|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 39
RESPONDENT: ... Would you say that an addiction is the ‘me’ trying to cling to or recreate a ‘good’ feeling? RICHARD: Indeed ... but there possibly is more to it than that (I was involved in a verbal discussion about this only a couple of days ago) as what may become obvious, upon closer investigation, is that ‘I’ can be as much addicted to the suffering, which ensues as the eventual result of the high evaporating, as ‘I’ am addicted to the high in the first place. Arguably more so, perhaps, despite how perverse the notion may sound at first hearing.
RESPONDENT: ... Would you say that an addiction is the ‘me’ trying to cling to or recreate a ‘good’ feeling? RICHARD: Indeed ... but there possibly is more to it than that (I was involved in a verbal discussion about this only a couple of days ago) as what may become obvious, upon closer investigation, is that ‘I’ can be as much addicted to the suffering, which ensues as the eventual result of the high evaporating, as ‘I’ am addicted to the high in the first place. Arguably more so, perhaps, despite how perverse the notion may sound at first hearing. RESPONDENT: I can see this in others although it is not readily apparent in myself. For example, I have heard gamblers say that they are just as addicted to losing as they are to winning. The only way I can relate this to myself is that it is the action I am addicted to and the action includes winning as well as the risk of losing. RICHARD: I was not referring to whatever suffering may be caused by losing in gambling ... but to the suffering which ensues as the eventual result of the high evaporating (no matter what particular addiction it is). Therefore I presume that the ‘action’ you refer to is what provides the high ... and if so then I further presume that when this action-induced high evaporates then suffering ensues. If this is the case then it is this suffering which is well worth investigating for its addictive properties.
RICHARD: ... I presume that the ‘action’ you refer to is what provides the high ... and if so then I further presume that when this action-induced high evaporates then suffering ensues. If this is the case then it is this suffering which is well worth investigating for its addictive properties. RESPONDENT: Ok, there is suffering now. I just lost the last of the money in my online poker account. After a nice winning streak the last week or so suddenly the worm turned today and it was my worst nightmare. I didn’t play bad. It was just that my hands kept getting beat. I am shell shocked. I plan on quitting again by paying my friend a nice sum if I don’t. I hear what you are saying about investigating the suffering for its addictive properties. However, I don’t see how I am addicted to the suffering. It is the winning that seems to provide the high which evaporates upon losing and then there is suffering. The reason I can’t see how I am addicted to the suffering is because I never intend to lose. I never know if or when I am going to lose so suffering is not assured. If I am addicted to the suffering I don’t know it. I will keep looking at it. However, I will go ahead and send the email now while I am in the midst of the suffering. It looks like if one is addicted to suffering they will want to cause the suffering and I can’t see how this is the case with me. The truth is I want to play some more now. RICHARD: Okay ... I will come at it from another direction then: the bottom line of ‘me’ is suffering (obviously there are times when ‘I’ feel happy, when ‘I’ feel glad, when ‘I’ feel cheerful and so on but whenever those moments pass ‘I’ inevitably revert to ‘my’ default setting). So, essentially ‘I’ am suffering and, as ‘I’ am addicted to being ‘me’ and being ‘me’ is suffering, ‘I’ am addicted to suffering ... it is ‘my’ very nature. What you are (presumably) experiencing right now is ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am when all of the external causes of happiness, gladness, cheerfulness and so on are stripped away ... and of course ‘I’ want to ‘play some more now’ because ‘I’ do not like being ‘me’. Yet, perversely, ‘I’ am addicted to being ‘me’ ... and it is this addiction which is why there is no peace on earth.
RICHARD: ... I will come at it from another direction then: the bottom line of ‘me’ is suffering (obviously there are times when ‘I’ feel happy, when ‘I’ feel glad, when ‘I’ feel cheerful and so on but whenever those moments pass ‘I’ inevitably revert to ‘my’ default setting). So, essentially ‘I’ am suffering and, as ‘I’ am addicted to being ‘me’ and being ‘me’ is suffering, ‘I’ am addicted to suffering ... it is ‘my’ very nature. What you are (presumably) experiencing right now is ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am when all of the external causes of happiness, gladness, cheerfulness and so on are stripped away ... and of course ‘I’ want to ‘play some more now’ because ‘I’ do not like being ‘me’. Yet, perversely, ‘I’ am addicted to being ‘me’ ... and it is this addiction which is why there is no peace on earth. RESPONDENT: This does make some sense to me. I can see that I am addicted to being me because that’s who I am and I don’t want to let go of that. I can also see that the essential ‘me’ is suffering when it is stripped bare. However, since ‘me’ is essentially suffering ‘I’ try to escape through various highs. Once these highs evaporate I am back to being ‘me’ suffering. Makes sense? RICHARD: Yes ... and even though the highs inevitably evaporate ‘I’ still keep on trying to escape from being ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am via that path. Why do ‘I’ persist in re-treading a path, over and again, that just does not deliver the goods?
RICHARD: ... another way of putting it is to say that the sensate perception of body (and other) – which perception is generally called consciousness of self and other – is appropriated (taken over, commandeered, expropriated, annexed, arrogated) by the affective faculty ... wherein the illusory feeling of ‘self’ (and ‘other’) is created. RESPONDENT: Then you are saying that the instinctual passions are part of the affective faculty. RICHARD: At birth the instinctual passions are the affective faculty ... all of the affective feelings which make up the full suite of the adult affective faculty have developed from these basic survival passions through cultivation and refinement. * RICHARD: ... I was just making the point that, although it is hypothetically correct that the elimination of the instinctual passions would be the elimination of ‘I’/‘me’, it does not work that way in practice (for reasons such as already explained). Not only is it dangerous it is an impossibility ... only altruistic ‘self’-immolation will do the trick. RESPONDENT: You are making a distinction between ‘I/me’ eliminating itself and it being done altruistically. RICHARD: No, I am more making the point that only altruism – self-sacrificial humanitarianism – will provide the enormous energy necessary for ‘self’-immolation ... the instinct for individual survival is only exceeded by the instinct for group survival. It takes a powerful instinct to overcome a powerful instinct. RESPONDENT: I can’t readily see how this can be done altruistically without it still being done by the ‘I/me’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is just that, at root, altruism is a more powerful instinct than narcissism. RESPONDENT: I can pretend that I am doing it unselfishly but I don’t see how I can truthfully even start the process altruistically. RICHARD: As it is ‘me’ who desires peace it can hardly be called an unselfish desire ... thus no pretence is necessary. RESPONDENT: Ok, it might be possible by seeing that I am doing it for this body and everybody but I am really doing it for ‘I/me’ at least in the beginning. RICHARD: When ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone else instinctually driven it is actually impossible to say that ‘I’ am doing it for ‘me’ alone ... the repercussions of such an event are vast beyond belief. RESPONDENT: So anyway, you are saying this is done by minimising both the good and bad feelings and maximising the felicitous (happiness, delight, etc.). RICHARD: That is what one can do in the meanwhile for immediate benefit ... it also has the added advantage of preparing the way. RESPONDENT: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad. RICHARD: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime.
RESPONDENT: ... I can see that I am addicted to being me because that’s who I am and I don’t want to let go of that. I can also see that the essential ‘me’ is suffering when it is stripped bare. However, since ‘me’ is essentially suffering ‘I’ try to escape through various highs. Once these highs evaporate I am back to being ‘me’ suffering. Makes sense? RICHARD: Yes ... and even though the highs inevitably evaporate ‘I’ still keep on trying to escape from being ‘me’ as ‘I’ really am via that path. Why do ‘I’ persist in re-treading a path, over and again, that just does not deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: That is a good question. What comes to mind is I keep treading the same path over and over because that is what I know. That is what is familiar. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... so in order to successfully escape one needs to abandon the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods, so that the energy one is frittering away fruitlessly is available for the unknown path, the unfamiliar path, the path that does deliver the goods. RESPONDENT: Upon looking at it further it appears that I am addicted to ‘me’ (suffering) but that I am also addicted to the escapes from the ‘me’. RICHARD: Okay ... is the addiction to being ‘me’ stronger than the addiction to escaping from being ‘me’? I only ask because if the addiction to being ‘me’ is the more powerful addiction then successful escape is the last thing ‘I’ am looking for (and thus ‘I’ will keep on re-treading the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods). Whereas if the addiction to escaping is the more powerful addiction then successful escape can (and will) happen.
RESPONDENT: You are making a distinction between ‘I/me’ eliminating itself and it being done altruistically. RICHARD: No, I am more making the point that only altruism – self-sacrificial humanitarianism – will provide the enormous energy necessary for ‘self’-immolation ... the instinct for individual survival is only exceeded by the instinct for group survival. It takes a powerful instinct to overcome a powerful instinct. RESPONDENT: I understand this intellectually but I don’t really feel it. If ‘I’ do it for this body it will help everybody but it feels like I want to do it for selfish reasons. You seem to be saying that it can only be done altruistically and I don’t feel altruistic about it. RICHARD: Properly speaking the word ‘altruistic’ is not a word for a feeling but a word for behaviour or action that benefits others at the expense of self (altruism is the very antithesis of selfism), such as fighting to the death to protect the young, defend the group or secure the territory, and as such could evoke any number of feelings ... such as fear, thrill, courage, excitement, exhilaration, euphoria and so on. Although it can be used to mean ‘unselfish’ that is a watering-down of the word. * RESPONDENT: I can’t readily see how this can be done altruistically without it still being done by the ‘I/me’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is just that, at root, altruism is a more powerful instinct than narcissism. RESPONDENT: I hear what you are saying but I am not tuned in to the altruistic instinct. RICHARD: As it is instinctive it arises as the need arises ... just as its concomitant courage does. * RESPONDENT: I can pretend that I am doing it unselfishly but I don’t see how I can truthfully even start the process altruistically. RICHARD: As it is ‘me’ who desires peace it can hardly be called an unselfish desire ... thus no pretence is necessary. RESPONDENT: I understand that you are saying that ‘me’ does it for this body and everybody but I am not making the altruistic connection. RICHARD: No, what I am saying here, in effect, is that as it is ‘me’ who desires peace it is a selfish desire (thus no pretence is necessary). RESPONDENT: I see that when I do it for me I am doing it for everybody but I don’t feel altruistic about it. RICHARD: Again, altruism is not a feeling as such. * RESPONDENT: Ok, it might be possible by seeing that I am doing it for this body and everybody but I am really doing it for ‘I/me’ at least in the beginning. RICHARD: When ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone else instinctually driven it is actually impossible to say that ‘I’ am doing it for ‘me’ alone ... the repercussions of such an event are vast beyond belief. RESPONDENT: I see that we’re all in the same boat in that we all share the same human condition at root. However, something is missing in that I don’t care about doing it for everybody. This altruistic instinct sounds a lot like ‘love’. The only time I recall feeling altruistic was when I felt ‘love’ and I know that is not what you are talking about. I have also called it oneness in the past when I experienced that I was one with everyone. RICHARD: Start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I don’t care about doing it for everybody’ – implying that ‘I’ only care about doing it for ‘me’ – then that is where ‘I’ am at now. Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of caring about doing it for ‘me’ or not? * RESPONDENT: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad. RICHARD: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime. RESPONDENT: Sorry for all the repetition. I was just trying to get at what’s missing. It is obvious now that what is missing is altruism. You said above that altruism is a group instinct and this instinct is just not activated. I can only see altruism in terms of love and compassion and that is not it. RICHARD: Indeed not – in this context love and compassion lead to ‘self’-surrender not ‘self’-sacrifice – whereas benevolence is the key to altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. And the feeling of caring already mentioned (further above) is the genesis of being benevolent.
RICHARD: ... in order to successfully escape one needs to abandon the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods, so that the energy one is frittering away fruitlessly is available for the unknown path, the unfamiliar path, the path that does deliver the goods. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if the unknown path delivers the goods because I don’t know what it is. RICHARD: Is not the reason why ‘I’ do not know if the unknown path delivers the goods – or why ‘I’ do not know what the unknown path is – none other than because ‘I’ will not abandon the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: I only know that the known path does not deliver the goods. RICHARD: And why will ‘I’ not abandon the known path that does not deliver the goods ... even when ‘I’ know that the known path does not deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: The known path is ‘me’. That is who ‘I’ am. RICHARD: As ‘I’ am suffering and suffering is ‘me’ then ‘my’ path is the path of suffering ... which is humanity’s path is it not? And, as humanity is suffering and suffering is humanity, is it not equally true that humanity is also addicted to suffering? And further to that point ... have you ever noticed that humanity reveres its addiction so much that escape is taboo? * RESPONDENT: Upon looking at it further it appears that I am addicted to ‘me’ (suffering) but that I am also addicted to the escapes from the ‘me’. RICHARD: Okay ... is the addiction to being ‘me’ stronger than the addiction to escaping from being ‘me’? RESPONDENT: The addiction to being ‘me’ is stronger because it always wins out. RICHARD: If ‘I’ am to be honest ‘I’ will have to acknowledge that the addiction to being ‘me’ has only always won out so far because so far ‘I’ have always sought escape from being ‘me’ via a path that ‘I’ know will not deliver the goods. RESPONDENT: I always revert back to ‘me’ (suffering). RICHARD: But now ‘I’ know why ‘I’ always revert back to being ‘me’, to being the very suffering ‘I’ am, do ‘I’ not? * RICHARD: I only ask because if the addiction to being ‘me’ is the more powerful addiction then successful escape is the last thing ‘I’ am looking for (and thus ‘I’ will keep on re-treading the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods). RESPONDENT: Actually, the known is ‘me’. That is what I know. I don’t know how to not tread the same path. RICHARD: Is the reason why ‘I’ do not know how to not tread the same path none other than because successful escape is the last thing ‘I’ am looking for (and thus ‘I’ will keep on re-treading the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods)? In other words: do ‘I’ not continue to temporarily escape from being ‘me’ because permanent escape from being ‘me’ is the last thing ‘I’ am looking for? * RICHARD: Whereas if the addiction to escaping is the more powerful addiction then successful escape can (and will) happen. RESPONDENT: The same escapes are also ‘me’. They are the known. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it like this: somehow, somewhere deep in the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), ‘I’ already know, as ‘I’ always have known and ‘I’ always will know, just what it is that is to happen. In fact, all ‘I’ have been able to do, and all ‘I’ am able to do, and all ‘I’ will be able to do, is to keep on putting it off for another time ... any other time will do, in all reality, provided that it not be now. Yet when the time comes it will be now ... because there is only now in all actuality.
RESPONDENT: I see that we’re all in the same boat in that we all share the same human condition at root. However, something is missing in that I don’t care about doing it for everybody. This altruistic instinct sounds a lot like ‘love’. The only time I recall feeling altruistic was when I felt ‘love’ and I know that is not what you are talking about. I have also called it oneness in the past when I experienced that I was one with everyone. RICHARD: Start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I don’t care about doing it for everybody’ – implying that ‘I’ only care about doing it for ‘me’ – then that is where ‘I’ am at now. Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of caring about doing it for ‘me’ or not? RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t call it a feeling of caring. I want to do it but there is a sense of hopelessness about it. The sense of hopelessness drowns out any feeling of true caring. RICHARD: So, as the sense of hopelessness drowns out the feeling of caring, then start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I want to do it’ for ‘me’ then that is where ‘I’ am at now. Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of wanting (aka desiring) to do it for ‘me’ or not? * RESPONDENT: Sorry for all the repetition. I was just trying to get at what’s missing. It is obvious now that what is missing is altruism. You said above that altruism is a group instinct and this instinct is just not activated. I can only see altruism in terms of love and compassion and that is not it. RICHARD: Indeed not – in this context love and compassion lead to ‘self’-surrender not ‘self’-sacrifice – whereas benevolence is the key to altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. And the feeling of caring already mentioned (further above) is the genesis of being benevolent. RESPONDENT: I see that doing for ‘me’ will automatically benefit others but there is no sense of truly caring. I understand you to be saying that there needs to be caring which leads to benevolence which is the key to the altruism that is needed for self-immolation. RICHARD: Good ... comprehending what is needed provides the necessary understanding to proceed (and the lack of truly caring will sort itself out of its own accord as one proceeds). RESPONDENT: Where I am right now is there is no sense of truly caring because there is a sense of hopelessness about it and because of the hopelessness I really don’t care. ‘I’ am telling myself that I don’t care because there is no hope so what is the use. RICHARD: As there is no hope other than in fertile imagination then being hopeless – being without hope – is an excellent way to begin ... however the sense of hopelessness is counterproductive and stems from still believing in hope anyway despite all the evidence demonstrating its utter uselessness as a modus operandi. Hence the ‘what is the use’ feeling of pointlessness. One needs to abandon hope completely – totally and unreservedly – else the sense of hopelessness will dog one’s every step, holding one back, dragging one down, every step of the way. RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am telling myself that ‘I’ don’t really want to do it because that will be the end of ‘me’. RICHARD: Ahh ... now to the nub of the issue: have you ever desired oblivion?
RICHARD: Is not the reason why ‘I’ do not know if the unknown path delivers the goods – or why ‘I’ do not know what the unknown path is – none other than because ‘I’ will not abandon the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: Yes, ‘I’ am not willing to abandon the known path. ‘I’ am the known path. ‘I’ cannot abandon ‘I’. RICHARD: Are you not saying, in effect, that ‘I’ am not willing to abandon the path of suffering (‘the known path’) because ‘I’ am suffering and suffering is ‘me’ (‘I’ am the known path’)? Viz.:
In other words: ‘I’ cannot abandon the path of suffering (‘I’ cannot abandon ‘I’) because of ‘my’ addiction to suffering (‘I am addicted to being me’). * RICHARD: And why will ‘I’ not abandon the known path that does not deliver the goods ... even when ‘I’ know that the known path does not deliver the goods? RESPONDENT: ‘I’ know that ‘I’ can survive on the known path because that is who ‘I’ am. There is fear of not surviving if I abandon the known path. RICHARD: Is this not another way of saying that, because of ‘my’ fear of death, ‘I’ will carry on suffering for the rest of ‘my’ life? * RICHARD: As ‘I’ am suffering and suffering is ‘me’ then ‘my’ path is the path of suffering ... which is humanity’s path is it not? And, as humanity is suffering and suffering is humanity, is it not equally true that humanity is also addicted to suffering? And further to that point ... have you ever noticed that humanity reveres its addiction so much that escape is taboo? RESPONDENT: Interesting. It does make sense that humanity is addicted to suffering but I am still not sure if it is addiction to suffering or if it is fear of not surviving. The fear of ‘me’ not surviving could be causing the addiction to ‘me’ suffering. RICHARD: I should have put scare quotes around the word humanity as the word itself can refer to two different things: in its all-humankind meaning it is a more comprehensive word for what the word group refers to (which ranges through family, band, clan, tribe, race, nation and species) and, just as the group’s survival traditionally takes precedence over an individual’s survival, the group’s fears of not surviving have priority over an individual’s fears of not surviving. When fear comes into the picture, however, the word humanity no longer refers to all people collectively but takes on a life of its own, as it were, and becomes an entity in its own right in the same way ‘I’ am an entity inside the flesh and blood body. And just as ‘I’ suffer because ‘I’ exist (suffering is ‘my’ very nature) ‘humanity’ suffers because it exists (suffering is very nature of ‘humanity’) and thus a virtue is made out of suffering because the survival of ‘humanity’ is at risk ... hence the taboo on escape Yet ‘humanity’ has no existence outside of the human psyche. * RESPONDENT: The addiction to being ‘me’ is stronger because it always wins out. RICHARD: If ‘I’ am to be honest ‘I’ will have to acknowledge that the addiction to being ‘me’ has only always won out so far because so far ‘I’ have always sought escape from being ‘me’ via a path that ‘I’ know will not deliver the goods. RESPONDENT: My current thinking is that no path will deliver the goods. Any path I take is more of ‘me’ trying to escape from ‘me’. RICHARD: Ahh ... but what about the path of no return? So far you have only ever travelled on the path that carries a return ticket. Viz.:
Given that the price of the return ticket is yet more suffering – a life-time of suffering in fact – why is it that the price of a one-way ticket is considered too high a price to pay? What price the end of suffering, eh? * RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it like this: somehow, somewhere deep in the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), ‘I’ already know, as ‘I’ always have known and ‘I’ always will know, just what it is that is to happen. In fact, all ‘I’ have been able to do, and all ‘I’ am able to do, and all ‘I’ will be able to do, is to keep on putting it off for another time ... any other time will do, in all reality, provided that it not be now. Yet when the time comes it will be now ... because there is only now in all actuality. RESPONDENT: Yes, there is only now in actuality and ‘I’ can’t do it now because I am not ready. RICHARD: As not being ready implies getting ready, in all reality, then what is your plan? RESPONDENT: The fear of ‘me’ not surviving is keeping me from doing it now. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘my’ fear of death keeps ‘me’ alive. RESPONDENT: Fear is holding ‘me’ in place. ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘I’ am holding ‘me’ in place. RESPONDENT: Fear of not surviving is making ‘me’ addicted to being ‘me’. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘my’ fear of death makes ‘me’ addicted to suffering. In short: it is all in ‘my’ hands and ‘my’ hands alone.
RESPONDENT: ... I want to do it but there is a sense of hopelessness about it. The sense of hopelessness drowns out any feeling of true caring. RICHARD: So, as the sense of hopelessness drowns out the feeling of caring, then start with where one is at now (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘I want to do it’ for ‘me’ then that is where ‘I’ am at now. Do ‘I’ feel the feeling of wanting (aka desiring) to do it for ‘me’ or not? RESPONDENT: A feeling of fear has emerged now. ‘I’ feel cornered. I don’t want to do it for ‘me’ because ‘me’ is in control now and ‘me’ is not having any of ending ‘me’. RICHARD: As the feeling of being cornered is where one is at now then that is where one starts from: as you say that ‘a feeling of fear’ has emerged this is a vital opportunity to look closely at the fear itself (while it is happening) and it will be seen that there are two aspects to fear ... the frightening aspect and the thrilling aspect. Usually the frightening aspect dominates and obscures the thrilling aspect: shifting one’s attention to the thrilling aspect (I often said jokingly that it is down at the bottom left-hand side) will increase the thrill and decrease the fright as the energy of fear shifts its focus and changes into a higher gear ... and, as courage is sourced in the thrilling part of fear, the daring to proceed will intensify of its own accord. But stay with the thrill, by being the thrill, else the fright takes over, daring dissipates, and back out of the corner you come. * RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am telling myself that ‘I’ don’t really want to do it because that will be the end of ‘me’. RICHARD: Ahh ... now to the nub of the issue: have you ever desired oblivion? RESPONDENT: I have desired oblivion but not now. Fear has taken over and ‘I’ want to hide from this inquiry. ‘I’ feel cornered and want to back out. ‘I’ am looking for a way out so I can stick to the known and keep surviving. ‘I’ am afraid of losing the known. RICHARD: Other than retreating back into suffering there is no way out but oblivion ... and going into
oblivion is not only a blessed It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.
RESPONDENT: ‘I’ know that ‘I’ can survive on the known path because that is who ‘I’ am. There is fear of not surviving if I abandon the known path. RICHARD: Is this not another way of saying that, because of ‘my’ fear of death, ‘I’ will carry on suffering for the rest of ‘my’ life? RESPONDENT: Sad, but true. RICHARD: As a matter of interest only: in recent years the practice called ‘acceptance’ (as in ‘I accept myself as I am’) has gained an ever-widening popularity ... leading to what was previously known as ‘resignation’ becoming a virtue. Although this resignation is often artfully disguised as ‘tolerance’ so as to make it palatable. * RICHARD: ... just as ‘I’ suffer because ‘I’ exist (suffering is ‘my’ very nature) ‘humanity’ suffers because it exists (suffering is very nature of ‘humanity’) and thus a virtue is made out of suffering because the survival of ‘humanity’ is at risk ... hence the taboo on escape. Yet ‘humanity’ has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: I understand that ‘humanity’ has no existence outside of the human psyche but feel powerless to do anything about it. Fear has taken on a life of its own as ‘me’. RICHARD: Would it be fair to say then, given that that fear has taken on a life of its own as ‘me’, that ‘I’ create the fearful entity called ‘humanity’ (albeit ‘me’ collectively) by ‘my’ very existence? If so, then if ‘I’, who am fear having taken on a life of its own as ‘me’, were to cease to exist so too would suffering ‘humanity’ cease to exist (albeit in one flesh and blood body) would it not? In other words: is not the taboo on escape, backed-up by suffering being made virtuous, nothing other than an elaborate ploy on the part of billions of ‘me’s to stave off ‘our’ extinction? * RESPONDENT: My current thinking is that no path will deliver the goods. Any path I take is more of ‘me’ trying to escape from ‘me’. RICHARD: Ahh ... but what about the path of no return? So far you have only ever travelled on the path that carries a return ticket. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘However, since ‘me’ is essentially suffering ‘I’ try to escape through various highs. Once these highs evaporate I am back to being ‘me’ suffering’. [endquote]. Given that the price of the return ticket is yet more suffering – a life-time of suffering in fact – why is it that the price of a one-way ticket is considered too high a price to pay? What price the end of suffering, eh? RESPONDENT: Because the end of suffering is the end of ‘me’. RICHARD: Is this not another way of saying that, because of ‘my’ fear of death, ‘my’ current plan is to not yet set foot upon the path of no return? * RESPONDENT: Yes, there is only now in actuality and ‘I’ can’t do it now because I am not ready. RICHARD: As not being ready implies getting ready, in all reality, then what is your plan? RESPONDENT: I don’t have a plan. RICHARD: Is this because your current thinking is that ‘no path will deliver the goods’ (further above)? * RESPONDENT: The fear of ‘me’ not surviving is keeping me from doing it now. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘my’ fear of death keeps ‘me’ alive. RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Okay ... taking it one step further: ‘my’ fear of ‘my’ death keeps ‘me’ alive. * RESPONDENT: Fear is holding ‘me’ in place. ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘I’ am holding ‘me’ in place. RESPONDENT: Yes. ‘I’ am holding ‘me’ in place as directed by ‘me’. RICHARD: Okay ... taking it that one step further again: ‘I’ am holding ‘me’ in place as directed by ‘my’ fear of ‘my’ death. * RESPONDENT: Fear of not surviving is making ‘me’ addicted to being ‘me’. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘my’ fear of death makes ‘me’ addicted to suffering. RESPONDENT: Yes. ‘I’ see why ‘I’ am addicted to being ‘me’ (suffering) now. You said it well: ‘‘my’ fear of death makes ‘me’ addicted to suffering’. RICHARD: Okay ... taking it that one step further yet again: ‘my’ fear of ‘my’ death makes ‘me’ addicted to ‘my’ suffering. * RICHARD: In short: it is all in ‘my’ hands and ‘my’ hands alone. RESPONDENT: Yes, which seems unfortunate at the moment. I feel stuck and completely controlled by ‘me’. RICHARD: Is it starting to become a little more obvious that ‘my’ survival fear and ‘my’ essential suffering is only happening in ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) and nowhere else? If so, have you ever wondered what is happening in that somewhere else whilst all this oh-so-real internal trauma is going on? Or, to put that another way, have you never wondered what life after ‘my’ death would be like?
RESPONDENT: There is a feeling of dread now. I feel stuck and unable to proceed. There is nothing thrilling about it. RICHARD: A deep feeling of dread, the abject intuition of impending doom, is fraught with foreboding,
be it a grim, dire, or awful presage Such an active perspicacity in ‘my’ moment of reckoning will reveal that ‘presence’ itself feeds off ‘my’ fear – it is its very life-blood as it were – and this functional acuity brings an abrupt end to its nourishment. Whereupon all-of-a-sudden one finds oneself on the other side of the wall (to keep with the ‘cornered’ analogy for now) with the hitherto unseeable doorway to freedom closing behind one ... and one is walking freely in this actual world where one has already always been living anyway. All what happened was that upon ‘my’ exposure dissolution occurred and the Land of Lament sank without a trace. * RESPONDENT: I have desired oblivion but not now. Fear has taken over and ‘I’ want to hide from this inquiry. ‘I’ feel cornered and want to back out. ‘I’ am looking for a way out so I can stick to the known and keep surviving. ‘I’ am afraid of losing the known. RICHARD: Other than retreating back into suffering there is no way out but oblivion ... and going into oblivion is not only a blessed release from the known it is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment as well. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ life worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) now. ‘I’ can’t see how to get past that. RICHARD: As there has been a, perhaps predictable, retreat back into suffering (predictable as foreshadowed in ‘‘I’ want to hide from this inquiry’ and ‘‘I’ want to back out’ for example), then one starts with where one is presently at (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘‘I’ am stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) now’ then for ‘me’ that is where ‘I’ am currently at. Therefore, do ‘I’ feel the feeling of being stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) or not? If yes, then through staying with the feeling, by being the feeling (instead of trying to see how to get past that), one will find out, experientially, what it is really like to not have a path and/or not have a plan ... other than the one of ‘looking for a way out’ so that one can stick with the known that is. It sure beats armchair philosophising any day of the week.
RESPONDENT No. 04: ... there is an inside as anyone who has mediated has experienced. K on meditation said: ‘First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe. (...) First of all sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax, I will show you. Now, look at the trees, at the hills, the shape of the hills, look at them, look at the quality of their colour, watch them. Do not listen to me. Watch and see those trees, the yellowing trees, the tamarind, and then look at the bougainvillea. Look not with your mind but with your eyes. After having looked at all the colours, the shape of the land, of the hills, the rocks, the shadow, then go from the outside to the inside and close your eyes, close your eyes completely. You have finished looking at the things outside, and now with your eyes closed you can look at what is happening inside’. – Pg 22, 36; ‘K on education’. Go further and the inner and outer dissolve and there is only awareness. RICHARD: Yet when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does ‘go further’ he says the following words (also on page 36): [quote]: ‘Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed. (page 36; ‘Krishnamurti on Education’; published by Krishnamurti Foundation India, ISBN 81-87326-00-X). Do you see that where you say ‘go further and the inner and outer dissolve’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that where you say ‘and there is only awareness’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the observer is the observed’? Furthermore, upon reading what ‘the inside’ is (because ‘the outside’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert inside is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? Or, to put that another way, upon reading what ‘the observer’ is (because ‘the observed’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes, I would say that it is an unambiguous statement. The way I see it is that when there is no inside (no observer) then the outside (observed) is the inside. RICHARD: Ahh ... where there is no inside (‘no observer’ ) is there an outside? Or, to put that another way, does not the presence of an inside create an outside? Which means that there may just be the possibility that the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on all exist in their own right ... and that a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer fully engaged in being the observed (as in ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’) is nothing other than more chicanery on the part of an ‘inside’ fixated upon being a presence come what may. An impersonalised identification is still identification, is it not?
RESPONDENT: ... The way I see it is that when there is no inside (no observer) then the outside (observed) is the inside. RICHARD: Ahh ... where there is no inside (‘no observer’) is there an outside? Or, to put that another way, does not the presence of an inside create an outside? Which means that there may just be the possibility that the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on all exist in their own right ... and that a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer fully engaged in being the observed (as in ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’) is nothing other than more chicanery on the part of an ‘inside’ fixated upon being a presence come what may. An impersonalised identification is still identification, is it not? RESPONDENT: I think I see your point here. I agree that the trees, hills, rocks, etc. exist in their own right without the observer. RICHARD: Yes, if nothing else palaeontology evidences that the physical world existed prior to human beings (in other words it exists in its own right) which establishes a firm basis in regards to determining what is fact and what is fancy. RESPONDENT: You also seem to be saying that it is chicanery for the observer to claim to be the observed which is still identification even though impersonalised. RICHARD: In the context of being the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on ... yes (an impersonalised possessiveness is still possessiveness when all is said and done). RESPONDENT: What I am trying to say is that without an identity inside (observer) then there is only the trees, rocks, etc. RICHARD: Okay ... going the one step further: where there is no ‘identity inside (observer)’ is there an inside (other than heart, lungs, liver and so on of course)? And in this (impersonalised) context I am using the word ‘inside’ as being synonymous with ‘being’ itself ... otherwise known as ‘presence’. Because it is this amorphous presence which lays claim to being all that is.
RICHARD: ... there is more to understanding human nature than pointing the finger at thought. Viz.: [Respondent No. 12]: ‘The self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought’. [endquote]. As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding. RESPONDENT No. 12: Why divide the process up? RICHARD: I am not dividing the process up ... that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary. The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal ... and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction). RESPONDENT: I have heard you make a distinction between the instincts and the instinctual passions ... RICHARD: As the words ‘instincts’ and ‘instinctual survival mechanism’ my co-respondent was using covers a wide range of innate behaviours – heritable traits such as the display movements of birds (as in peacocks for instance), or the web-spinning actions of spiders, the burrowing habits of marine worms, the prey-catching techniques of weasels or wolves, the food-hoarding activity of squirrels, the browsing methods of antelope, birds flying north (or south) for winter, river eels travelling thousands of kilometres out into the ocean to spawn and the eelings finding their own way back to the self-same river, and so on – it seemed necessary to point out, for clarity in communication, that I was referring to the instinctual survival passions in particular, the genetically-encoded affective feelings, and not the instincts in general. RESPONDENT: ... and here above you are saying that the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals through the body. Do the instinctual passions arise from the instincts? RICHARD: No, they are biologically inherited just as all the other instincts are ... and although there is no absolute consensus among biologists and their ilk, as to what feelings are primary and what feelings are cultivated derivations, wherever I have listened to, read about, or watched professionals in this field discussing the issue, at least four basic passions cropped up again and again: the feelings of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: Are they connected? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... although a great many instinctual actions are infused with, if not motivated by, the instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: How does this work? RICHARD: A readily observable instinctive reaction in oneself, that is not necessarily affective, is the automatic response known as the reflex action (inadvertently touch a hotplate, for instance, and there is an involuntary jerking away of the affected limb) or the startle response. A classic example of this occurred whilst strolling along a country lane one fine morning with the sunlight dancing its magic on the glistening dew-drops suspended from the greenery everywhere; these eyes are delighting in the profusion of colour and texture and form as the panorama unfolds; these ears are revelling in the cadence of tones as their resonance and timbre fills the air; these nostrils are rejoicing in the abundance of aromas and scents drifting fragrantly all about; this skin is savouring the touch, the caress, of the early springtime ambience; this mind, other than the sheer enjoyment and appreciation of being alive as this flesh and blood body, is ambling along in neutral – there is no thought at all and conscious alertness is null and void – when all-of-a-sudden the easy gait has ceased happening. These eyes instantly shift from admiring the dun-coloured cows in a field nearby and are looking downward to the front and see the green and black snake, coiling up on the road in readiness to act, which had not only occasioned the abrupt halt but, it is discovered, had initiated a rapid step backwards ... an instinctive response which, had the instinctual passions that are the identity been in situ, could very well have triggered off freeze-fight-flee chemicals. There is no perturbation whatsoever (no wide-eyed staring, no increase in heart-beat, no rapid breathing, no adrenaline-tensed muscle tone, no sweaty palms, no blood draining from the face, and so on) as with the complete absence of the rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the primordial brain the limbic system in general, and the amygdala in particular, have been free to do their job – the oh-so-vital startle response – both efficaciously and cleanly. Cattle, for example, are easily ‘spooked’ by a reptile and have been known to stampede in infectious group panic.
RESPONDENT No. 19: You are saying that insanity is the lie, and what we see is what we get? RICHARD: Yes ... where the lie of seeing insanity, when observing people in general and oneself in particular, is no longer blocking observation then sanity can be seen for what it is ... one sees the fact of sanity. It sucks big-time. RESPONDENT: I think I’m getting a glimpse of what you’re saying. For example, the reasons for going to war with Iraq sounded very sane. So are you saying ‘Observing The World As-It-Is And People As-They-Are’ is observing sane people in a sane world? RICHARD: Yes ... sanity is the norm all over the world. RESPONDENT: I had a glimpse of insanity yesterday. I was driving on the turnpike and there was nothing else but the car, the highway, the trees, etc. All that existed was actuality. RICHARD: Exactly ... there is nothing other than this actual world. I do find it cute that being happy and harmless – to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only – is considered to be a chronic and incurable psychotic mental disorder ... here are the symptoms:
‘Tis no wonder it is avoided like the plague, eh?
RESPONDENT: Muhammad Ali on war: [quote] ‘I ain’t got no quarrel with them Vietcong’. RICHARD: Muhammad Ali on peace: [quote]: ‘It’s just a job. Grass grows, birds fly, waves pound the sand. I just beat people up’. (www.10ktruth.com/the_quotes/ali.htm). Continued on The Actual Freedom Mailing List: No. 23
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 |
