|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Life after Death and Immortality
RICHARD: All I am indicating by saying that the truth is insincere is that, as the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body (as in ‘The Peace That Passeth All Understanding’), the truth is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. RESPONDENT: I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth – but it is not clear to me that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being’. I grant that is often the case, but an easily shown exception would be a child being empathetic before having any beliefs about an afterlife. It is also readily apparent that feeling caring is often done for an earthly reward – so am I to assume you were over generalizing here? If not, then I don’t understand. RICHARD: I am not even generalising – let alone over-generalising – as the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime ... simply because it cannot. Moreover, the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any entity inside any flesh and blood body either ... what it holds out is the promise of an after-death peace (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love). As for a child not knowing about an afterlife: as far as I have been able to ascertain children in all cultures are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age ... for example I can recall having a fascinating conversation with a child, not yet four years old, who not only gravely informed me that their newly deceased pet was residing in their particular society’s abode of requiem aeternam, but that they knew the pet’s body was in the ground. And even if a child somehow escaped such cultural conditioning any feeling of empathy they may express – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. RESPONDENT: It appears you have misunderstood my comment about over generalizing. If you look back at the text – what I said is that I see that the ‘truth’ is not sincere in regards to bringing about peace on earth. RICHARD: Aye, I saw that the first time around ... and I also saw that you then followed it with a ‘but ...’ so I attended to that first by clearly saying, immediately up-front, that the truth has not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth for any flesh and blood body anywhere in its lifetime simply because it cannot (a feeling of caring is not actually caring). Then I addressed the after-life question (the feeling of eternity is intrinsic to love). RESPONDENT: My point about over generalizing was intended to refer to the statement of yours that ‘the truth holds the promise of an after-death peace for the feeling being inside the flesh and blood body’. RICHARD: Yet all I was doing there was demonstrating why feeling caring is not sincere in bringing about peace on earth (despite all the protestations to that effect) ... it is the classic example of the difference between feeling caring and actually caring. Here is what that sentence looks like without the explanatory clause:
The insertion of the demonstration is to obviate a ‘why is it not sincere ...’ query. RESPONDENT: I understand and agree that children are spoon-fed fantasies about immortality at a very early age – though my 4 year old has no idea what an ‘afterlife’ could even be. RICHARD: Then obviously your 4 year old has somehow escaped such cultural conditioning ... so far. The U.S. polls – Gallup, Harris, and other polls, including Kosmin (1990 survey of 113,000 Americans) – consistently indicate that between about 92% and 97% of Americans say they believe in God. (www.adherents.com/adh_faq.html#God). RESPONDENT: I’m referring to the fact that it is clear that empathy is present even before any beliefs about an ‘afterlife’ could be imbibed. RICHARD: Are you aware of what is called ‘Theory Of Mind’ RESPONDENT: Also clearly, there are plenty of atheists who are quite empathetic – it would seem quite counter-intuitive to argue that in feeling caring they are only caring about their ‘after-life’ destiny, don’t you think? RICHARD: Yet that is not the point I was making – the point being that feeling caring, no matter how truly felt, is not actually caring – and the after-death-peace example is nothing but a demonstration, as it were, of all it is capable of in regards peace ... a promise. RESPONDENT: Anyway, you seem to admit at least the possibility that a child could somehow escape cultural conditioning, then state that it is ‘still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway’. Granted. RICHARD: Good ... that is all I am getting at (that feeling caring will not bring about peace-on-earth). Here is the initial exchange which started this section of this thread:
In the following e-mail I expanded upon this ‘being true to their feelings/truth is insincere’ comment:
RESPONDENT: But my comment is important because there are many folks on this planet that are not motivated by a reward or punishment after death. RICHARD: Whilst not wanting to unnecessarily split hairs, and thus become unduly side-tracked, it would be more accurate to say there are a few folks on this planet who are not thus motivated as the Encyclopaedia Britannica puts the percentage of atheists world-wide as being 3.8% ... and even then some of those are spiritual people (some Buddhists, for example, call themselves atheists). RESPONDENT: My only conclusion can be that you were generalizing or temporarily neglecting to mention them. RICHARD: No, not at all ... because even if there be no concern about immortality no matter how earnestly the illusory entity inside a flesh and blood body feels empathy for the illusory entity inside another flesh and blood body it is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, for that flesh and blood body – nor any other flesh and blood body – simply because it cannot. It operates to the contrary, in fact, as feeling caring verifies, endorses, and consolidates ‘me’ ... thus not only am ‘I’ therefore authenticated, sanctioned, and substantiated, ‘my’ presence has meaning. In other words: feeling caring perpetuates ‘me’ ... and thus perpetuates all the misery and mayhem forever and a day. RESPONDENT: One other possibility I can see is that you could somehow argue (counter-intuitively) that even those that don’t seem to be motivated by the reward in an afterlife are somehow (unconsciously) still motivated by the afterlife. RICHARD: No, that was not my intention at all ... even though I am yet to meet an atheist who does not ponder, when questioned deeply, whether there may be something substantive post-mortem after all. For example, many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was material and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion ... yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next Buddha we have all been waiting for’. I kid you not ... another example is when I first came onto the Internet and wrote to a mailing list set-up by the editor of the ‘Australian Atheist Society’ newsletter: in his first e-mail response to my initial post he was mentioning Mr. Gotama the Sakyan en passant and in his second e-mail was quoting both him and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene to me. Viz.:
So I questioned him in this regard:
This was the reply:
The conversation rapidly went even further downhill after that display of genius. RESPONDENT: What is obvious to me is that feeling-caring is motivated in many people (but not all) by the afterlife – but also that people are also often motivated by ‘earthly’ rewards or punishments. RICHARD: Yet, as I already remarked, any feeling of empathy anyone may feel – no matter how earnestly felt – is still not going to bring about peace-on-earth anyway ... which peacefulness is what caring is all about. For example whenever I have read-through those rationalists versus theologists debates on the Internet – or looked at any of the many atheistic websites for that matter – invariably the core element of the rationalist/atheistic solution for all the ills of humankind is none other than love and compassion ... or cultivated derivations thereof. This ‘tried and true’ solution even permeates group consciousness in popular songs (‘all you need is love ...’ and so on). RESPONDENT: The only other possibility I can see is that you might just define the ‘truth’ as necessarily including belief in an afterlife reward or punishment ... RICHARD: Not necessarily, no. RESPONDENT: ... but I’ve always read your usage of the word ‘truth’ as applying to all people who are still in the human condition. RICHARD: Yes, the entity within cannot ever experience actuality ... it is forever locked-out of paradise by its very nature (hence sorrow). RESPONDENT: Can you clarify? RICHARD: Sure. As I was talking about being true to one’s feelings then the truth I was referring to, in this instance, was the true feeling of caring by the waiters giving you good service ... and truthful caring is still not actually caring. In short: just because something feels true that truth does not miraculously turn it into being a fact. ALAN: I even have a bit of conversation on tape, which is quite a hoot and would be extremely embarrassing, if I retained that faculty. I will transcribe a bit sometime . RICHARD: I look forward to it, Alan – the more that is written the better – because I liked this description of the value of dissemination:
What a relief indeed ... if it were not for death’s oblivion I could not be happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Interestingly, this time around, fear has taken a back seat and no energy is being wasted on ‘why, how, what if, if only’ – there is simply the fact that this disease is back and certain steps are to be taken to support the body in taking care of itself. RICHARD: To be able to live without fear is such a blessed condition ... and it enables sensible decisions to be made. In this day and age and living in the heterogeneous culture that you do, a full array of alternatives are at your command. Obviously I personally favour modern medical treatment but the alternatives do have something to offer and everything is a matter of personal choice ... the absence of fear will enable not only judicious decisions to be made but ensures a quality of life. In the final analysis I plunk for quality over quantity any day. All discussion about fear eventually turns around death. This is a fact that needs be faced squarely. To not ‘be’ is inconceivable; it is impossible to imagine not ‘being’ because all one has ever known is ‘being’. What does it mean to not ‘be’? One has always been busy with ‘being’; being alive, being in the world, being a ‘human’, being ‘me’. What is it to not exist? There seems to be a general consensus among human beings that death is a mystery that one cannot penetrate, and that the ‘Mystery of Life’ will be revealed only after death. There, they say, lies peace and Ultimate Fulfilment. It all appears to be an exercise in futility to think about what is entailed in death, which is the end of ‘being’ ... and it is. The end of ‘being’, at physical death, can only ever be a speculation; it has to be experienced to know it. Just like one cannot know the taste of something until one eats it ... so too is it with death as the end of ‘being’. Yet to wait for death will be leaving it too late to find out what it is to not ‘be’ ... as death is oblivion of consciousness there will be no awareness of not ‘being’. The question is: can one experience the end of ‘being’ before this body dies and therefore penetrate into the ‘Mystery of Life’, in full awareness, and find that Ultimate Fulfilment ... here on earth? What I did was face the fact of my mortality. ‘Life’ and ‘Death’ are not an opposite ... there is only birth and death. Life is what happens in between. Before I was born, I was not here. Now that I am alive, I am here. After death I will not be here ... just like before birth. Where is the problem? The problem was in the brain-stem, of course. It is the instinct to survive at any cost that was the problem ... backed up by the full gamut of the emotions born out of the four basic instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire. The rudimentary self, transformed into an identity, must be extinguished in order for one to be here, in this actual world of the senses, bereft of this identity. ‘My’ extinction was the ending of not only fear, but of all of the affective faculties. Extinction releases one into actuality ... as this flesh and blood body only I am living in the paradisiacal garden that this verdant planet earth is. We are all simply floating in the infinitude of this perfect and pure universe ... coming from nowhere and having nowhere to go to we find ourselves here at this moment in time and this place in space. This actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RICHARD: When ‘I’ willingly and voluntarily sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological or psychic identity residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what one holds most dear. RESPONDENT: Is it not what a true surrender is (or should be)? We can ‘laundry’ this old dirty word. RICHARD: Yet ‘surrender’ means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim to it; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of compliance, acquiescence, passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency. Speaking personally, I have never, ever given in. I do not know how to – thus it has never been an option – and never will know how to. Whereas ‘sacrifice’ means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate destruction, abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, depart from, leave, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, spontaneous, free and easy, relaxed, informal, open, candid, outspoken, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled ... none of which is implied with ‘surrender’. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: If my ‘I’ and another person’s ‘I’ are basically identical then ‘I’ am not much different from any man who has lived in the past or will live in the future. If this is right then death has lost most of its bite. RICHARD: Ahh ... physical death is but the ending of this particular flesh and blood body – which began x-number of years ago – and this universe, of course, will go right on doing what it was doing before one was born. Which is what it is doing right here and now. RESPONDENT: This is a very powerful statement. It has stimulated my mind and my whole being. I am wondering why this perspective on life and death is not widely publicized and discussed (?!). Its very logical and powerful as far as its implications. It is about facing our physical death without an overwhelming and paralysing fear. RICHARD: It is a fact that I, as this body, am mortal. As such, I will die in due course ... this heart will stop beating, these lungs will cease breathing, this brain will quit thinking. The flesh will decompose, if buried, or will be dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to me than this. Human beings have various attitudes towards death. As far as it has been able to be ascertained, humans are the only creatures that are aware of their own demise. The ability to reflect upon one’s own death has been a source of inspiration to philosophers, theologians and their ilk down through the ages. To other people, death is a subject to be avoided, to be not thought about; it is a taboo topic for dinner-table conversation. It is not until a close friend or relative dies that they are brought face-to-face with their own mortality ... and they usually endeavour to ‘get over it’ as soon as possible. A sure way to be told that one is morbid is to talk about death: to invoke an uneasy reaction, one needs only to ask if they have ever considered the ramifications of death; of no longer being alive; of not being a ‘human’; of not ‘being’ at all. Nevertheless, why avoid the subject? Surely it is of the utmost importance to explore all the unknown aspects of being a ‘human’ – especially those that bring trepidation – for therein lie the causes for not only one’s uneasiness about life, but all the problems that beset ‘humanity’. Anything that remains hidden will continue to influence one’s life in an unconscious way, continuously plaguing one’s every moment of being alive and affecting one’s state of well-being. Death is viewed by most as a calamity, a tragedy. ‘I’, being non-material, cannot accept, let alone embrace, that which is physical, that which is actual. Mortality is a physical phenomenon; it is a fact to be met and understood. To act otherwise is a denial of the actual. This universe was amazingly able to give birth to me, it is marvellously capable of bearing me and will, eventually, wondrously manage to end me. This is the physical ‘scheme of things’ in this, the only universe there is ... and this universe is so enormous in its scope, so grand in its order, so exquisite in its form, that it is sheer vanity and utter insolence to presume that birth and death is somehow ‘wrong’. With an attitude like that, no wonder people hate having to be here on earth. It is no wonder that they feel that they have to ‘get on with life’ and ‘make the best of things’ whilst waiting for death to release them. It is such a shame that billions of human beings are missing out on the unadulterated perfection of being fully alive; missing out on rejoicing in being here now; missing out on deriving immense pleasure at living this moment, here on earth. There seems to be a general consensus among human beings that death is a mystery that one cannot penetrate, and that the ‘Mystery of Life’ will be revealed only after death. There, most say, lies ‘Peace and Ultimate Fulfilment’ ... yet there is nowhere else but here and there is no time but now. Anything else than here at this place in infinite space – now at this moment in eternal time – exists only in an enthusiastic imagination ... enthused by ‘me’, by ‘being’ itself. Any fear of the death of ‘me’ is an irrational reaction to the demise of an apparently enduring psychological and/or psychic entity. The ending of ‘me’ (the ‘death’ of ‘me’) is an autological non-event; ‘I’ do not actually exist in the first place. There is no actual ‘me’ to either ‘die’ or to have ‘Eternal Life’. It all appears to be an exercise in futility to think about and feel into what is entailed in physical death
(which is the guaranteed end of ‘being’) because the end of ‘being’, at physical death, can only ever be a speculation; it
has to be experienced to know it. Just like one cannot know the taste of something until one eats it ... so too is it with death
as the end of ‘being’. Yet to wait for death will be leaving it too late to find out what it is to not ‘be’ ... as death
is oblivion of consciousness there will be no awareness of not ‘being’. The question is: can one experience the end of ‘being’
before this body dies and therefore penetrate into the ‘Mystery of Life’, in full awareness, and find that Ultimate Fulfilment
... here on earth? RESPONDENT: It is just one step away from the false conclusion (1) ‘I am the immortal Universe’. Or even more tempting is: (2) ‘I am the immortal consciousness, an eternal ‘flame’ or ‘light’ of consciousness generated by the infinite sequence of human bodies; like light created in a lamp’ The first conclusion is false because I am the product of some natural perpetual life processes but I have not got much control over them, and my individual ‘I’ will not survive my physical death. I am a bit puzzled by my own second proposition. (2) in this paragraph. What is your thought about it? I think the explanation would be that I am not consciousness because any ‘I’ requires some mental effort to create and justify and thus is imaginary? Suddenly I feel peaceful now ... RICHARD: Conclusion No. 1 (‘I am the immortal Universe’) is only ‘I’ typically arrogating identity because of the instinctual drive to survive at any cost ... whereas the phrase ‘I am the infinite and eternal (which is what ‘immortal’ means) universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’ puts it all in perspective. And, as a human being, the universe has intelligence ... there is no ‘Intelligence’ running the universe (the universe is much, much more than merely intelligent). Conclusion No. 2 (‘I am the immortal consciousness, an eternal ‘flame’ or ‘light’ of consciousness generated by the infinite sequence of human bodies; like light created in a lamp’ ) is but ‘I’ similarly expropriating something that does not exist anyway! It has taken countless aeons for carbon-based life-forms to evolve through to being conscious (as all sentient beings are) and as being consciousness in one species alone: the human animal. Of course the human animal values consciousness highly – it is what separates humans from other animals – and allows the ability to consciously reflect, consider and appreciate being here now (which other animals cannot do). But to take this faculty which humans value highly and seek to impose it upon this marvellous, amazing, wondrous and magical universe is to commit the vulgar error of anthropocentricism. Be that as it may, because of this evolved consciousness the human animal can ask: why are we here? RICHARD: The dead are dead, and death is the end. Finish. It is us who are still here who must deal with suffering ... and it is possible for suffering to be eliminated now ... and not have to wait for physical death for reprieve. RESPONDENT: Why do you feel that believing its over at death will contribute to either our selflessness or to achieving perfection? RICHARD: It is not a matter of ‘believing it’s over at death’ – it is indeed over at death. Death is the end. Finish. Understanding the actuality of death – to cease being in a state of denial – is to understand that there is no ‘Immortal Self’ that will ‘quit the body’ and continue on in some nebulous After-Life. Death is the end of being both a body and a self. One can actualise this end of being a self whilst this body is still alive and breathing by understanding that any intuition of ‘being’ is a psychological construct only. The self may be real – sometimes very real – but it is not actual. The ending of this ‘being’ is when the actual can become apparent. Then there is an actual perfection, as this body only, in this life-time, here on earth. RICHARD: Physical death is the end. Finish. There is not a ‘different phase of existence’ after physical death. RESPONDENT: It’s a credible theory, but you don’t actually know this, do you? RICHARD: You see, where you say ‘It’s a credible theory’, you cause me to question your definitive statement outlined earlier:
If you are so sure, then why call it ‘a credible theory’? What does your man say? Is it a fact or not? And, yes, I do actually know this. I have written elsewhere: ‘A fair enough question ... but easy to
understand with a little reflection. It is the psychological entity within the body – the ‘I’ – that projects a
perpetuation of itself even unto an ‘After-life’. Just like all Gods and Goddesses are but a projection of ‘self’, so to
is ‘Immortality’. This is what is a belief, not the statement: ‘Physical death is the end. Finish’. As there is no ‘I’
anywhere whatsoever inside this body, I can experience – and thus know as a fact – that there is no actual ‘Immortality’
in some ‘After-life’ because there is no one here to have it (Immortality) or go into it (an After-life). It is all but a
fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am so important that ‘I’ must live
forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit
meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-mortem reward. ‘I’ will do anything to survive’. RICHARD: Your running-mate (No. 12 RESPONDENT: Apart from the obliteration of consciousness, there is no difference at all between the two. A perfect person (i.e. one who is permanently free of all attachments) cannot experience death. He is immortal. He cannot lose his life because he no longer possesses any life to lose. Death is incapable of taking anything away from him. Consciousness disappears at death, but since he has long since abandoned any attachment to consciousness the loss of it means nothing to him. RICHARD: ‘He is immortal’, eh? I suggest that this is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth – something that all religions and spirituality are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s place in Eternity is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul after physical death. So much for the humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All Religious and Spiritual Quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All Religious and Spiritual Leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing Immortality. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of self on into an After-Life. If it were not for all the suffering; the wars, the killings, the tortures, the rapes, the degradations, and
the such-like, it would be entertainingly amusing, for the self does not exist in actuality. All this monstrous behaviour is about
something fictitious. The self – and the Self – are only psychological entities ... phantasms in mundane reality and in a
super-charged Reality. It is all much ado about nothing. However, it is no laughing matter – it is far too serious when
appalling suffering is concerned. It behoves one to put aside the selfish ego-driven and soul-driven will to survive and look
again at what exactly is occurring. One will no longer be entranced by the bewitching promises proffered so alluringly by these
self-appointed guardians of virtue and morality – all self-serving, mind you. It is a must that one establish one’s integrity
and set about ridding oneself of any psychological entity whatsoever. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT No. 12: If ‘I’ am not, there is death or impermanence in each moment. RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing
at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being
apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the
same thing. * RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Not really. Call it apperceptive awareness, meditation, energy, intelligence – whatever we like. RICHARD: You may call it ‘whatever we like’ if you wish to continue to be vague ... but I prefer to be specific. I call it apperceptive awareness because it only occurs when there is no sense of identity whatsoever ... then the mind – this physical brain in action – can perceive itself. Not ‘I’ perceiving ‘me’ being aware, but awareness happening of its own accord ... unimpeded and uncensored by the affective faculties. Thus it is very clearly not ‘meditation’; it is not ‘energy’ ... and it is most certainly not ‘intelligence’ in the sense you use the word because they all are but products of the affective faculties. RESPONDENT: It is the foundation of all manifestation. Manifestation is the activity of that energy AS the physical universe. RICHARD: And as this energy is affective it is – in other words – god by any name. RESPONDENT: Therefore, loss of physical form is not death. It is only the destructuring of manifested energy. RICHARD: Indeed ... when ‘I am That’ – when one is god by any name – one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Then at physical death one just loses this physical form and lives forever in some mystical transcendental realm. RESPONDENT: Take any form and observe its ‘death’ over time. There is only the destructuring of the form into its more subtle aspects of energy: atoms, etc., and beyond. RICHARD: Physical matter re-arranges itself, yes. Shall we keep to the subject? Which is what happens to a particular awareness at physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: The eventual destructuring of Richard’s form is nothing but the ‘de-congealment’ of intelligence. RICHARD: Aye ... I am aware that for you the word ‘intelligence’ is god by whatever name. In other words, you wish to realise your immortality ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Awareness is neither created nor destroyed, and neither are its manifestations. RICHARD: What you call awareness is ‘Unborn and Undying’ and is, of course, neither created nor destroyed, I agree. However, the awareness that is this flesh and blood body called Richard started right along with this body over half a century ago and – barring war, accidents and disease – will cease somewhere around 2030 because they are one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti may have been right: There could be nothing but intelligence. Now, it could be mysticism that is saying this. RICHARD: It is mysticism ... clearly and unequivocally. RESPONDENT: Just as mysticism may also be saying that the death of the body is the same as the death of apperceptive aware-ness. RICHARD: Not so ... there is no trace of mysticism in me whatsoever. I am a thorough-going atheist
through and through. RESPONDENT: Energy is energy. RICHARD: This is as useful a statement as that supposed profundity ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’. RESPONDENT: Intelligence is just another word for energy unencumbered by self-centredness. RICHARD: The energy of the particular human brain in action comes from the food the particular human body eats. This brain in this body called Richard is unencumbered by self-centredness and he sees that this universe was already here before this body was born and will still be here after this body dies. The intelligence of this brain – the food-energy intelligence – most certainly is not the ‘foundation of all manifestation’ . This food-energy intelligence is a manifestation of this physical universe ... not the other way around. RESPONDENT: Therefore, loss of physical form is not death. It is only the destructuring of manifested energy. RICHARD: Indeed ... when ‘I am That’ – when one is god by any name – one is ‘Unborn and Undying’. Then at physical death one just loses this physical form and lives forever in some mystical transcendental realm. RESPONDENT: Now you are projecting from your own belief, aren’t you? RICHARD: No, not at all. It is the eastern mystical belief ... I was merely fleshing out your sentence. I know that the physical death of this particular body called Richard is the end of this particular intelligence. The give-away was in the use of the phrase ‘loss of physical form’ that you used to describe physical death. The mystics belief that they ‘quit the body’ at physical death ... they cast it off ‘like a suit of old clothes’. RESPONDENT: For me to say that the destructuring of the form is not ‘death’ is not to say that there is some self or ego which lives some place else after that destructuring has occurred. It is only to say that energy as life and form remains always as energy, whether the form exists or not. RICHARD: Here you are saying that ‘energy’ exists whether there is ‘form or not’ ... independent of the body. When form as a human being is ... intelligence is. When form as a human being is not ... intelligence is not. RESPONDENT: There is no need to posit either the idea of ‘death’ or the idea of some entity which outlasts the body. RICHARD: I am not positing an idea of death ... death is a fact. However, the mystics posit an entity which outlasts the body so much so that they say it is eternal. RESPONDENT: Take any form and observe its ‘death’ over time. There is only the destructuring of the form into its more subtle aspects of energy: atoms, etc., and beyond. RICHARD: Physical matter re-arranges itself, yes. Shall we keep to the subject? Which is what happens to a particular awareness at physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: The eventual destructuring of Richard’s form is nothing but the ‘de-congealment’ of intelligence. RICHARD: Aye ... I am aware that for you the word ‘intelligence’ is god by whatever name. In other words, you wish to realise your immortality ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: That is sheer nonsense and guessing. RICHARD: I know it is nonsense ... yet billions of humans believe it to be so. As for me guessing ... I go by what you write. You are talking of an ‘intelligence’ that is an ‘energy’ that does not require ‘form’ ... thus all that you have written is but a variation on eastern mysticism. And western mysticism, for all that. RESPONDENT: If you had asked me I would have said that the word intelligence to me means nothing more than the energy of nature, the ability of the various form systems to operate harmoniously and to maintain their structure until they disintegrate. RICHARD: I did not have to ask you ... you volunteered enough information of your own accord to show that you are indulging in anthropomorphism. RESPONDENT: ‘I’ is the body only. When the body destructures or ‘dies’, that’s it. But the intelligence of nature still exists AS nature. What does immortality have to do with that? RICHARD: It is simple. Nature is not intelligent ... intelligence is only the human brain in action. When this particular body dies this particular intelligence dies right along with it. You say that intelligence does not die with the body as it can exist without form and – as you are this particular intelligence – you are thus saying that you are really immortal. RESPONDENT: Awareness is neither created nor destroyed, and neither are its manifestations. RICHARD: What you call awareness is ‘Unborn and Undying’ and is, of course, neither created nor destroyed, I agree. However, the awareness that is this flesh and blood body called Richard started right along with this body over half a century ago and – barring war, accidents and disease – will cease somewhere around 2030 because they are one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: I won’t argue that, but I will say that when Richard’s body ceases around 2030, the energy of that body will persist as the energy of nature. RICHARD: Not so ... this body will cease being animated. The constituent particles of the inanimate
body will re-combine with other particles of matter into other forms – some of which will be carbon-based life-forms and
therefore animate – but only if that life-form is another human being will there be intelligence. RICHARD: If one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish. Not that it matters at all then because physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: There is death because there is belief in a ‘me’ that has continuity. RICHARD: Not so ... physical death is a fact whether there is a continuous ‘me’ or not. RESPONDENT: Of course the body ends but there never was anyone living inside the body. If there is a thought and belief that I am this body in time, that thought is the ‘me’. RICHARD: Perhaps this is an opportune time to ask you a question: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: What do you understand time to be? RICHARD: I understand that it is high time that you addressed yourself to the question. Which is: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: It is a measurement of thought is it not? RICHARD: What has this sentence got to do with the question: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: If so, it is clear that understanding of the timeless is not possible through thought. RICHARD: What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: What seems to either continue or die is an illusion. RICHARD: At physical death this body dies ... this is no illusion. RESPONDENT: If ‘I’ am not, there is death or impermanence in each moment. RICHARD: We were not talking about ‘each moment’ where there is a body living and breathing at all. Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. RESPONDENT: Life is not separate in time from death. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: That separation is an illusion of memory and psychological time called ‘me’. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: If there is thought to be a ‘me’ that is now but will not be later, there will be suffering, and effort to escape. RICHARD: Shall we stick with the subject ... which is physical death? When I die – when this body called Richard being apperceptively aware physically dies – this apperceptive awareness dies right along with it ... for they are the one and the same thing. What happens to this ‘undivided awareness’ – that comes out of the ‘silence’ which you clearly say is not ‘in or of the body/brain’ – after the physical death of the body called No. 12? Does it also end along with the end of the body? RESPONDENT: Yet what is timeless is also there each moment so it is not a problem. RICHARD: Does that which is perceiving ‘timeless’ cease to exist when the flesh and blood body called No. 12 physically dies? RESPONDENT: A wave does not die because it never was truly separate. RICHARD: This is that ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ stuff again. Physical death is the end. Finish. RESPONDENT: If it is directly seen that in fact there is no separation, is there selfish concern about ‘my’ death? RICHARD: Whoa up there! You wish to survive physical death and live forever ... at the expense of peace-on-earth. How much more selfish can you get than that? RESPONDENT: You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife. RICHARD: But facts mean nothing to you. For you there are no facts. Facts require an actuality and for you none of all this is real ... let alone actual. RESPONDENT: That it is any of the things you have listed, or that it is not is pure speculation. RICHARD: Your whole life is ‘pure speculation’ , whereas for me everything is actual. There is no identity – no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – inside this flesh and blood body to go into any ‘after-life’. Any one who says that proposing or discounting an ‘after-life’ is nothing but ‘speculation’ reveals that their identity is still intact. RESPONDENT: From here, there is nothing gained thinking one way or another about it, but I am happy to listen to your imagined outcomes. RICHARD: This stance is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics ... it is a variation on that hoary adage: ‘he who says he does not know, really knows’. I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable. It does reveal that their identity is still firmly in place, however, for when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die one already knows what happens at physical death. * RESPONDENT: I bid you, Richard ... for a moment at the least, move away from your rather wanker-like (I Love that word!) dissecting of me and meet the statement as it is: ‘You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife’. RICHARD: Look, it is not a dissection of you ... it is a relentless exposé of the eastern spiritual mysticism that you espouse that I am doing. I make no bones about this and – as I know full well what it is that I am doing – it is not wanking ... given that a wanker is an ‘ineffectual’ person (not having any feelings I cannot relate to the ‘contemptible’ part of the dictionary meaning of the word). As for how I can know about any ‘after-life’ ... when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die one already knows what happens at physical death. There is no identity – no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – inside this flesh and blood body to go into any ‘after-life’. Therefore, any ‘after-life’ is but an invention of pious egoists who desire immortality. They will not be disappointed, however, as physical death is oblivion. RESPONDENT: Your transformation is based on selfishness, the root of human disorder. And all you can save is your miserable flesh-and blood body, that fathom long carcass that the Buddha discarded 2500 years ago in his quest of the deathless state. RICHARD: Well now ... this seems to be an appropriate place to bring in another example to see just who is selfish. Viz.:
Who is it that wishes to become something that can never die? And yet it was you who accused me of being ‘selfish’
... and a ‘product of fear’ (further above). You are so selfish – and so afraid of death – that you will willingly
forgo peace-on-earth in order to save your precious immortal soul. (And saving this ‘immortal soul’ – which is what finding
the ‘deathless state’ means – is to be merely saving the ego in disguise). And so another 160,000,000 people will be
killed next century in wars, eh? But, whatever the price in human suffering, you will be living forever. RESPONDENT: How can immortality deserve to be in oblivion! RICHARD: Because it is but a belief ... and it is a belief that prevents one from being here at this moment in time where purity and perfection abound. Being here – which can only happen when ‘I’, the psychological entity within, abdicates its throne – enables one to be happy and harmless for, along with the ‘I’ goes sorrow and malice. Without malice, there is no war, murder, torture, rape, domestic violence and corruption that is so endemic ... it is intrinsic to the human condition. Without sorrow there is no sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that is such a global incidence ... it is also inherent to the human condition. Immortality is but a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. ‘I’ think and feel that ‘I’ am so important that ‘I’ must live forever. It is a pernicious belief with its roots buried deep in self-importance and self-aggrandisement. It is where conceit meets arrogance and become meekness and humility ... and seeks its post-mortem reward. Thus, for me, ‘Immortality’ has been banished to the oblivion it deserves. RESPONDENT: We’ll just have to see whether death is in fact final, won’t we? RICHARD: Maybe it would be best to only speak for yourself ... I already know for a fact that ‘death is final’. RESPONDENT: Yeah well will see what you tell me after you die. You won’t be so smug then will you? RICHARD: Something that I have noticed, over the many years that I have discussed these matters, in the people I have met personally who have what may be described as a religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical point of view, is that as a last resort they invariably start threatening me with the dire consequences that ensue in the ‘after-death’ state because I not agree with their belief system. So that this exchange does not devolve into you endeavouring to put the ‘fear of God’ into me (and I am not implying that you were going to), it may be advantageous to comprehend why I have every reason to be ‘smug’ (complacent, pleased, satisfied, content). I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human being; I
am living my destiny. RICHARD: All of humanity’s sublime feeling and profound thought has been a purview predicated upon doom and gloom regarding life here on this fair earth. RESPONDENT: Fortunately there is life beyond death. RICHARD: Is this response not just another way of saying the same as what I wrote? Is not what you are
saying here (in effect): do not even bother looking for peace-on-earth? RICHARD: I am mortal in that I was born, I live for a period of years, then I die and death is the end, finish. RESPONDENT: How can you be so sure? RICHARD: As I am this flesh and blood body, I am mortal. I will die in due course ... this heart will
stop beating, these lungs will cease breathing, this brain will quit thinking. The flesh will decompose, if buried, or will be
dispersed, if burnt, as smoke and ash. There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to me than
this. It is this simple: there is no identity (neither ‘I’ as ego nor ‘me’ as soul), no ‘being’ whatsoever, extant in
this flesh and blood body to survive the physical decomposition and/or combustion of this body upon death. RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. RESPONDENT: Then how do you explain near death experiences, past life memories, séances, mediums, hauntings, demonic possession, astral travelling, dreams, UFO’s, clairvoyants & children who see – fairies, angels, nature spirits, demons etc. RICHARD: As there is no way anybody can explain an etcetera it is obvious that you are not asking for an explanation of each and every one of those symptoms (especially as you include Unidentified Flying Objects into the mix) but rather a general explanation. In a word, then, it is identity which generates same (including more than a few of the UFO ‘sightings’ by the way). RESPONDENT: It doesn’t make sense to exist now but not later when we die. RICHARD: What does the word ‘die’ mean to you, then, if not ‘cease to live; cease to be alive; cease to exist’ (Oxford Dictionary)? Is it not a fact that all flesh and blood bodies are mortal; that the heart stops beating, the lungs cease breathing, the brain no longer operates; that the flesh decomposes, if buried, or disperses, if burnt, as smoke and ash? There could be nothing more final, more conclusive, more complete, of an ending to being alive than that, surely? RESPONDENT: I mean we either exist or we don’t exist it can’t be both, so from the evidence we have its obvious that we exist as a body and also as an awareness entity. RICHARD: A flesh and blood body can be aware (aka conscious) sans an entity ... indeed it is the altruistic ‘self’-immolation of that entity, in toto, which enables the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent. Concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that which you ask about (further above) also ceases to exist ... as does all gods/goddesses (by whatever name). It is all so clean, clear, and pure, here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Countless spirits in contact with clairvoyants claim to have had a physical body and have died either recently or long past. These spirits seem to be experiencing a life after death. Just the fact that they exist in another frequency and can come in contact with some of us shows life exists beyond the physical world. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you were not asking for a general explanation after all (else why single out clairvoyants from what you asked about at the top of the page)? The first item you asked about is NDE’s (near death experiences) which, along with OBE’s (out of body
experiences), I was asked to explain previously. So I did a little research on the topic. Viz.: I am not about to do any more such research about specifics ... so as to obviate you re-presenting, one-by-one, each and every other one of what you asked about at the top of the page (including the etcetera as well) I will repost the following exchange:
I will say it again for emphasis: it is identity which generates all that which you ask about (further above) ... and concomitant to the total demise of that entity all that also ceases to exist. As do all gods/ goddesses (by whatever name). RESPONDENT: May I ask you something please? After your death, what is the thing that will go in oblivion? RICHARD: Not ‘after’ physical death ... at physical death: when physical death occurs the sense of being here, in space and time, as a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware will cease to exist forever. RESPONDENT: You said that identity went in oblivion while this body is alive. Feelings you don’t have. Self you don’t have and soul (being) you don’t have. So what will go in oblivion? RICHARD: At physical death both pure consciousness (the condition of being innocently conscious) and the unmediated awareness of pure consciousness (the condition of being apperceptively aware of being innocently conscious) will cease to exist ... just as in being anaesthetised, or even each night upon going to sleep, only never coming to or waking up again. RESPONDENT: Your thought and memories? RICHARD: Thought, thoughts and thinking will cease permanently, yes ... and memory will also cease to function. RESPONDENT: You have only factual thoughts. RICHARD: Thought does canvas possibilities when making contingency plans for projected outcomes ... many of which are never needed. RESPONDENT: The body does not die, only transforms. RICHARD: As all matter is perpetual, in that the very stuff of this flesh and blood body is never created nor ever destroyed, the form it is, currently, will break down into its component parts and those parts will be part of other forms. Which is what happens moment-to-moment anyway – a body is constantly shedding skin, hair, and so on – and the glass of water I am drinking now quite possibly passed through the kidneys of a dinosaur (or whatever). RESPONDENT: So in other words is as you are telling that death does not exist. RICHARD: I am not saying anything of the sort ... only an identity dreading its extinction would propose such a fantasy. RESPONDENT: There is nothing left for dying. RICHARD: As physical death is the permanent cessation of the condition of the body being conscious, and the condition of the body being aware of being conscious, you may care to rethink your somewhat misguided conclusion. RESPONDENT: The body is not afraid of death, it lives makes everything possible to survive and when it can’t go on any more it dies without objection. RICHARD: It is the identity within that fears its demise ... which dread of extinction is one of the reasons why it proposes immortality (and proposes that death does not exist for example). The main reason being, of course, the passionate survival imperative genetically endowed by blind nature. RESPONDENT: What will die consciousness? RICHARD: In a word: sentience will die. RESPONDENT: Are you self conscious? RICHARD: This flesh and blood body is aware of being a flesh and blood body being conscious (which is what being self-conscious means). RESPONDENT: How can you be without a self? RICHARD: Sensately ... and I follow the entirely sensible convention of putting smart quotes around the word when referring to the entity within: if you wish to pretend ignorance of this convention then that is your business. * RESPONDENT: ... this means that now you are in another state, because you are alive. RICHARD: No, because to say ‘another’ state is to imply that physical death is also a state to exist in when it is not. RESPONDENT: How you arrived in such conclusion if not through logic and the scientific knowledge of today’s? RICHARD: It is quite simple: when the identity in toto went into blessed oblivion, whilst this flesh and blood body was still alive, it was, and is, patently obvious that with no identity in situ there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. In other words, physical death is the end, finish ... and this obviousness is because of direct experience, observation, and native intelligence (what is called ‘commonsense’ in the real-world) operating without being crippled by either the instinctual passions or the ‘self’ (by whatever name) they automatically form themselves into. Neither ‘scientific knowledge’ is required (I only provide complementary scientific discoveries so nobody has to take my word for something) nor ‘logic’ (I only provide reasoned responses to complement my report for people who cannot think for themselves) ... it is all experiential. As any pure consciousness experience (PCE) will verify. RESPONDENT: All this is speculation and implies belief. RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is all experiential (direct experience, observation, and a freed intelligence). RESPONDENT: Had you died to know? RICHARD: The identity within died in toto and, as a consequence, it is patently obvious there be nothing whatsoever to survive physical death. As physical death is the end, finish, if one does not find out whilst one is alive one never will. * RESPONDENT: And to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti ... RICHARD: I have read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection as well ... and ‘belief’ is the operative word for, despite your ‘to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti’ claim he never denied after-death states – both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it) – because, just as he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, a god or a truth and denounced all such idealising as being a hindrance to realisation (including the god he had discovered, recognised, and realised), he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, an after-life and dismissed all such idealising as being irrelevant to true religiousness (including the after-life he was convinced he held a one-way ticket to). In other words: his ‘Teaching’ was that if it were not a living reality for the person concerned all things esoteric had no existence for them. RESPONDENT: I think is enough I could copy and paste hundred more. RICHARD: It is indeed enough because, if you were to provide more of the same, you would get no other response from me than more of the above as eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward ... and not about peace-on-earth. ‘Tis amazing what lengths peoples will go to rather than be happy and harmless.
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON LIFE AFTER DEATH (Part Two) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 |
