|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On the Altered State of Consciousness aka Enlightenment
RICHARD: (...) Put succinctly: an enlightened/ awakened/ transformed identity is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I ... RICHARD: As you are on record as stating there is no difference between an altered state of consciousness (ASC) and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not at all surprising. Viz.:
Which could be why you snipped-off that which was being put succinctly. Viz.:
But, then again, it could also be because you say you have never understood the distinction between ego-self/ the thinker and spirit-self/ the feeler (aka soul-self). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: ... [As I suspected, you are using the term ‘enlightenment’ in a much different fashion than I], Buddha, Huang Po, Wei Wu Wei, et al. RICHARD: As Mr. Terence Gray, who published his scholarly works under the pseudonym ‘Wei Wu Wei’, was not free of the ego-self (aka ‘the thinker’) then his usage of such terminology is also quite rightly suspect. RESPONDENT: They stipulate unequivocally that there is no identity to become enlightened. RICHARD: Nowhere in the Pali Canon does Mr. Gotama the Sakyan deny the existence of self: what he expressly states is that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Viz.:
As for Mr. Huang-po ... here is what he had to say (from a translation found in Mr. Stephen Mitchell’s ‘The Enlightened Mind – An Anthology of Sacred Prose’, Harper Perennial, 1991):
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you mean that the identity is extant ‘after’ enlightenment? RICHARD: Aye, the spirit-self (aka ‘the feeler’) must also cease to exist in order for the flesh and blood body to be actually free from the human condition. RESPONDENT: No argument there ... first there is a mountain etc. RICHARD: What you are referring to is from a discourse attributed to Mr. Ch’ing yuan Wei-hsin. Viz.:
He then goes on to ask:
Here is a clue: the second understanding is per favour the comprehension of buddhistic emptiness (that
phenomenal existence is void of self). RESPONDENT: Richard, I would like to ask you a few questions concerning both ‘Richard’ and your former ‘Self’. I haven’t read any satisfactory description of how your Self looked like so I thought your email response might be of help. RICHARD: Hmm ... in what way is a description of ‘The Absolute’ presenting itself as being feminine – a Radiant Being initially seen to be Pure Love and eventually seen to be Pure Evil as well – not a satisfactory description? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You said it’s the same at root, but a better description is always welcomed (you’re an artist after all), so how does it looked like ‘above the ground’? RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Viz.:
As ‘nothing else existed’ there was no ground for it to be above – no planet earth, no star sun, no universe at all – as all there was was The Absolute. RESPONDENT: To be more precise, I’m interested what ‘whirled’ above the earth in your case as you speak very clearly about the roots (aka instinctual passions) yet not a single word about how You were, in contrast to your description of Richard. RICHARD: And in what way does the following rate as being ‘not a single word’ about how I was then in contrast to how I actually have been all along? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: As an example, is the description ‘a very old child’ valid in your case? RICHARD: No, the description ‘there is nothing other than The Absolute’ is what is valid in my case. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If you can provide a brief description for your particular Self image, so as to compare notes, I would be pleased to read it. RICHARD: Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed. RESPONDENT: Or is it indescribable? RICHARD: No, it is easily described: there was nothing other than The Absolute. * RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you. RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange:
Do you not see that I am responding to what is called a tacit agreement (an unspoken yet implicit assumption that the other also takes what one considers to be necessarily true to be necessarily true as well)? So as to break the stranglehold of this tacit assumption I went on to provide two examples of how human intelligence exceeded the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state:
In the next e-mail I reminded you of what I had asked for:
Plus, after some discussion regarding the impressionable nature of a god’s sapience, I expanded upon what I had said in the previous e-mail:
Only to receive this reply:
To which I responded:
Only to receive this reply:
Shall I put it this way? Any time I have asked others – be they either self-realised people, scriptural experts, or lay-persons – for examples which would demonstrate what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses/ exceeds human intelligence I have similarly drawn a blank ... and for a very good reason. To wit: it does not surpass human intelligence at all. Indeed, upon closer examination, it is remarkably unintelligent – to the point of being downright ignorant (ignorance such as advocating pacifism, for example, which would enable the bully boys and feisty femmes to, not only rule the world, but propagate/perpetuate their kind unto future generations per favour the dutiful martyrdom of those seeking instant release into the hereafter of their choice) – and outstandingly unliveable into the bargain, as are all edicts handed done by bodiless entities, inasmuch as the word ‘dissociation’ would better describe what is ‘extraordinary’ about the enlightened state ... which unintelligence was my whole point of asking you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind. In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion. So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence? I look forward to your considered response. RESPONDENT: You said it [the ‘Self’] is the same at root, but a better description is always welcomed (you’re an artist after all), so how does it looked like ‘above the ground’? RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I invite all of you who have had a Self experience to try describing it. [Richard]: ‘Sure ... there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed. (August 06 2002). As ‘nothing else existed’ there was no ground for it to be above – no planet earth, no star sun, no universe at all – as all there was was The Absolute. RESPONDENT: I used the term ‘above’ in contrast to the word ‘roots’ – the instinctual passions, so as to get a more precise image of the Self instead of the cause of its emergence. RICHARD: Okay then ... as there was only The Absolute (the Self by whatever name) and nothing else existed there were no roots for it to be above – no instinctual passions, no blind nature, nothing physical at all – as all there was was The Absolute. The enlightenment state is a dissociative state ... and to be fully enlightened is to be fully dissociated. RESPONDENT: As for ‘nothing else existed’ – It was like the physical world was permeated by the Absolute presence, It being everything, but I was able to draw a distinction between the senses perception of the world and the Absolute presence in all things. There is a degree of difficulty in understanding your statement ‘nothing else existed’ as in my case at least there was both the Absolute (located primarily above the Earth, more in its atmosphere rather then below the Earth’s crust, an ethereal Being) and this physical world, but looking totally different then my usual experience of it. RICHARD: All of that – the earth’s atmosphere, its crust, its nether regions, its sensate physicality – and everything else was but a dreaming ... a dream to wake others up from, and live out lucidly, until physical ‘death’ (also part of the dreaming) brought it all to an end. None of it was real ... there was only The Absolute and nothing else existed. RESPONDENT: The world of the senses, I then called Nature, was alive and intelligent (a different intelligence then humans currently posses) as it was somehow permeated by the Self. RICHARD: In what way was what you then called ‘Nature’ intelligent (a different intelligence than humans’ intelligence)? Could you provide some examples? What immediately springs to mind, for instance, are the congenital disorders which this ‘different intelligence’ bestows upon sentient beings ... such as spina bifida (a congenital malformation, in which one or more vertebrae fail to close fully over the meninges of the spinal cord, frequently causing lower limb paralysis and hydrocephalus) which human intelligence, through advanced surgical practices and physiotherapy, has been able to somewhat ameliorate and, through the mapping of the human genome, may very well be able to eventually eradicate. Then there are the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) which what you called ‘Nature’ bestows upon sentient beings ... in what way is it differently intelligent to be paralysed by fear, enraged by aggression, overwhelmed by nurture, and inflamed by desire, for instance? It was questions such as these which (amongst other things) enabled an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: Also, it was a different kind of perception and ‘knowledge’, a direct one, no categories or classifications needed (the scientific eye) as you directly knew the substance of any-thing. RICHARD: In the first few years of the enlightenment phase of my freedom the substance of all things was love – love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love – and it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings. And love was unspeakable, love was its own language, love said what was needed to be said, and even to say the words ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was to be saying too much for there was a truth that could never be put into words ... but the truth had to be spoken, nevertheless, hence ‘love is the way; love is the means; love is the end’ was the essence of what was vocalised. This was the deepest feeling possible – an enduring (timeless) passion quite removed from the norm – as an unsurpassable state of being. It was the ultimate, the supreme, the absolute beingness of all beings or being ... it was Being in Itself. The term ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description ... it was an all-consuming State of Being totally overwhelming in all its splendour and glory. For three years, by the calendar, there was only Love – and its Compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings – then Love and its Compassion boarded an airplane and flew to India. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: This is what I would call direct knowledge or esoteric. An enlightened man has no need for books as his knowledge is experiential (a direct understanding of himself and the World). RICHARD: We have discussed this issue before:
Put differently: it is projected human knowledge and not ‘direct knowledge or esoteric’ knowledge at all. (...) * RESPONDENT: And concerning that feminine radiant being, there is a point I don’t understand. The Absolute is The Self, agree? RICHARD: Both words refer to the same thing, yes. RESPONDENT: The Self I’ve experienced belonged to an actual flesh-and-blood human being, more precisely my ex-girlfriend. The radiant feminine being you’ve experienced when the Absolute changed its face so-to-speak, was the Self of an actual flesh-and-blood human being or not? RICHARD: No, it was not the Self of anyone in particular – it was Love itself personified as a (metaphysical) feminine form – and, as I said earlier, its femininity I would nowadays consider to be a product of me being of masculine gender ... if I were to have been of feminine gender then Love itself may very well have been personified as a (metaphysical) masculine form. It really makes no difference ... behind all manifestations The Absolute was genderless. RESPONDENT: Prior to changing its form, was It the Grand version of Richard, being somehow very different but in fact resembling you-as-Richard? RICHARD: No, it was universal (impersonal). RESPONDENT: I’m aware of the possibility that the Self I’ve experienced could have very suddenly changed ‘form’ and become my Self, as it would have been more ‘normal’, that is an image representing the Grand version of me, instead of my-ex-girlfriend. RICHARD: We have had this discussion before:
You appear to be confusing the form the Self takes on/manifests as with the Self itself (which is genderless). RESPONDENT: I understand that when the Grand version of Richard (that is a male-God) changed form into that of a female-god (Goddess) it was high-time for you to become suspicious about the nature of this process. RICHARD: No, that is when the questions I had about Love Agapé (and its Divine Compassion) were experientially answered ... I had known from the very beginning, from the very moment of enlightenment, that The Absolute was behind all gods and goddesses (behind all manifestations). I had become suss about love and compassion before I went to India – indeed it was one of the the main reasons I went there – and the event under discussion was the direct outcome of an intensity of purpose arising out of being driven by some ‘energy’ for six years to spread ‘The Word’ (by whatever name) ... and that had never been my intention when I first had a pure consciousness experience (PCE). That peak experience initiated my incursion into all matters metaphysical, culminating in the ‘death’ of ego and catapulting me into the sacred ... imbuing me with/immersing me in love and compassion and beauty and truth. My original intent had been to cleanse myself of all that is detrimental to personal happiness and interpersonal harmony ... in other words: peace on earth in our life-time. Instead of that rather simple ambition, I found that I was impelled on an odyssey to be the latest ‘Saviour of Humankind’ in a long list of enlightened ‘Beings’ ... and that imposition did not sit well with me as they had all failed with their ‘Teachings’. After something like five thousand years of recorded history humankind was nowhere nearer to peace and harmony than before. Indeed, because of the much-touted love and compassion, much hatred and bloodshed had followed in their wake. That abysmal fate was something I wished to avoid repeating, whatever the personal cost in terms of losing the much-prized state of ‘Being’. My diagnosis back then, which enabled me to be apparent today, was simple: If I am driven by some ‘energy’ – no matter how ‘good’ that ‘energy’ be – then I am not actually free. RESPONDENT: You cannot be a goddess, right? RICHARD: Wrong ... being The Absolute (there was only The Absolute and nothing else existed) I could manifest in/as whatever form I liked. RESPONDENT: And then, who are you? RICHARD: Put simply: I was looking at Myself (as in Self seeing Self). RESPONDENT: This was the question raised in my mind (although in the background) when living spiritual enlightenment, the question ‘who is watching whom’? when there was no me left, but only the presence of an unimaginable beautiful Goddess. RICHARD: Okay ... and did you ever find out who you were? RESPONDENT: Or is it that the Self, being a part of the Collective Unconscious can form itself in the image of anyone alive/dead on this planet? RICHARD: That is one way of putting it (à la Mr. Carl Jung), yes ... but it is nowhere near as grandiose as Me being Me in whatever form One choses. * RESPONDENT: As for the ‘extraordinary intelligence proof’, it is better to ask a spiritual teacher, for I cannot answer this question nor I can recommend one to you. RICHARD: But I do not require any ‘proof’ as, having lived it night and day for eleven years, I have intimate knowledge of what you took for granted to be the ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ of the enlightened state ... which is why I specifically asked you (a) in what way does it far surpass human intelligence ... and (b) some examples of this pre-eminence. Here is the initial exchange: [snipped for space]. In other words, I was asking these questions so as to have you think for yourself – as it was you that said that the enlightened state has ‘extraordinary Intelligence’ which is ‘far surpassing’ any human intelligence and not me – yet instead you would rather have me go trotting around the guru circuit, enquiring of massively deluded people for ‘proof’ of what I already know, rather than face up to the implications and ramifications of what this all means ... and not only what it means for you but for all humankind. In short: there is a vital opportunity here for a momentum towards the ultimate altruistic act to be set in motion. So here is the $64,000 question again (slightly revised this time around): is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ intelligent or not ... let alone being an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence? RESPONDENT: Ha, when faced with this question I would prefer to be enlightened, but due to my present ‘comfortably numb’ condition I cannot answer it. I suppose the best example is the best answer and proof, in this case a person who is enjoying such a condition, not the self-realised and various pseudo-gurus but a genuine enlightened man (I cannot recommend one to you as I know no-one alive). RICHARD: If I may point out? We have been around this particular mulberry bush before:
All you have done this second time around is add the codicil that you know of no such person alive ... which pushes any examination of your claim about [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpassing human intelligence off into the never-never land. You do seem to be having some difficulty in substantiating your claim. RESPONDENT: I also cannot see the reason why your discovery wouldn’t be of great interest to such a person, it would have been for me. Yet, the more I think about it, the more *impossible* it seems that you actually exited the Enlightened state on your own accord ... RICHARD: What do you mean by this? As I have already made it quite clear that I probably could not have done it on my own, and that if it had not have been for my previous companion I would most likely still be living the massive delusion popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, you seem to be implying something other than that. RESPONDENT: ... maybe those that are enlightened at present know not a thing that there is a different (and supposedly better) world then the Divine realm. RICHARD: Everybody I have spoken to at length – everybody – can recall a pure consciousness experience (PCE) at some stage in their life ... why would they be the exception? RESPONDENT: The guru championship might reveal that there are interested individuals not only in sex, fame and fortune. Would it not be a possible-thing-to-happen for them to actually contemplate the possibility for an actual world, as this is their main activity anyway? RICHARD: If I may point out? Their ‘main activity’ is securing their post-mortem reward in an undisputedly non-actual world ... a one-way ticket to the after-death abode of their choice. RESPONDENT: Seems *impossible* because in my case the whole process of plunging into the Abyss lasted less then 10 seconds, being such an extraordinary event compared to my everyday existence, still echoing 6 years after it happened (although I don’t remember it – it’s like never happened). I’m still impressed even today, yet without the various side-effects. RICHARD: Am I to take it that the reason why it seems impossible I actually exited the enlightened state on my own accord is because, even though you only spent 10 seconds in the abyss, you are still impressed today? If so, and given that self-realised peoples are so impressed as to not exit self-realisation of their own accord, the more you think of it what do you think aided me, then? Just curious. RESPONDENT: But for those with higher rankings, skill and time spent within the Divine field would be much easier to comprehend (not being so fascinated). RICHARD: Au contraire ... ‘those with higher rankings’ are so fascinated as to be totally fascinated (narcissism, with no ego to hold it in check, can be all-absorbing). RESPONDENT: All in one, ‘97 was a very interesting year for some people, no? RICHARD: Not as interesting as ’92 ... for that was when all the spirit-ridden ‘ancient wisdom’ of the bronze-age peoples came to an end in a person intent on leaving both a well-written and a well-spoken legacy – if not a living one – for future generations. For no doubt the rear-guard action will go on into an indeterminate future. * RESPONDENT: What I can remember is that when enlightened I was more intelligent then in my normal condition ... RICHARD: Okay ... can you say (a) in what way you were more intelligent than your normal condition ... and (b) provide some examples of being more intelligent than your normal condition? I only ask because this is all I have to go on up until now:
What you have provided, so far, is an example of your intelligence being overwhelmed by the intensity of the orgasmic-like experience (to the point that the impact of the ‘highly possible logical intelligent outcome’ was rendered irrelevant by that Self’s presence) ... and that the Self did not/could not ask such a ‘logical intelligent’ question as it had no relevance to the Self. Yet somehow that has left you being still impressed that there was an intelligence surpassing human intelligence. RESPONDENT: ... it was like having access to the whole comprised knowledge of Being, RICHARD: Aye, that is not being questioned ... the question is whether ‘the whole comprised knowledge of Being’ is indeed an intelligence which far surpasses human intelligence and, moreover, whether it is an intelligence at all. RESPONDENT: I was feeling a much normal ‘person’ with normal reactions, free and able to enjoy life with no neurotic like symptoms. It would be better for descriptive purposes to change the term ‘person’ with ‘machine’, as this was how I viewed my body and its brain products, a stimulus-response machine (with no negative meaning attached to this word). RICHARD: It is one thing to be feeling free and able to enjoy life without neurotic-like symptoms, whilst psychotic-like symptoms prevail (disidentification from a now-seen-to-be mechanical body/brain due to identification with a non-physical being), and another thing to classify this shift of identity from the physical to the non-physical as being more intelligent than normal ... let alone being an intelligence far surpassing human intelligence. Put succinctly: the feeling of being more intelligent has nothing to do with actually being more intelligent
... a feeling is not a fact. * RESPONDENT: ... the confusion arrises that not the Universe is infinite but that I am, or that I’m the one immortal, not the Universe, etc. I haven’t heard enlightened people say a word about the infinity of this Universe, but instead the same old spiritual refrain: Me, Me and Me. RICHARD: The ‘Me, Me and Me’ refrain is narcissism (‘self’-admiration, ‘self’-love, ‘self’-conceit) writ large and in such a blatant way that it is a wonder the many and varied saints, sages, and seers have got way with it for so long ... ‘self’-aggrandisement, being for the benefit of the immortal soul, is an extreme act of selfism. RESPONDENT: Including you for 11 years. RICHARD: Aye ... which is not only how I know what I am speaking of but why I wrote the following in my very next paragraph (now snipped):
Even though you had phrased your speculation generally I answered personally (rather than speculate about some un-named and un-referenced 4th way/ Sufi teachers) as I already know what the way was to delete the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Consciousness’ which arose out of an extreme act of selfism for the benefit of the immortal soul. * RICHARD: What I find to be of interest here is that now you say that you have not heard enlightened people saying a word about the infinitude of this universe despite stating (further above) that there are hints about achieving an actual freedom from the human condition in the 4th way system and/or esoteric Sufi teachings ... are there no hints about the properties of this universe also in those writings? RESPONDENT: Yes, there are but they are viewed and conveyed from an ‘objective’ point of view, (that is experienced through the Absolute eyes and translated in ordinary language, my opinion) although it is stated that they are scientific facts yet to be discovered. RICHARD: For the sake of clarity in communication: are you suggesting that these people experiencing
the universe through ‘Absolute eyes’ have discerned the infinitude of this universe ... have discerned that it exists
infinitely, eternally, and perpetually (which means it is not a creation)? RESPONDENT: As for ‘Divine Compassion’, I’ve encountered a madman poorly dressed, and as it seemed I’ve had some magnetic properties (people being driven towards me), he came towards me only to look at him, equally peaceful and registering just this body reaction: wonder at the fact that there was no judgement, pity or desire to help (do something to him). It seems there were no positive/negative qualities to be overlaid on the world. RICHARD: First, if ‘madman’ and ‘poorly dressed’ and ‘equally peaceful’ are not judgements I would like to know what are. Second, of course there was no pity ... in enlightenment, just as the feeling of love has transformed itself into a state of being called Love Agapé (or some-such name), so too has the feeling of pity become a state of being called Divine Compassion (or some-such name) ... which is radiated to all and sundry. Third, no desire to help is required as the Divine Compassion itself is the very help needed ... as evidenced by its magnetic property (people being drawn or driven to the enlightened one) whereupon being bathed in their radiant ‘presence’ is (supposedly) the cure for all the ills of humankind. Lastly, as ‘positive/negative qualities’ are determined by judgement then any denial of judgement creates the illusion that such qualities are not being overlaid on the world. RESPONDENT: You don’t speak much about the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State and its Benevolence, far surpassing any human intelligence or wisdom, as I’m still in doubt about those ‘feet of clay’, I had all the practical skills very much in place. RICHARD: The expression ‘feet of clay’ In what way does the ‘extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State and its Benevolence’ far surpass human intelligence? Can you provide some examples? What immediately leaps to mind is human intelligence sussing out that the earth is neither flat nor at the centre of everything ... one can search through all the scriptures, of the enlightened ones over the last 3,000-5,000 years, for any reference to such basic information to no avail. What I recall, during an ASC very early in the piece, is the impression of being all-knowing (omniscient) ... yet even then I could readily acknowledge that I did not know how to read, write, or understand any other language than the English language. For a documented instance of this: Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju (aka Sai Baba), a currently living example of being considered a god-on-earth by tens of thousands of people, required the head of one of his ashrams in the USA to submit daily reports of all that went on. This man – a devout follower – sincerely wondered why this was necessary ... seeing that Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju was omniscient and would already know every detail of what occurred in the ashram. So he wrote a letter humbly asking clarification ... Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju replied that he was checking on the disciple’s ability to record the events accurately. Another example is Mr. Mervin Irani (aka Meher Baba) – another god-on-earth for many people – who was asked by a puzzled devotee one day as to why he was reading a newspaper. Another – more wily disciple – went and listened to the overseas weather report and came back to the feet of the master and asked him whether it was raining in New York. I particularly mention this because of the following:
If Mr. Mervin Irani (aka Meher Baba) and Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju had lived more than five hundred/one thousand years ago they would have been ‘flat earth’ god-men ... but because of human advances in knowledge they were able to know that the earth is an oblate spheroid circling the sun. It is all to do with the human knowledge of the material universe current to the era one is born in ... and has nothing to do with fantastical notions of having ‘Absolute knowledge of Every thing’ at all. Nobody but nobody is omniscient ... it is this simple. RESPONDENT: Is this the Intelligence of the species? – as I’ve compared this big ‘I’ in a poem (it seems that an experience like that upgrades your artistic expression – a proof perhaps for its affective starting point, agree?) with a matrix, a printing press for the human race. RICHARD: The cognitive capacity to understand and comprehend (as in intellect and sagacity) which is the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial purposes (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations) – which other animals cannot do – is intelligence in operation. The affective feelings – emotions and passions and calentures – are non-cognitive instinctually reactive survival feelings at root and, no matter how refined and cultivated the feelings may be honed to, are not intelligence in operation ... and neither is the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility. * RESPONDENT: As for asking myself the same question as you did ‘what/who’s looking at whom’ stuff, it’s very understandable as there I was, with no No 25 left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self, conditions were as such that a highly possible logical intelligent outcome resulted: ‘what am I’? as it’s clear I was no Goddess, ha? RICHARD: Behind all gods and goddesses lies the genderless Absolute ... which can manifest in or as whatever form it likes. RESPONDENT: But the impact and relevance of it was like thinking why the albatross wings are two meters instead of four when having an intense orgasm. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘nuff said about how (supposedly) all-surpassing the ‘big-‘I’ Intelligence of the species’ is then, eh? * RESPONDENT: As for ‘ASC-PCE?’, the state I’ve experienced back then had had in my view the same properties as the PCE, the same fairy-tale magic, things being covered with sparkling silver, continuously living in the split-of-a-second, etc. But I guess you’re more entitled to speak about it as 3 hours can hardly be compared with 11 years. RICHARD: As well as that there is a vast body of mystical literature which gives many, many descriptions of the ASC (and the enlightened state itself) which, despite your earlier rewrite of your enlightenment experience, and your recent redefinition of love, speak unambiguously about love not only being one of the key features but affective into the bargain. For example:
In other words, spiritual/sacred love is human love transformed into a state of being called Love Agapé (or some-such name). Also, there is no Divine Compassion in a PCE (hence no magnetic properties to draw people to one) thus one can pass unnoticed in the world – a definite plus if there ever was – and judgement operates very well indeed as whatever qualities are apparent are easily recognised for what they are (arising out of properties) so that actual values easily ensue. Plus the delusion of omniscience (the impression of having absolute knowledge of everything) does not arise in a PCE. Incidentally, there are no ‘things being covered with sparkling silver’ here in this actual world and, as there is only ever this moment, it is eternal ... hence no ‘continuously living in the split-of-a-second’. RESPONDENT: It is also the fact that after it ended no memory of it remained (no possible representation or residual taste), just a feeling of peace and perfection for the following days. Yes, and the Vortex, resembling a tornado ... swirling above and around. Who let the dogs out? RICHARD: As the Self is the Vortex that is easily answered, non? RESPONDENT: Is it that the instincts can escape our psychical body ... RICHARD: No, the ‘psychical body’ is a product of the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility ... the psyche, and all its other-worldly adumbrations, is the instinctual passions in action. RESPONDENT: ... or is it this greater reality created, the last stand? RICHARD: Ha ... the ‘last stand’ has been lasting, at the very least, over 3,000-5,000 years of recorded history. RESPONDENT: And the same definite sensation: people are cut off from the felicitous World (these ideas are taken directly from the 2 poems I’ve wrote in order not to mix with what I’ve learned in the meantime). I’ve contemplated lately what would have happened if that big I vanished ... it would probably would have been the same. RICHARD: No, not the same ... without ‘the big I’ it would have been a PCE. * RESPONDENT: There is so much to talk about, for instance why when I’m interested in something I find that thing? Your email list is no exception. For instance I was thinking how many people are subscribed to this discussion list and a day later a response arrived. RICHARD: What generally happens with intuitive/psychic events is that people conveniently forget all the times when whatever it was they had prescience, precognition, or a premonition about did not occur. When tested properly it usually works out at about 50-50 ... the same as guessing. RESPONDENT: I appreciate your sense of humour (...) may we have more of it? RICHARD: There is so much about life which is irrepressibly comical there is bound to be more. RESPONDENT: And alcohol is indeed a bad choice, as you’re feeling quite nasty afterwards. RICHARD: True ... although it is a blessed relief to be rid of the need for any mood-enhancing or mind-altering substances. RESPONDENT: And a few words about me ... I’m a young adult, 26 years of age, single, male, quite sane, living in Eastern Europe, with an above the average IQ, a normal personality, earning an above the average income, quite happy with my life as-it-is, yet I know that much more is possible. RICHARD: Much, much more ... here in this actual world lies the pristine perfection of the peerless purity that the infinitude of this material universe actually is. RESPONDENT: Only when 20 years old, this life came so close to never happen. RICHARD: Now that the third alternative (to either materialism or spiritualism) is available there is the distinct possibility that more than a few people will similarly escape such a fate. The days of nonsense passing for sagacity are numbered. RESPONDENT: Here is my understanding at this point ... I previously knew that the fourth state of consciousness (enlightenment, samadhi, nirvana or whatever) is added to the third state (awakening, satori), only with the difference that the last one needed to be surpassed as this was considered an ‘evolution’. RICHARD: As I am not familiar with the ‘fourth way’ nomenclature of Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Petyr Ouspensky I can only say that what is generally known in Hinduism as ‘Turiya’, or the ‘Fourth State’, is the same state of being as the altered state of consciousness (ASC) popularly known as spiritual enlightenment (in Vedic terms ‘jagrat’ or ‘vaishvanara’ [wakefulness] is the first state; ‘svapna’ or ‘taijasa’ [dreaming] is the second state; and ‘sushupti’ [deep sleep] is the third state). Furthermore, there are about as many gradations and categories of enlightenment as there are schools of thought in spiritual philosophy ... so as to keep it simple it is convenient to say there are those who are self-realised (illuminated or awakened) and those who are fully enlightened. There can be temporary experiences of the enlightened state ... these are generally referred to, for example, as a satori experience, or kenso, in Japan (wu in Chinese) or entering into samadhi (India). RESPONDENT: Your experience is that enlightenment is a degeneration of the third state of consciousness (PCE), am I correct? RICHARD: No, and a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is not ‘the third state of consciousness’ anyway ... here is how you detailed the four states of the ‘fourth way’ system of spiritual philosophy of Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Petyr Ouspensky:
As you describe ‘the third state of consciousness’ as being an awakened state wherein one ‘possesses a molecular body, that is a soul’ it simply does not equate with a PCE as a PCE only happens when the psychological/psychic identity within (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) goes into abeyance: a PCE is a temporary experience of an actual freedom from the human condition ... it is a flesh and blood body only (sans both ego-self and soul-self/spirit-self) being apperceptively aware. Put succinctly: a PCE is not an ASC. RESPONDENT: I suspect that this enlightenment state of consciousness is layered on top of the PCE ... RICHARD: Perhaps it would help to explain that the PCE can devolve into an ASC, such as a satori/samadhi experience, when the psychic identity (‘me’ as soul) comes sweeping back and claims the experience for its own ... thus grandiosely usurping the infinitude of the universe. RESPONDENT: ... as I cannot find a more plausible explanation for the fact that the world had had the same magical qualities, was a perfect place to live in and that some senses were very accurate (I was having a wider field of vision somehow different from the usual ‘window sight’, I was hearing all the noises of the moment, as for the other senses I don’t remember). RICHARD: This is the way I have explained my usage of the word ‘magical’:
Whereas you say that the physical world is not just here right now of its own accord, without any cause, but that everything has begun out of the Self (aka Creator):
The enlightened state of consciousness is in no way ‘layered on top of the PCE’ ... just as an actual freedom from the human condition is beyond enlightenment so too is a PCE beyond any ASC. RESPONDENT: The ‘sparkling silver’ sensation (it was like thin silver powder filled the air) combined with something resembling Music (the effect of various vibrations I suppose) may very well belong to the realm of ASC. RICHARD: No matter what realm it belongs to it has no existence whatsoever here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: Yet, immediately after this state ended I had dinner and I remember how extraordinary delicious the taste of food was: it’s still the best meal I have ever had in my life. RICHARD: It is quite common to have heightened sensory perception in an ASC (provided it be an extroversive ASC as contrasted to an introversive ASC): the nature mystics have written extensively about such experience: http://www.jnani.org/natmyst/natmyst_set.html However, the introversive ASC is generally held to be both superior and more significant as it is exemplified by (a) the disappearance of all the physical and mental objects of ordinary consciousness and, in their place, the emergence of a unitary and undifferentiated consciousness and thus (b) the event is non-temporal (timeless), non-spatial (spaceless), and non-material (formless). Mr. Robert Forman, on page 131 of the ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies 5 1998b’, (in a paper called ‘What Does Mysticism Have To Teach Us About Consciousness?’), described the introversive ASC as a pure consciousness *event* so as to emphasise the absence of any experienced object – it is pure subjectivity in other words – which is also why such terminology as ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ is used to describe the totally senseless and thoughtless trance state known as ‘dhyana’ in Sanskrit (Hinduism) and as ‘jhana’ in Pali (Buddhism). In the West such a state can only be described as catalepsy A never-ending ‘dhyana’ or ‘jhana’ would result in the body wasting away until its inevitable physical death ... as a means of obtaining peace-on-earth it is completely useless. * RESPONDENT: I do remember another experience I would put the PCE stamp on it; when sitting on a bench in the park with a female companion and looking at the moon through the branches of the trees, I was feeling a perfect man in a perfect world, with no desire to change it for anything else ... she asked me what I was thinking, I ashamedly said ‘nothing’, she replied that that was a genius’s characteristic. We both laughed ... RICHARD: One of the distinguishing characteristics of the PCE, other than the abeyance of identity in toto of course, is the absence of the affective feelings. RESPONDENT: The question arises: is what you are living ‘24 hours a day/7 days a week’ that which is called in the eastern tradition Satori (third state of consciousness) or is Parinirvana? RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is beyond any state of being, by any description, as ‘being’ itself has become extinct ... the expression ‘an altered state of consciousness’ is but another way of saying an altered state of being (wherein ‘being’ has transformed into ‘Being’). RESPONDENT: The only difference I can see right now between these two is that in Satori (third state of consciousness, temporarily no ego being present, PCE) the instinctual program is still there, only temporary suspended at that particular instance. RICHARD: The difference is that the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is in abeyance in a PCE ... whereas in a ASC only one half of the identity (‘I’ as ego) is not present. RESPONDENT: As for Parinirvana, a state believed to be beyond Enlightenment, this instinctual program is deleted forever together with the affective faculty and its subsequent passions (which are fuelled by the instincts themselves). RICHARD: As ‘Parinirvana’ (the Buddhist equivalent of the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’) is what happens at physical death it is an of course that the instinctual passions cease to exist when the body dies. RESPONDENT: As a consequence of this deleting no Enlightenment was possible to continue in your case as the enlightened state is fuelled by the affective which in turn is fuelled by the instinctual passions, so the notion emerges that ‘the Diabolical (instinctual passions) underpins the Divine (the affective faculty and its refined and transcended positive functions – Love, Compassion, Understanding)’. RICHARD: It was not a ‘notion’ that the diabolical underpins the divine ... it was an experiential reality (later backed-up by mystical texts as previously quoted). Furthermore, the instinctual passions – passions such as fear and aggression (the savage side) and nurture and desire (the tender side) – do not just give rise to the diabolical but give rise to the divine as well. The affective faculty is the instinctual passions ... no matter how refined and cultivated the passions may be honed to they are still instinctual at root. RESPONDENT: I had the distinct sensation that this I is the Intelligence of the species, our Creator, the Master behind the curtains, the One who holds in His hand the wires that make us humans – the way we are and behave, that is, the Essence of what it is to be a human being, the printing press as it were. That’s why I asked you if this was the last stand for the instincts, in the psychic realm. RICHARD: Ha ... with all those grandiose titles it smacks of grandstanding. RESPONDENT: It seems from what you’re saying that God is only the Devil in disguise, as well as Love and Compassion and all the positive feelings. RICHARD: Not ‘only’ ... both the divine and the diabolical spring from the same rootstock (hence the expression ‘there is a saint in every sinner and a sinner in every saint’). It is well-known in mystical literature that the polar opposites continue to exist (as complimentary poles) in enlightenment. Indeed, one of the appellations used to describe the integration of the divine/diabolical divide upon transcendence, wherein the opposites unite without ceasing to be themselves, is the phrase ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ (coincidence of opposites). I have written to you about this before:
Somehow in all this you do seem to be missing the most salient point ... to wit: ‘being’ itself (aka ‘presence’ or ‘spirit’ or ‘soul’) which the instinctual passions, both the tender side and the savage side, automatically form themselves into. And, no matter how refined and cultivated these tender and savage passions may be honed to, ‘being’ is still extant and is still being both nice and nasty ... albeit on a grandiose scale (divine and diabolical). In short: both the positive feelings and the negative feelings are what ‘being’ is. RESPONDENT: I must say it’s an enlightened experience ;-). RICHARD: It surely is. * RESPONDENT: When I wrote about knowing Everything I was not referring to events (raining in New York), pieces of information (Icelandic language) or facts (the Earth is round rather then flat). I was referring (and you know that very well) to the matter from which everything is made ... RICHARD: No, I did not know that was what you were referring to – let alone ‘very well’ – as I was only going by the words you wrote and you specifically said that, as well as knowing the inner substance of all things directly, another thing was that there is nothing more to know and that you had absolute knowledge of everything. Viz.:
Yet upon examination it turns out that all you know is, supposedly, what the essence is out of which everything is made of (more on this below). What I found over the years, both intimately and by dialogue, is that the enlightened state does not bear close scrutiny ... it can collapse like a house of cards, in fact, if a seminal question be sincerely asked. After all ... it is but a massive delusion replete with hallucinatory visions. RESPONDENT: Being the world around you enables you to Know the Essence (cells, atoms, molecules, electrons) out of which things are made (a tree, water, stone, people, animal). RICHARD: The whole point of what I wrote in that section of the e-mail (‘if Mr. Mervin Irani (aka Meher Baba) and Mr. Sathyanarayana Raju had lived more than five hundred/one thousand years ago they would have been ‘flat earth’ god-men but because of human advances in knowledge they were able to know that the earth is an oblate spheroid circling the sun’) is encapsulated in your above sentence: if you had lived more than 500 years ago you would not be able to ‘Know the Essence’ as being ‘(cells, atoms, molecules, electrons)’, as those mathematical models are very recent (molecules in 1662 CE by Mr. Robert Boyle; cells in 1665 CE by Mr. Robert Hooke; atoms in 1808 CE by Mr. John Dalton; electrons in 1897 CE by Mr. J. J. Thompson). In other words: it is projected human knowledge and not revelation RESPONDENT: You are the Light which permeates everything (that’s where the term Enlightenment comes from anyhow), so from this you get the impression that you are omniscient. RICHARD: As the ‘Light which permeates everything’ is the Self (what you have earlier described as a Being made of Light, a God) what you are saying, in effect, is that a God has the impression of being omniscient ... yet does not know ‘events (raining in New York), pieces of information (Icelandic language) or facts (the Earth is round rather then flat)’. Just what manner of a God is it that has mistaken impressions about its sapience? And perhaps this is an apt moment to make the observation that nowhere in this e-mail have you provided any examples as to what way [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] far surpasses human intelligence. These are the kind of questions which enabled peace-on-earth all those years ago. RESPONDENT: Out of this results that much praised and humble statement ‘*i* [emphasis added] know nothing’ or ‘the One who knows does not speak’ as the Knowledge you get there is very different from the knowledge of the intellectual brain (concepts, abstract thoughts, pieces of information) so it cannot be communicated to the later. RICHARD: The difficulty that the discursive intellect has in grasping mystical knowledge is the difficulty of holding two opposite and thus conflicting concepts at the same time: for instance, on the one hand you say there is nothing more to know (omniscience) and on the other hand you say you know nothing (nescience). It is generally held that this is because illation/inference is ratiocinative (characterised by or given to the action or process of reasoning) and that divination/revelation is intuitive (known or apprehended immediately and fully without reasoning). On closer examination, however, it is because mystical knowledge is bunkum ... a load of bosh. RESPONDENT: To give a suitable comparison, intellectual brain trying towards finding the Answer, Riddle of Existence (and all the Science and its various disciplines – astronomy, physics, chemistry, etc.) are just a dead end, just like looking for light in a dark room, that is ... a futile undertaking. RICHARD: Whilst it is true that the ‘riddle of existence’ (or the ‘meaning of life’ or the ‘purpose of the universe’ or whatever the human quest may be called) is not to be found intellectually it is equally true that it is not to be found psychically (an epiphenomenal facility of the affective faculty) either. It is to be found perceptually, here in this actual world, the world of the senses. RESPONDENT: A difficult task I was faced back then was to try to convey that experience of consciousness in words, and it was almost impossible as there were no words suitable enough in my cultural upbringing (apart from God, Love, Light), I suppose I’ve made some progress since then ... with all the eastern literature. RICHARD: Oh, you are conveying it well enough ... but, then again, as I know the enlightened state intimately just about any description will do (provided it is extensive enough). * RESPONDENT: As for eastern philosophy and its teachings, they amount to nothing more in my view than emptying an empty dark pot in another empty dark pot, another futile action to undertake. What can result from the intersection of the two (West vs. East, science vs. philosophy, belief vs. representation) is nothing but a battle between non-existent entities. That is not to discard all the scientific break-throughs as being futile, not at all, they can very much make our living here much more pleasant, safe and enjoyable apart from providing to our brains more accurate representations of the world we live in – as a guiding system), but when dealing with Life, the Answer can only be individual, an experiential living one for each person, and can only be brought by consciousness. RICHARD: Or, more correctly, can only be brought by the identity within ceasing to stand in the way of the meaning of life being apparent ... the answer to the riddle of existence is already here just as it always has been and always will be. It is out in the open, plain to view, never hidden. RESPONDENT: And yes, this ‘big I’ is very intelligent, for we are the most successful animal ever to wander the Earth, are we not? ... it’s how I remember it anyhow. RICHARD: As the ‘big I’ you are referring to was [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote] in your previous e-mail, which you earlier poetically compared with a matrix, a printing press for the human race, whilst asking if it was [quote] ‘the Intelligence of the species’ [endquote] I wonder just what your ‘yes’ is in response to as my reply was to observe that enlightenment was not intelligence in action. Perhaps if I were to restate it this way: the affective faculty’s epiphenomenal psychic facility is not intelligent at all – let alone extraordinarily so – as it is the cognitive capacity to understand and comprehend (as in intellect and sagacity) which is the cerebral ability to sensibly and thus judiciously think, remember, reflect, appraise, plan, and implement considered activity for beneficial purposes (and to be able to rationally convey reasoned information to other human beings so that coherent knowledge can accumulate around the world and to the next generations) – which other animals cannot do – which is intelligence in operation. And this is the intelligence which has made the human animal the most successful animal ever to wander the earth ... moreover, when all the gods and goddesses cease meddling in human affairs (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto) the human species will do even better than it has done so far. Far, far better, in fact. RESPONDENT: It was clear to me that the answer to both Life and my happiness was not to be found in Science or in the outside World, but in consciousness or in ontology to be more precise :)) RICHARD: As ontology is the science of being then neither the answer to life nor happiness is to be found there ... only the dissolution of ‘being’ itself will do the trick. RESPONDENT: To make things clearer and simple, I don’t doubt the necessity for me (Respondent) to disappear, I’ve witnessed that and it’s a deadly happy experience. RICHARD: Yet there is much more to discover beyond enlightenment ... much, much more. RESPONDENT: The novelty of the quest you propose here is that the Self is also to vanish (or not to arise altogether), and you say that the method for this to happen is by deleting the instinctual program (and thus avoiding the ‘trap’ of enlightenment when deleting only the self-social construct with the instinctual passions left intact). RICHARD: The ‘social construct’ part of what you describe as the ‘self-social construct’ is what I call the social identity ... it is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within (anybody who is or has been a parent will know that it is considered the parents’ duty to instil cultural values in their off-spring). The identity within is a two-part identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) and enlightenment is when the ego-self collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (whereupon there is a rapid expansion of identity until it becomes All That Is, or Self, God, Truth, Being, That, Suchness, Isness and so on and so on) ... whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when the identity in toto becomes extinct. As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’ then altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is the deletion of the instinctual passions ... in other words you cannot delete ‘the instinctual programme’ without deleting yourself. RESPONDENT: I must confess that it sounds logical and sane enough. RICHARD: Okay ... one starts where one is at: the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason. It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount. * RESPONDENT: First reply – [Richard]: ‘Second, the ‘lack of personal ‘touch’ in our email exchange’ which you were quite irritated by is easily explained: if you were to knock-knock at this brain there would be no-one there to answer ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out. You may find this exchange helpful: [Co-Respondent]: ‘As you were mentioning that the real world has exceeded Monty Python and that nonetheless you are having a ball all the way, I fail yet to get a clear picture of you being also a person or is this perhaps a very subtle touch of black humour that you have introduced into our conversation? [Richard]: ‘It is this simple: as there is no alien identity in this flesh and blood body you cannot recognise me (it is only in a PCE that another person can relate to me). [endquote]. In all fairness to my previous companion it must be remembered that the person she met, and initially formed an (undying) relationship with, was an *enlightened* being – she was showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and not this actual Richard ... whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss)’. [emphasis added]. Second reply – [Respondent]: ‘I’m also curious about your former partner, Devika, the one who got away with an enlightened man (after spending approx. 10 years in your company) ... [Richard]: ‘Golly ... this is the information I supplied to you: [Richard]: ‘... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out’. I neither said ‘enlightened’ nor ‘man’ ... or even said she ‘got away’ with this other person. [endquote]. I understood from your first reply that her new boyfriend was an enlightened person, that is a man, or is she a lesbian (‘matrilineal love’)? (‘got away’ was a more ‘humanly conditioned’ way to say it). RICHARD: I see ... whereas the enlightened being my first reply refers to, whom she initially met and formed an (undying) relationship with, was the one parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body at the time of that meeting (in 1986). I only became apparent when that grandiose identity died (in 1992) ... and, although she valiantly accommodated herself to the startling change in her relationship for the next five years, it can be said, but only in retrospect (which is why the word ‘undying’ is parenthesised), that all the while she longed for the affective connection of the preceding six years (after all she had been showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion for the first two of those six years). Which is why I said ‘in all fairness to my previous companion ...’. In fact, both of my ex-wives had a difficult time with their husband: my first wife, being conventionally religious, and upon being faced with her husband’s spiritual enlightenment in the fifteenth year of a normal marriage, chose for the status-quo and, as far as I know, to this very day is still faithfully waiting for the ‘Second Coming’ of her God-Man (he who has a different notion of what a ‘generation’ means than virtually anyone else). She stills speaks nostalgically about the person she married. And my second wife, as I have already mentioned, upon being faced with her husband’s actual freedom from
the human condition in the sixth year of an abnormal marriage – and being of a feministic mystical persuasion long before we met
– chose for what she says is ‘True Love’ (‘Matrilineal not Patrilineal’) and, as far as I know (as of March 2000), is
still faithfully waiting for the ‘True Peace’ Whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss and/or long for). * RESPONDENT: And a few more questions ... what was the difference in experiencing sleep when enlightened compared to your actual present state of consciousness? RICHARD: In a word: identity. RESPONDENT: What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a ‘Richard’? What was the most harmful action you did to other human beings when being a Self? I’m referring to an actual harm and not to a potential for harmful action (be it psychological or physical). RICHARD: The most harmful action in both cases (both being ‘human’ and being ‘divine’) operated twenty-four hours of the day: involuntarily radiating affective vibes and transmitting psychic currents ... and the divine vibes and currents, being so powerful, are the most insalubrious and reprehensible. RESPONDENT: Have you made no error while living in your present state? RICHARD: Ha ... I am not infallible (if that is what you mean) and, having nothing to hide, easily correct any error. RESPONDENT: Do you still have the ability to correct that action when making an error? RICHARD: As ‘that action’ is no longer extant your query is a non-sequitur * RESPONDENT: If it’s the ultimate in human development, are you fully aware of the implications? Were we (humans) not to evolve any further than that (in reference to consciousness) in 10.000 years, 100.000 or even a million years? RICHARD: Here is how I have described the apperception which epitomises both a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and an actual freedom from the human condition: [Richard]: ‘As this flesh and blood body only I am this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude’. [endquote]. In what way do you propose that infinitude can evolve? RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I had the distinct impression that the Self was also infinite, and as such Perfect. RICHARD: That is indeed the impression, yes ... yet all the while it has been this material universe which is infinite, eternal, and perpetual (the Self is but an usurper arrogating the properties of the actual for Itself). In order to be humble one does have to first be arrogant. * RESPONDENT: The whole point of immortality is if consciousness can exist independent of the functions (the physical body). RICHARD: As immortality implies that the physical body is a function of consciousness (consciousness giving rise to matter rather than matter giving rise to consciousness) it has occasioned all manner of implausible explanations as to how, when, where and why it would do so ... the one that tops the list on the scale of nonsense dressed up as wisdom is the Eastern concept of Leela (aka dance, play, sport, diversion). As a child still in short pants I would ask Western religious persons just what their soul would do in their heaven (no hair to brush, no teeth to clean, and so on) as everything done on earth is bodily-determined or body-related ... when pursued rigorously queries such as these always elicit the classic fall-back position (only their god knows). Yet ask a god-on-earth (or be one oneself) and the answer is ... it is unknowable. So much for omniscience, eh? RESPONDENT: I know that (some) functions can manifest themselves without consciousness. I remember one time being totally drunk with a sudden blackout occurring, something like turning the lights off, yet my friends told me the next day that in the following hours I’ve danced, I’ve joked, I’ve walked alone to a taxi and finally got home. RICHARD: Yet you said (just above) that the whole point of immortality is consciousness existing independent of the functions (the physical body) ... why do you give an example of what the body did during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances)? An examination of amnesia itself can throw light upon your experience: for example, I watched a documentary of a chronically amnestic woman (with a three-minute memory) who, unless she writes down in a notebook she carries everywhere with her what she has done during that period, does not know whether she has done something or not (such as accepting and drinking the glass of water offered by the interviewer). RESPONDENT: The fourth state is indeed unknowable from our ordinary view. The whole method of spirituality, starting from the belief that the functions and consciousness are separate or can be separated, is to inflict voluntary suffering or the soft-named ‘friction’ on the physical body (‘I’m not my body’ attitude and all the actions resulting from this statement), so to achieve (more or less overtly acknowledged) immortality. Your method states the opposite. The sense of immortality can only be achieved in the fourth state of consciousness, where the sense of ‘I’ (a Being made of light) is outside the physical body, so the conclusion arises that ‘I’ will exist for eternity and survive the physical death. This is for me more than a belief, it was something I’ve lived through ... yet you say is but a delusion, a very pleasant delusion if I may add. The question still remains: how can a body which is made of cells can transform itself into a molecular body (soul) and then into an electronic body (Self or Spirit)? RICHARD: First of all the light which the being is made of is metaphysical light and not physical light ... thus it is not electronic (electricity is material). Second, the cellular body does not transform itself at all ... let alone into ‘a molecular body (soul)’ as compounds being comprised of elements are also material: it is the ego-self (an emotional-mental construct) which collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (an affective being or presence) thus creating a psychic super-self. In other words the metaphysical light is psychic light: thus the Self or Spirit is a psychic body. RESPONDENT: Is the impression of ‘being light’ just an illusion? RICHARD: Yes, though for the sake of clarity in communication and consistency I call it a delusion (the delusion of ‘Being’ born out of the illusion of ‘being’). * RESPONDENT: It is that the goal of your method is to achieve the third state (an aim for the spiritual methods as well, though only as an intermediate one) from there on things go indeed in opposite directions. RICHARD: No ... the goal of the actualism method is to by-pass all altered states of consciousness (to head in the opposite direction from the word go). * RESPONDENT: The example I provided with getting drunk was to ascertain whether functions can manifest without consciousness. RICHARD: Which (amnestic) example has nothing to do with immortality: immortality is, supposedly, consciousness existing without a body ... as in consciousness without an object. In your example of what bodily occurred during a drug-induced amnesia (which is quite common with many ingested substances) the body was still conscious ... just because what was occurring was not being remembered does not mean the state or condition of being conscious (albeit inebriated) was not happening. RESPONDENT: The instinctive brain can function independent of whether you’re conscious or not ... RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the autonomic nervous system functions non-consciously (as evidenced in sleep). RESPONDENT: ... this body will very much regulate its flow of blood, the heart will beat of his own accord, the digesting process will not require your attention, etc.; also a good example can be found in patients living in a state of coma. RICHARD: Somehow you seem to be conflating what the word ‘consciousness’ refers to (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) with what the word ‘self-conscious’ refers to (the awareness of being conscious) ... and, while the state or condition of being conscious can also include being aware of being conscious, the vast majority of conscious organisms (animals) do not have self-awareness. A comatose person is an unconscious person ... neither conscious nor aware of being conscious. RESPONDENT: Animals and birds do not require consciousness in order to live, so it seems there are many examples where the brains do not require consciousness in order to perform their usual activities. RICHARD: All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Viz.:
A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Viz.:
In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation. To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the supposedly immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death). RESPONDENT: It seems consciousness is a luxury item exclusively at the use of the human animal. RICHARD: Again you appear to be talking of self-consciousness (not to be confused with ‘self-conscious’ as in being embarrassed) or self-awareness ... if so there is evidence that the chimpanzee is self-conscious (aka self-aware) and, although it is early days yet in the research, there is some evidence that dolphins may be too. It is far from being a luxury item ... it is a vital precursor to intelligence. That the vast majority of animals are not self-conscious (do not have self-awareness) is the reason why, by and large, it is generally held that animals do not have a consciousness which ‘leaves the body’ at physical death. RESPONDENT: In what way is consciousness related to intelligence? RICHARD: If you are indeed referring to self-consciousness, or self-awareness, it is an essential prerequisite for intelligence to arise: intelligence is not only the faculty of the human brain thinking, with all its understanding (intellect) and comprehension (sagacity), but includes its cognisance (awareness or consciousness) of being a body existing in the world of people, other animals, plants, things and events. Moreover, intelligence requires self-reference – which involves the issue of agency (intervening action towards an end; action personified; a source of action towards an end) and agency can be only self-referential – plus intelligence also requires self-interest: a self-referential organism is concerned about its existence, and by extension others’ existence, in that it is biased – it finds water appealing and acid unappealing for example – and being biased is what being self-interested means. However, if you are referring ‘consciousness’ as popularly meaning the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... it is, of course, not related to intelligence at all. Its presence cripples intelligence, in fact. * RESPONDENT: As for asking myself the same question as you did ‘what/who’s looking at whom’ stuff, it’s very understandable as there I was, with no Respondent left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self, conditions were as such that a highly possible logical intelligent outcome resulted: ‘what am I’? as it’s clear I was no Goddess, ha? RICHARD: Behind all gods and goddesses lies the genderless Absolute ... which can manifest in or as whatever form it likes. RESPONDENT: But the impact and relevance of it was like thinking why the albatross wings are two meters instead of four when having an intense orgasm. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘nuff said about how (supposedly) all-surpassing the ‘big-‘I’ Intelligence of the species’ is then, eh? RESPONDENT: I think you got it wrong here, the question ‘who/what is watching who?’ was not asked by the ‘big I’ as SHE could not ask such a question, it was rather the body (intellectual brain) reaction to an event such as the ASC. This question had no relevance to the Self where my sense of identity was situated, so the comparison with the albatross’s wings span ... it was an irrelevant questioning for the Self. RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps it is the way you put a sentence together as your ‘there I was, with no Respondent left of me, busy being somebody else’s Self’ report conveys that you are [quote] ‘the extraordinary Intelligence of the enlightened State’ [endquote], which supposedly far surpasses any human intelligence, whilst asking the question. However, this is similar wording to your earlier testimony (that you are the light which permeates everything
and that from this you get the impression you are omniscient) ... do you see that, even though there was no name left of you, and
with your sense of identity situated in the Self, it was human intelligence which was operating (albeit overwhelmed by the
intensity of the orgasmic-like experience The $64,000 question is this: is the Self, a Being of light, the Light which permeates everything, a God, Goddess, or Master behind the curtains, the One who holds in His hand the wires that make humans human, the Creator out of which everything has begun, the Intelligence of the species, intelligent or not ... let alone an all-surpassing and all-knowing intelligence? Where is the evidence of this intelligence? For eleven years, night and day, I was able to intimately explore this issue, and other issues, and all that was evident was an outstanding ignorance and a remarkable arrogance ... the example in the previous e-mail of planet earth being a heliocentric spheroid being but one instance of the ignorance and the arrogation of the properties of the universe, and the aggrandisement of human qualities, in this e-mail are but some instances of the arrogance. More importantly was the arresting evidence that, after something like three to five thousand years of scriptural history recording the many and varied instances of gods and goddesses imparting their all-surpassing wisdom to a benighted humanity, humankind was nowhere nearer to peace and harmony than before. Indeed, because of the much-touted love and compassion, much hatred and bloodshed had followed in the wake of the many and varied saints and sages and seers. Thus demonstrably the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘tried and failed’: intelligence in action is the
acknowledgement that something which has not produced the goods, despite at least 3,000-5,000 years for it to work its wisdom in,
is never going to deliver on its spurious promise For starters: one needs to fully acknowledge the biological imperative (the instinctual passions) which are the root cause of all the ills of humankind. The genetically inherited passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) give rise to malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion: these negative and positive feelings are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human Condition’. The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, peace on earth can only be found here in space and now in time as this material body. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, whilst one nurses malice and sorrow, and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion, in one’s bosom? RESPONDENT: It’s nice to discuss with you about these matters as there are less then a few who are willing to sincerely discuss them in the open. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... and one of the reasons why there is little willing and open discussion into these matters is because they are held to be sacrosanct (not to be questioned). Another reason is that to do so could be the beginning of the end of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety.
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 |
