generates love
and compassion. Because if one does not, one may find oneself as malice and sorrow sublimating oneself into Love and Compassion
– one will cease having one’s feelings happen to oneself and instead became those sublimated feelings as an on-going
transcendent State Of Being – one will be Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. In other words: an infinitely expanded identity
that is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. To become free of the human condition requires the elimination of
the instinctual passions ... not merely a transcendence of malice and sorrow. It does mean the end of ‘me’, however, as an
identity in ‘my’ totality ... and not just ‘I’ as ego. RESPONDENT: Absolutely correct (last sentence). But then perception is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. RICHARD: As there is still a flesh and blood body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events then it is patently obvious that there is form (physical body and physical world); time (waking and sleeping) and space (walking and talking). Thus the perception of a human being freed of the human condition (a flesh and blood body sans identity as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is here in space and now in time as physical form known as a human being. It requires a remarkable sleight of hand (or should I say ‘sleight of mind) to say that this perception is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. RESPONDENT: To perceive the human mind as one entirety – walking here in time and space – is the perception out of time and space. RICHARD: Only the human mind – when it is apperceptively aware – can perceive the human mind in its entirety ... and this apperceptive human mind is a selfless human brain in action in a human skull. As a human skull is part and parcel of a flesh and blood body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events then it is patently obvious that this pure perception is here in space and now in time. RESPONDENT: Who, or what, is the ‘final’ receptor of all perceptions at this moment here, if all that is of time and space is seen? RICHARD: This selfless brain in this flesh and blood body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events is apperceptively aware of being already always here in the infinite space of this physical universe and only now in the universe’s eternal time ... for the term of one’s natural life. There is no ‘who’ inside this body to be a ‘receptor’ ... what one is, is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware of its own accord. RESPONDENT: One can never be free of all human condition, because vision still ranges from infra-red to ultra-violet. Hearing ranges from 20 to 20.000 Hz. RICHARD: The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: But the dark side of man is not of a moral or ethical order. These are effects. It is the illusion of self-centeredness. RICHARD: Both the ‘dark side’ and ‘light side’ of all human beings are primarily born of the instinctual passions ... the ‘moral or ethical order’, being the socialised effort to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast is, as you say an effect. Self-centredness is a feeling-fed ‘self’ born of the survival instincts bestowed by blind nature doing what it is charged to do ... staying in existence. Being thus passionate, it is a powerful illusion and must, perforce, have a powerful motivation to betray its very nature and end itself. * RICHARD: Contrary to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan maintained, being a flesh and blood body in this physical world of people, things and events is not the source of the problem known as ‘The Human Condition’ ... it is the psychological and psychic identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – that is a ‘walk-in’ in this flesh and blood body that both creates and suffers from malice and sorrow. RESPONDENT: One still has a human body. RICHARD: Not so ... when one is freed from the human condition one is this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: One is it. Not only flesh and blood. RICHARD: One is indeed this flesh and blood body ... there is no ‘it’ other than in a fertile imagination ... ‘it’ is a feeling-fed fantasy. An hallucination, as it were. * RICHARD: It is only the psychological and psyche identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – that is a ‘walk-in’ that ‘has a human body’. There is a vast difference betwixt ‘is a flesh and blood body’ and ‘has a body’. Only a ‘walk-in’ can ‘have’ a body ... as a possession. RESPONDENT: One can be free of the illusion of a centred known observer. RICHARD: Indeed ... if one actualises the fact that one is this flesh and blood body then the ‘centred known observer’ (the psychological and psychic identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – which is a ‘walk-in’) that has a flesh and blood body will have become extinct. Usually, though, it is popularly thought that ‘I’ as ego is the ‘centred known observer’ and that by ‘realising who ‘I’ really am’ (‘me’ as soul) one’s feeling-sense of identity shifts from the head (where ‘I’ as ego am most prominently experienced) to the heart (where ‘me’ as soul am most prominently experienced) whereupon one ceases ‘becoming’ and starts ‘being’. This ‘being’ (quite often capitalised as ‘Being’) goes under many names ... but the most profound seekers call it ‘The Nameless’. And the ‘Nameless One’ is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. This is why the ‘Nameless One’s wisdom actively perpetuates all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. This is because malice and sorrow (which is the personal ‘self’) is not extinguished but has become sublimated and transcended along with a transformation of the antidotally generated love and compassion into Love Agapé and Divine Compassion (which is the impersonal ‘Self’). Thus malice and sorrow constitute the hidden under-belly of divinity ... which is why the battle between ‘Good’ (God) and ‘Evil’ (Devil) has continued unabated down through the ages. Hence religious wars (the diabolical under-pins divinity). RESPONDENT: But this is religion in its common sense ... we are past that, aren’t we? RICHARD: Yet ‘religion in its common sense’ never ever says what I wrote (above): [Richard]: ‘If one actualises the fact that one is this flesh and blood body then the ‘centred known observer’ (the psychological and psychic identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – which is a ‘walk-in’) that has a flesh and blood body will have become extinct’. Any ‘religion in its common sense’ promises salvation in an after-life ... any ‘religion in it’s common sense’ never ever promotes extinction. RESPONDENT: I think you are having a strong religious hangover (after reading your post to No. 19) ... which is quite normal ... and sane, but not equilibriated yet, sorry ... (I’m almost regretting). RICHARD: I have no religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or any metaphysicality in me whatsoever ... let alone a ‘strong religious hangover’. As for ‘normal’ being ‘sane’ – be it an equilibriated sanity or not – 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century by normal sane people. * RICHARD: The ending of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides requires the ending of malice and sorrow ... which involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: This won’t help much, because the general feeling of man is that the world is as-it-is, with people as-they-are. RICHARD: Then you shut the door on an actual freedom from the human condition ... and all because of a feeling. Why are feelings held to be the final arbiter of what is correct or incorrect action? And is the ‘general feeling of man’ nothing but your feeling writ large?
RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised? RICHARD: The only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events here in space and now in time. As far as it is possible to ascertain, no other sentient being is capable of thinking and reflecting about its own existence. Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. (‘Oxford Dictionary’: ‘Apperception’: ‘The minds perception of itself’). Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – it is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious – it is a bare awareness happening of its own accord. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul abdicates its throne and a clean and clear and pure awareness occurs. This is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). The experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever. One is able to see that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity, that is the essential character of this moment of being here, becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is extirpated along with the entire affective faculty. One is the universe’s experience of itself as a sensate and reflective human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego, id, persona, personality, lower self, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking union with ‘That’, by whatever name (The Real Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Greater Reality, The Essence, The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Universal Mind, The Ground Of Being, The Tao, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Thatness, Suchness, Isness and so on). Thus what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness.
RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised? RICHARD: The only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events here in space and now in time. As far as it is possible to ascertain, no other sentient being is capable of thinking and reflecting about its own existence. Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. (‘Oxford Dictionary’: ‘Apperception’: ‘The minds perception of itself’). Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – it is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious – it is a bare awareness happening of its own accord. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul abdicates its throne and a clean and clear and pure awareness occurs. This is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). The experience is as if one has eyes in the back of one’s head; there is a three hundred and sixty degree awareness and all is self-evidently clear. This is knowing by direct experience, unmediated by any ‘who’ whatsoever. One is able to see that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul has been standing in the way of the perfection and purity, that is the essential character of this moment of being here, becoming apparent. Here a solid and irrefutable native intelligence can operate freely because the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’ is extirpated along with the entire affective faculty. One is the universe’s experience of itself as a sensate and reflective human being ... after all, the very stuff this body is made of is the very stuff of the universe. There is no ‘outside’ to the perfection of the universe to come from; one only thought and felt that one was a separate identity (ego, id, persona, personality, lower self, atman, soul, spirit, or whatever) forever seeking union with ‘That’, by whatever name (The Real Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Greater Reality, The Essence, The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Universal Mind, The Ground Of Being, The Tao, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Thatness, Suchness, Isness and so on). Thus what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness. RESPONDENT: Why do you say: ‘the only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body’? I wouldn’t say that there is more than one perception, worthy or not worthy of note. But we will clear that. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there is ‘more than one perception’. One that immediately springs to mind that you would be familiar with is called ‘choiceless awareness’. There are many more that are similarly mystical. RESPONDENT: Yes, man is of flesh and blood, eats, drinks, dies, etc. Would you agree calling all that man is, as the mind of mankind? RICHARD: I would agree that for perhaps 6.0 billion human beings ‘all that a human is, is the mind of humankind’, yes. However, it is possible to be free of the ‘mind of humankind’ and be an autonomous individual, standing on one’s own two feet and being beholden to no one. Such an autonomous individual would be living as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware for the twenty four hours of every day ... for the remainder of one’s life. RESPONDENT: I have been insisting in looking at things in this way, because I find that it would be possible to clear some aspects of existence. For example, it would be interesting to identify precisely what is this possibility of ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety? RICHARD: It is very simple to identify it precisely ... it is called the survival instinct. All sentient beings have been charged by blind nature to survive at all costs ... and nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. It is only concerned with the survival of the species ... and any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore, your mind is the species’ mind ... and the species’ mind is you. Or, as you put it: ‘ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety’ RESPONDENT: Or in other words, all sense of materiality is a quality of this mind of man. But I feel that one must consider the mind of mankind as a subtler counterpart of all that is embodied here, because the material part would be the brain/body and its functions. RICHARD: No ... this that you now speak of is nothing but a software package of instincts. Like all software, once it becomes redundant it can be deleted. Then materiality, far from being a problem, is a joy and a delight. RESPONDENT: I understand apperception. The word that comes to my mind right now is transparency. But before proceeding I want to know what you say. RICHARD: The word ‘transparency’ indicates ‘lucidity’, ‘limpidness’, ‘sheerness’, ‘translucence’, ‘clearness’, ‘distinctness’ and so on ... which are highly valued qualities in the ‘real world’. But the ‘real world’s ‘transparency’ is not apperception. Apperception (consciousness being aware of being consciousness), only occurs when one steps out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world of sensuous delight ... leaving ‘myself’ behind in the Land of Lament where ‘I’ belong. This, then, is when apperception happens of its own accord. One steps out of ‘humanity’.
RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised? RICHARD: The only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events here in space and now in time. As far as it is possible to ascertain, no other sentient being is capable of thinking and reflecting about its own existence. Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. (‘Oxford Dictionary’: ‘Apperception’: ‘The minds perception of itself’). Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – it is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious – it is a bare awareness happening of its own accord. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul abdicates its throne and a clean and clear and pure awareness occurs. This is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: Why do you say: ‘the only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body’? I wouldn’t say that there is more than one perception, worthy or not worthy of note. But we will clear that. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there is ‘more than one perception’. One that immediately springs to mind that you would be familiar with is called ‘choiceless awareness’. There are many more that are similarly mystical. RESPONDENT: No, Richard ... go slower. Let’s share. I’m not referring to a perception that may spring to somebody’s mind. That is thought or a concept. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... ‘choiceless awareness’ is a state of being. Thought cannot successfully operate in a state of being. RESPONDENT: I have very little notion of religion or philosophies. I am writing about what I directly ‘touch’... here and now. You must do the same, and we’ll help each other not to slip out of this. RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that when you asked me ‘where in the universe is perception localised’, that you wanted me to say sight touch, taste, smell and hearing? Okay ... ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world – the world as-it-is – by ‘my’ very presence. Whereas, sans identity, what one is (‘what’ not ‘who’) is these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. This is called ‘apperceptive awareness’ (not to be confused with ‘choiceless awareness’). Apperception is consciousness being aware of being consciousness. RESPONDENT: We will come back to perception later ... that’s where I’m aiming to. Mysticism ... is slipping into thoughts. RICHARD: Not so ... mysticism is slipping into a state of being. As it is an altered state of consciousness, epitomised as being a ‘Thoughtless State’, it cannot be attributed to ‘slipping into thoughts’. * RESPONDENT: Yes, man is of flesh and blood, eats, drinks, dies, etc. Would you agree calling all that man is, as the mind of mankind? RICHARD: I would agree that for perhaps 6.0 billion human beings ‘all that a human is, is the mind of humankind’, yes. However, it is possible to be free of the ‘mind of humankind’ and be an autonomous individual, standing on one’s own two feet and being beholden to no one. Such an autonomous individual would be living as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware for the twenty four hours of every day ... for the remainder of one’s life. RESPONDENT: Yes. I agree, but let’s fine-tune our understanding. I’m not saying that all there is, is the mind of mankind, here. What I am saying is that all that is manifested is the mind of mankind for any man. For the man that ‘has’ apperception, it is seen as one entirety. For the rest 6 billion this is not seen – simply speaking. RICHARD: When you say ‘the mind of humankind is seen as one entirety’ do you mean that there is ‘something else’ that is seen (other that what is manifested as the ‘mind of humankind’, that is)? RESPONDENT: I have been insisting in looking at things in this way, because I find that it would be possible to clear some aspects of existence. For example, it would be interesting to identify precisely what is this possibility of ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety? RICHARD: It is very simple to identify it precisely ... it is called the survival instinct. All sentient beings have been charged by blind nature to survive at all costs ... and nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. It is only concerned with the survival of the species ... and any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore, your mind is the species’ mind ... and the species’ mind is ‘you’. Or, as you put it: ‘ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety’ RESPONDENT: Yes, yes. This is the reason of the appearance of self, yes. The species must go on for reasons that is not of our concern here . RICHARD: The reasons are important. The question is: why are we here? * RESPONDENT: Or in other words, all sense of materiality is a quality of this mind of man. But I feel that one must consider the mind of mankind as a subtler counterpart of all that is embodied here, because the material part would be the brain/body and its functions. RICHARD: No ... this that you now speak of is nothing but a software package of instincts. Like all software, once it becomes redundant it can be deleted. Then materiality, far from being a problem, is a joy and a delight. RESPONDENT: No. I was not clear here ... please delete this part in italics. I’ll clear it later. RICHARD: Okay ... I will put it on hold. * RESPONDENT: I understand apperception. The word that comes to my mind right now is transparency. But before proceeding I want to know what you say. RICHARD: The word ‘transparency’ indicates ‘lucidity’, ‘limpidness’, ‘sheerness’, ‘translucence’, ‘clearness’, ‘distinctness’ and so on ... which are highly valued qualities in the ‘real world’. But the ‘real world’s ‘transparency’ is not apperception. Apperception (consciousness being aware of being consciousness), only occurs when one steps out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world of sensuous delight ... leaving ‘myself’ behind in the Land of Lament where ‘I’ belong. This, then, is when apperception happens of its own accord. One steps out of ‘humanity’. RESPONDENT: Yes, I know. I said ‘the first word ...’ as something approximate, a pointer. Now, what is this that you call ‘real world’ as opposed to ‘actual world’. This is not a challenge but a request to clarify. These two words have been used several times here, with different meanings. For example, to me, real and actual point to the same. Words, words, words ... you know. RICHARD: The enlightened people say that the world that 6.0 billion people live in is an illusion (and I agree) and those people who live there in that illusion (mostly called ‘normal’ people) mostly name their world ‘the real world’. They say things like: ‘It’s tough out there in the real world’ or ‘It’s dog eat dog in the real world’ or ‘You’ve gotta be tough to survive in the real world’ or ‘Stop fantasising and come back to the real world’ or ‘Life’s a bitch in the real world’ and so on and so on. In other words: ‘reality’. RESPONDENT: So, let’s use the word ‘actual’ and ‘actuality’ to indicate what ‘is here and now’. OK? RICHARD: Where I differ from the enlightened people is that the ‘Greater Reality’ that they escape into, being a ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ void, is nothing but a delusion born out of the illusion that they were trapped in like the 6.0 billion ‘normal’ people. They have become ‘abnormal’ (or ‘divine’) and live in the hallucination that they are The Real Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Greater Reality, The Essence, The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Universal Mind, The Ground Of Being, The Tao, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Thatness, Suchness, Isness and so on. In other words: God. There is a third alternative: this actual world that the ‘real world’ is pasted over as a veneer. RESPONDENT: Once that the self has been left behind, one is the mind of mankind. One is the humanity, but the possibility of self-centeredness is understood and ‘seen through’. RICHARD: Aye ... and therein lies the rub. There is a vast distinction betwixt the ‘Tried and Failed’ solution of ‘leaving the self behind’ and this third alternative: the elimination of identity in its totality. That is: the difference between ‘transformation’ and ‘extinction’. RESPONDENT: All that a man perceives in this situation is the mind of mankind, but now, something more emerges. I agree that one is not the average humanity, although average humanity is also here, now. My senses, brain, are and will be human till the day I die. Again, all that is perceptible, sensible, is the human mind as one. I’m a tri-dimensional flesh and blood man ... and more. What is the more that emerges? To see this one must be real or actual or factual. We are somewhere. This is the more. We are contained in something adimensional. Be careful here. We must not deal with concepts. This container (approximate word, don’t look it up in the dictionary), is the universal mind. All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested ... etc. I’ll stop here for now. RICHARD: Okay, no dictionary ... I will put this simply: the ‘Universal Mind’ is nothing but the ‘human mind’ sublimated and transcended.
RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised? RICHARD: The only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body waking and sleeping, eating and drinking, urinating and defecating, walking and talking and so on in the world of people, things and events here in space and now in time. As far as it is possible to ascertain, no other sentient being is capable of thinking and reflecting about its own existence. Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. (‘Oxford Dictionary’: ‘Apperception’: ‘The minds perception of itself’). Apperception is the mind’s perception of itself – it is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious – it is a bare awareness happening of its own accord. Normally the mind perceives through the senses and sorts the data received according to its predilection; but the mind itself remains unperceived ... it is taken to be unknowable. Apperception happens when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul abdicates its throne and a clean and clear and pure awareness occurs. This is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: Why do you say: ‘the only perception worthy of note is localised as the apperceptive brain in this flesh and blood human body’? I wouldn’t say that there is more than one perception, worthy or not worthy of note. But we will clear that. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there is ‘more than one perception’. One that immediately springs to mind that you would be familiar with is called ‘choiceless awareness’. There are many more that are similarly mystical. RESPONDENT: No, Richard ... go slower. Let’s share. I’m not referring to a perception that may spring to somebody’s mind. That is thought or a concept. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... ‘choiceless awareness’ is a state of being. Thought cannot successfully operate in a state of being. RESPONDENT: I see. What you call perception is not what I mean. This words must be clarified otherwise we may find ourselves looking at different things (no dictionary, please). You seem to be equating awareness with perception, and maybe to consciousness to. RICHARD: There has been a misunderstanding. Because you originally asked ‘where in the universe is perception localised?’ (and because it is obvious that ordinary perception is in the brain of any sensate being) I could only take it that you were referring to a mystical (bodiless) type of perception (given that you had asked me to ‘Please keep in mind that I have some difficulties with the language’ when we first started corresponding). No problem. Shall we begin again? So, the place where, in the universe, that perception is, is in the brain of any sensate being. Until space exploration is such that carbon-based life-forms are discovered to have arisen elsewhere as well as on planet earth, then this is the only known place where perception is. And perception is not ‘localised’ in the universe in the brain of any sensate being ... the universe is not perceptive per se. Only sentient beings are perceptive. * RESPONDENT: Yes, man is of flesh and blood, eats, drinks, dies, etc. Would you agree calling all that man is, as the mind of mankind? RICHARD: I would agree that for perhaps 6.0 billion human beings ‘all that a human is, is the mind of humankind’, yes. However, it is possible to be free of the ‘mind of humankind’ and be an autonomous individual, standing on one’s own two feet and being beholden to no one. Such an autonomous individual would be living as this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware for the twenty four hours of every day ... for the remainder of one’s life. RESPONDENT: Yes. I agree, but let’s fine-tune our understanding. I’m not saying that all there is, is the mind of mankind, here. What I am saying is that all that is manifested is the mind of mankind for any man. For the man that ‘has’ apperception, it is seen as one entirety. For the rest 6 billion this is not seen – simply speaking. RICHARD: When you say ‘the mind of humankind is seen as one entirety’ do you mean that there is ‘something else’ that is seen (other that what is manifested as the ‘mind of humankind’, that is)? RESPONDENT: No. The ‘sensible’ world is the mind of mankind as one. Within this mind, the sensible objects of the senses, and particular thoughts of the brain, are obviously different for each individual. The something that you are calling ‘more’ here, is not sensible ... but actual. RICHARD: Bearing in mind the language difficulty (one of the meanings of the word ‘sensible’ is that it also means being practical) then it will become clear that the actual world, stripped of the veneer of the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ imposed by the affectively-blinded perception, is nothing other than the same physical world of people, things and events that all 6.0 billion people walk around in. From the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ perception, this actual world of the senses is invisible, as it were and can only be seen apperceptively in a PCE. When the direct perception of the PCE reverts to the affectively-blinded perception of the ‘real world’ (when one lapses back to normal after the PCE) there is a confusion of the actual with the ‘real’. In the ‘real world’, when people say ‘there must be more to life than this’, then they are dimly remembering previous spontaneous PCE’s (which all peoples have throughout their life and especially in childhood) wherein everything as-it-is is directly perceived (and thus experienced) as being already always perfect ... always has been perfect; always is perfect and always will be perfect. RESPONDENT: I have been insisting in looking at things in this way, because I find that it would be possible to clear some aspects of existence. For example, it would be interesting to identify precisely what is this possibility of ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety? RICHARD: It is very simple to identify it precisely ... it is called the survival instinct. All sentient beings have been charged by blind nature to survive at all costs ... and nature is blind inasmuch as it does not care two-hoots about you or me. It is only concerned with the survival of the species ... and any species will do as far as nature is concerned. Therefore, your mind is the species’ mind ... and the species’ mind is ‘you’. Or, as you put it: ‘ego-centredness as an entirety, within the mind of mankind, also as an entirety’ RESPONDENT: Yes, yes. This is the reason of the appearance of self, yes. The species must go on for reasons that is not of our concern here. RICHARD: The reasons are important. The question is: why are we here? RESPONDENT: No. I wasn’t thinking of that, but I could listen to your point of view. RICHARD: It is beneficial to keep this question open – and not be satisfied with an intellectual answer – as only the experiential answer is fulfilling. Thus: why am I (No. 34) here? * RICHARD: There is a third alternative: this actual world that the ‘real world’ is pasted over as a veneer. RESPONDENT: Yes. The localised mind of man creates an inner self, an inner centred known observer, that superimposes an imaginary world over the actual (...) Once that the self has been left behind, one is the mind of mankind. One is the humanity, but the possibility of self-centeredness is understood and ‘seen through’. RICHARD: Aye ... and therein lies the rub. There is a vast distinction betwixt the ‘Tried and Failed’ solution of ‘leaving the self behind’ and this third alternative: the elimination of identity in its totality. That is: the difference between ‘transformation’ and ‘extinction’. RESPONDENT: Sorry, I don’t understand ‘Aye’. Is it a yes or no? Anyway I would say: ‘the elimination of a centred known observer that becomes in time ...’ RICHARD: Yes ... why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’ really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). (The word ‘aye’ is ‘yes’ as in an ‘eternal’ sense that it is so ... for example: ‘yes, unfortunately it has always been this way’. Its roots are: Gothic ‘aiws’ meaning ‘age’ or ‘eternity’ and relates to the Latin ‘aevum: ‘age’ and the Greek ‘aie(i): ‘ever’). RESPONDENT: All that a man perceives in this situation is the mind of mankind, but now, something more emerges. I agree that one is not the average humanity, although average humanity is also here, now. My senses, brain, are and will be human till the day I die. Again, all that is perceptible, sensible, is the human mind as one. I’m a tri-dimensional flesh and blood man ... and more. What is the more that emerges? To see this one must be real or actual or factual. We are somewhere. This is the more. We are contained in something a-dimensional. Be careful here. We must not deal with concepts. This container (approximate word, don’t look it up in the dictionary), is the universal mind. All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested ... etc. I’ll stop here for now. RICHARD: Okay, no dictionary ... I will put this simply: the ‘Universal Mind’ is nothing but the ‘human mind’ sublimated and transcended. RESPONDENT: What happened? Why do you say this? The sun was here before mankind, although all we perceive of it is ‘as mankind’. Instead of universal mind we may call it the ‘primordial matter’, or ‘emptiness’. Why do you object? RICHARD: Because you went mystical. (‘All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’). There is no ‘universal mind’ outside of the imaginative/intuitive faculty of the human being.
RICHARD (to Respondent No 31): Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point:
everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Could you please clarify who ‘everybody’ is? Are they the ones from your relations, the ones from this list, or everybody else on the planet? RICHARD: It is a categorical, wide-ranging, all-inclusive ‘everybody’ (with the marked exception of a handful of people). It is every man, woman and child currently alive on this planet ... all 6.0 billion. It also includes the (possibly) 4.0 billion that have been alive on this planet for perhaps the last 50,000 years ... it includes both the sane people and the insane people. There is a third alternative. * RICHARD: Apperception is something that brings a facticity born out of a direct experience of the actual. <...> ... there is ‘more than one perception’. One that immediately springs to mind that you would be familiar with is called ‘choiceless awareness’. There are many more that are similarly mystical. RESPONDENT: If choiceless awareness means being aware of all that is present unconditionally and all-inclusively, would that not include the mind ‘watching itself’? RICHARD: If ‘choiceless awareness’ did include the ‘mind ‘watching itself’’ then that mind (the choicelessly aware mind) would observe that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity ... and then there would be action. As there is no action of this calibre in ‘choiceless awareness’ then, no, it obviously does not ‘include the mind ‘watching itself’’ at all. RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more’ in apperception? RICHARD: No, not ‘more’ but less ... in fact less to the point of nothing at all. Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides. The word ‘choiceless’ is a code-word for the mystical word ‘surrender ... just as ‘what is’ is code for the Buddhist word ‘Isness’ and ‘stepping out of the stream’ is code for the Hindu phrase ‘getting off the wheel of Karma’ and so on. In other words: the ‘divine’ alternative to being ‘human’. There is a third alternative.
CORRESPONDENT No. 34 (Part Two) 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 |
