|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Resentment
As a broad generalised categorisation, ‘malice’ (the desire to hurt another person; active ill will,
spite or hatred; a deep *resentment*) is used here as a ‘catch-all’ word for what one does to others (*resentment*, anger, hatred,
rage, sadism and so on through all the variations such as abhorrence; acerbity; acrimony; aggression; anger; animosity;
antagonism; antipathy; aversion; bad blood; temper; bellicosity; belligerence; bile; bitchiness; bitterness; cantankerousness;
cattiness; crabbiness; crossness; defamation; despisal; detestation; disgust; dislike; dissatisfaction; enmity; envy; evil;
execration; grievance; grudge; grudgingness; hard feelings; harm; hate; hatred; hostility; ill feeling; ill will; ill-nature;
ill-temper; inimicalness; irascibility; irritability; loathing; malevolence; malignance; malignity; militancy; moodiness; murder;
opposition; peevishness; petulance; pique; querulousness; rancour; repulsion; repugnance; *resentment*; snideness; spite;
spitefulness; spleen; spoiling; stifling; sullenness; testiness; touchiness; umbrage; unfriendliness; unkindness; vengefulness;
venom; vindictiveness; warlikeness; wrath). [emphases added]. JAMES: Okay Richard, I like the question ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ and I am going to live with it. RICHARD: The first thing I did when I first stepped upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom was to put an end to anger once and for all ... then ‘I’ was freed enough to live in a virtual freedom. It took ‘me’ about three weeks and I have never experienced anger since then. The first and crucial step was to say ‘YES’ to being here on earth, for ‘I’ located and identified that basic resentment that all people that I have spoken to have. To wit: ‘I didn’t ask to be born!’ This is why remembering a PCE is so important for success for it shows one, first hand, that freedom is already always here
... now. With the memory of that crystal-clear perfection held firmly in mind, that basic resentment vanishes forever, and then it is a relatively
easy task to eliminate anger once and for all. One does this by neither expressing or repressing anger when an event happens that would previously
trigger an outbreak. Anger is thus put into a bind, and the third alternative hoves into view, dispensing with the hostility that is a large part
of ‘I’ the aggressive psychological entity, and gently ushering in an increasing ease and generosity of character. With this growing
magnanimity, one becomes more and more anonymous, more and more selflessly motivated. With this expanding altruism one becomes less and less
self-centred, less and less egocentric ... the humanitarian ideals of peace, kindness, caring, benevolence and humaneness become more and more
evident as an actuality. * JAMES: ... I am shocked by the inhumanity of it. I don’t have any choice but to accept the inhumanity. I guess that gradually the shock will wear away until the next one comes along. (snip) JAMES: ... My question is: Can I accept the unacceptable? (snip) JAMES: ... Nothing can be done. I have already tried. I am up against two crooked corporations and I am powerless. (snip) JAMES: ... That doesn’t work for me. I am frozen. RICHARD: Given that people are as-they-are and that the world is as-it-is there are more than a few things which are ‘unacceptable’ (child abuse, rape, murder, torture and so on). What worked for me twenty-odd years ago, as a preliminary step, was to rephrase the question so that it makes sense (rather than vainly apply any of those unliveable ‘unconditional acceptance’ type injunctions):
This way intelligence need not be compromised ... intelligence will no longer be crippled. * RICHARD: I found that to emotionally accept that which is intellectually unacceptable was to enable one’s native intelligence to emerge into full view of its own accord. And thus intelligence was no longer crippled. JAMES: Yes, I agree with this. My intelligence is clearly crippled now by my emotional unacceptance of what is happening. RICHARD: And ‘emotional unacceptance’ could, perhaps, be adequately described as emotionally objecting, resisting, rejecting or denying (rather than being emotionally welcoming, consenting, receiving or acknowledging) ... and maybe even being emotionally aloof, indifferent, apathetic or vacillating? I only mention this as the whole point of these discussions is to find out, experientially, what makes one tick ... and the proposal is that ‘I’ am a feeling ‘being’ (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). Speaking personally, as a preliminary step twenty-odd years ago, I started to embrace each situation that life provided by emotionally welcoming, readily consenting to, receiving fully and unabashedly acknowledging every circumstance so as to find out, once and for all, just what was going on ... and just what intelligence actually was. Now intelligence operates unimpeded. JAMES: I’m not sure that emotion is involved anymore. It is just the numbing effect of the chemical surges. RICHARD: Aye ... to be emotionally shocked (disgusted, revolted, repulsed, indignant or whatever) is to literally be bruised, again and again, until one wakes up to what one is doing to oneself. Mayhap it be appropriate to remind you of something pertinent you posted some time ago (September 1999)? Viz.:
Strange as it may appear at this moment, or seem so remote as to be absurd, it is entirely possible to also have your current circumstances similarly be ‘an enjoyable experience’ ... plus being able to be ‘nice to the people’ you are presently at odds with. Not to mention being able to ‘genuinely like them’ ... and to be capable of ‘treating them
like human beings’. RICHARD: If one is going to accept the status-quo for what it is and ‘make the best of a bad situation’ then such concentrated and focussed effort as described above would probably be the better way to go. However, the way freedom works, and the basic theory/ philosophy to formalise it, is this simple: Back when I used to be able to visualise, what would happen is that it is all mapped out, planned in advance, and all that was left was a ‘colouring-in-by-numbers’ style of painting and/or drawing and/or whatever. All the creativity was confined to mental-emotional imagery department – a dream-like fantasy – which rarely, if ever, translated into pen and paper or paint and canvas ... with the resultant frustration in being unable to manifest the vision into actuality. The main reason was that the mental picture was not constrained by the physical medium and thus compromises inevitably creep in, even early in the piece. One is then left with trying to force actuality into fitting the fancy ... with less than desirable results. What I discovered, when the ‘painting painted itself’, was that actuality ruled the roost, as it were, and magically manifested perfection ... such as to leave me, as I remarked (further above) standing in amazement and wonder, marvelling at this magical creativity. Modesty – especially false modesty – disappeared along with pride ... ‘I’ was not doing this. I saw and understood that we humans were trying to make life fit our petty demands; our pathetic dreams; our desperate schemes ... and who am ‘I’ to know better than this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe how to do it. Because all the while, perfection was abounding all about ... magically unfolding, each moment again, if only one would give oneself permission to ‘let go the controls’ and allow it all to happen of its own accord. Again, none of this is to negate the very essential patiently acquired skills and expertise ... otherwise one is as a leaf blowing in the wind (‘think not of the morrow’ and all that nonsense). Initially I described it as ‘being like a child again but with adult sensibilities’. Of course, time would show me that being ‘child-like’ is not it ... but that was ‘my’ beginning explanation back then when seeking to understand. Back in 1980 ‘I’ looked at the stars one night and temporarily came to my senses: there are galaxies exploding/ imploding (or whatever) all throughout the physical infinitude where an immeasurable quantity of matter is perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the boundless reaches of infinite space throughout the limitless extent of eternal time and ‘I’ – puny, pathetic ‘I’ in an ant-like-in-comparison and very vulnerable 6’2’’ flesh and blood body – disapprove of all this? That is, ‘I’ call all this a ‘sick joke’, or whatever depreciative assessment? And further: so what if ‘I’ were to do an about-face and graciously approve? What difference would that make to the universe? Zilch. Ergo: ‘I’, with all my abysmal opinions, theories, concepts, values, principles, judgements and so on, am not required at all ... ‘I’ am a supernumerary. ‘I’ am redundant; ‘I’ can retire; fold ‘my’ hand; pack in the game, die, dissolve, disappear, disintegrate, depart, vamoose, vanish – whatever – and life would manage quite well, thank you, without ‘me’ ... a whole lot better, in fact, as ‘I’ am holding up the works from functioning smoothly .. ‘I’ am not needed ... ‘my’ services are no longer required. RESPONDENT No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not. RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression. RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:
If then choosing to be as happy and as harmless (as free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as was humanly possible thus makes the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, a freak of nature then so too is my current companion as she comprehended right from the beginning that it is her choice, and her choice alone, each moment again as to how she prefers to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment she is ever alive) ... and which would also make my previous companion a freak of nature as well (not forgetting to mention, of course and for the very reason of it being topical, both Peter and Vineeto too). Incidentally, the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates). Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment
bordering on an embodiment. RICHARD: Look, ‘he’ [the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body back in 1981] was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious [i.e., affectively aware] of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about. RESPONDENT: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not. RESPONDENT No. 68: It does sort of give that impression. RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:
RESPONDENT: That being the case, all that would be necessary is to stay aware, stay alert to what is felt, and if one catches oneself feeling something less than <good, excellent, perfect> one could just elect to feel <good, excellent, perfect> again. Gosh. No wonder you say this method is so simple, and you wonder what all the fuss is about. RICHARD: Aye, it is so very simple that some find its radicality hard to understand ... for instance:
Or that its utter simplicity escapes them:
RESPONDENT: Speaking for myself alone now ... it does not work/ has not worked that way. Why I do not know, but I would like to find out. RICHARD: Simply this: the method you have been applying is not the method on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site. (...) RESPONDENT: I do not experience it as possible to choose how I am feeling at any given moment. RICHARD: If it be not you who is doing that choosing then who is? For instance: who was it who chose to [quote] ‘feel continually wretched and frustrated and miserable’ [endquote] whilst trying to hoist themself into the air by their shoelaces if it was not you? And who, for another instance, preferred to [quote] ‘gradually yet persistently add feelings of frustration and bewilderment’ [endquote], at the fact that the method you have been applying was not working, if not you? Or, for yet another instance, who is it that decides, on occasion, to deal with the vicissitudes of life by [quote] ‘throwing
a tantrum’ [endquote] if it be not you? * RESPONDENT: ... incidentally, Richard, how can they be ‘an hereditary occurrence’ and be of my choosing at the same time? RICHARD: You do comprehend that you are your feelings/ your feelings are you (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) do you not? Viz.:
And again there is a reference to how ‘almost too easy’ actualism is. * RESPONDENT: ...[the basic concerns underlying the distinction above are valid], but the feeling of aversion to the idea of feeling-good-for-its-own-sake is not. RICHARD: Okay then ... generally speaking, an ‘aversion’ to be going about
one’s everyday/ workaday life with a general feeling of well-being (a.k.a. ‘feeling good’) Furthermore, for such a sensitive, affective and cognitive human being who is also at all
thoughtful about life, the universe and what it is to be living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, any
such idea of ‘feeling-good-for-its-own-sake’ ̶ let alone enjoying and appreciating being able
to experience that general feeling of well-being (as in, an engaged relishing of feeling good and, thus, intimately approving
being alive/ being here, by virtue of that personal delectation of ‘feeling good’ per se) as well – is a
betrayal of all what they fervently hold intellectually dear, about the world in general and the human race in
particular, as for them life itself is, essentially, a bum rap It is pertinent to note, at this point, that the root cause of sorrow – and, hence, malice
(e.g., the ‘basic resentment’ above) – is being forever locked-out of paradise The ‘unjust punishment’ component (or some such similar ‘unfair’ and/or ‘inequitable’ grievance) stems from an inchoate primeval feeling of having been somehow disenfranchised from a fabulous pre-historic ‘golden age’ (e.g., the ‘Garden of Eden’ theme) posited, via variations of a ‘Status Gratiae’ style supposition, upon a numinous/ pre-sinful ‘innocence’ – or even from similarly fabulated prepubescent ‘golden years’ (e.g., the ‘Glimpses of a Golden Childhood’ theme) posited, via variations of a ‘Tabula Rasa’ style supposition, upon a juvenile/ pre-sexual ‘innocence’ – which presupposes there really is a lost ‘innocence’ to be regained. Yet innocence as a liveable actuality – an actual innocence (not the pseudo-innocence of those
‘State of Grace’ and ‘Blank Slate’ fabulations above) in other words – is entirely new to human experience/
human history. RESPONDENT: Something that has helped me recently was reading (list B, Feb., 2003, respondent #19) about going around approving and disapproving of the universe happening. That’s me! I have been disapproving of the universe happening! Not that I am now approving of it happening (I never did approve of it happening that I know of) but now it’s more neutral. Life is easier. It’s like I have a less adverse effect on people and things. RICHARD: I was unable to find anything at the reference you provide ... but I did find this:
What is at the bottom of all this disapproving business is a basic resentment at having to be here in the first place (as in ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ for example) and that fundamental grievance gets taken out on the universe at large. And for as long as ‘I’ am out to prove that life sucks (by being miserable and malicious) and that being here is the pits there is no way ‘I’ am going to be happy and harmless as to do so would be to betray ‘my’ most basic feeling about it all. I kid you not – it was one of the first things ‘I’ realised all those years ago – yet there is a simple way to be done with such nonsense forever. Viz.:
You will see that this is a far cry from being ‘more neutral’ about it all. * RESPONDENT: ... but thank you for pointing out why because, obviously, how can I be happy when my attitude is ‘I didn’t ask to be born.’? HA! RICHARD: Indeed not ... that basic resentment, the fundamental grievance, will dog every best effort otherwise and render all endeavour useless. RESPONDENT: On the AF site you have often taken the time to say the same thing in at least fifty different ways. Someday one of those ways may be (or trigger) the right words in my head (for AF to happen). RICHARD: Or even a virtual freedom: someone once said, after reading maybe 60-70 pages of my journal, that Richard repeats himself a lot and stopped reading ... which occasioned me to recall someone else saying that they had read it eight times and were onto their ninth read ... and each time discovering layers of meaning (if only because of the repetition) overlooked in each previous read-through. There is no prize for guessing who is now living in virtual peace and harmony and who is still quarrelling and bickering. RESPONDENT: Third thing: later in your post to No. 04 you seem to divide feelings into three categories : [Richard]: ‘If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings (as explained above) and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings – happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on – in conjunction with sensuousness, then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness’. [endquote]. There are ‘good’ feelings, ‘bad’ feelings’ and ‘felicitous’ feelings? I am confused about this categorisation. How do you define which feelings are appropriate and which are good or bad? RICHARD: I have no intention of providing either a limited or an exhaustive list ... there are literally hundreds of feeling-words listed in the dictionary. For example, last year someone asked, on another list, what ‘malice’ was ... and I spent five minutes in the Oxford’s thesaurus and provided what they could have produced themselves if they had any nous:
It is so much fun finding out for oneself ... is it not? Also, I am somewhat surprised that this is all new to you ... may I draw your attention to an exchange you and I had three or four posts ago? Viz.:
Methinks you will find that I have been very clear and up-front all along. RESPONDENT: I have a bit of trouble summoning up delight (as Richard suggests), as it seems imaginary, as opposed to the release that comes with facing issues. That is still under consideration though. RICHARD: The first sentence of above paragraph is specifically designed to get one out of ‘stuckness’ ... it is not intended as an on-going way of living life. It is a short, sharp shock of attention – a ‘kick-start’ in the jargon – to counteract the ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ resentment that caused the stuckness in the first place. Another ‘wake-up jab’ (which makes use of any remnant of pride) is to ask oneself: ‘I have two choices right now: being happy and harmless or being dull and degenerate ... which way do I sensibly choose to spend this never-to-be-repeated precious moment of living so that I can honestly call myself a mature adult?’ A happy and harmless person has a much better chance of precipitating a PCE ... which is the essential pre-requisite for an actual freedom (otherwise this is all theory). It goes without saying, surely, that a grumpy person locks themselves out of being here ... now. For a full and comprehensive explication of what this succinct paragraph conveys you may care to access the
article: ‘Attentiveness and Sensuousness and Apperceptiveness’ on my Web Page. RESPONDENT: Just curious, have you read any books by E.M. Cioran? RICHARD: No ... and the following quote (arguably quite representative of his contribution to the betterment of the lot of humankind) will demonstrate why not:
I selected that passage, after about an hour reading what is available on the internet, as indicative of what both his state of mind and his philosophical writings (the Encyclopaedia Britannica reports that he received a degree in philosophy from the University of Bucharest in 1932) would appear to stem from – the basic resentment at being born, and thus, at being here on this verdant and azure planet – and nowhere could I find any reference to an investigation by him into why this would be so. Put succinctly: just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan – and Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene RICHARD: Gratitude is one of the many ploys designed, by those who expound on the merits of self-imposed suffering, to keep one in servile ignominy and creeping despair. To successfully dispense with the despised resentment, its companion emotion, the extolled gratitude, must also go. It is a popular misconception that one can do away with a ‘bad’ emotion whilst hanging on to the ‘good’ one. In actualism the third alternative always applies. RESPONDENT: Most of what you say remain just words till ‘I’ is still there. In my world, I would prefer gratitude to resentment because it has worked for me so far. RICHARD: How? RESPONDENT: I am still not able to dedicate myself to peace on earth. But if you say annihilate ‘I’ and there will be peace on earth, I am ready for it. But in that case for me peace on earth would just be a by-product. RICHARD: I would be very interested as to why you would want to annihilate ‘I’ ... yet not dedicate yourself to peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: I think I answered this question earlier in this mail. However I want to understand this dedication. Why would anybody dedicate himself to anything? I think it would be mostly because of feelings, emotions, attachment, greed, etc., towards that thing. If I understand you correctly you don’t have those in actual world. So why in actual world one dedicates himself to peace on earth ? RICHARD: I was talking of you living there in the ‘real-world’, not me, here in this actual world ... I am already always living peace-on-earth. I was talking, out of experience, just what it took for this individual peace-on-earth to become apparent. The ‘I’ that inhabited this body dedicated ‘himself’ to ensuring that this would occur ... and ‘he’ self-immolated, psychologically and psychically. It was the adventure of a life-time for ‘him’ ... ‘he’ went out in a blaze of glory. It is so lovely to dedicate yourself to something so worthwhile ... the ‘boots and all’ approach ‘I’ called it then! RESPONDENT: I must acknowledge here, that this is the first time I am having any direct communication with somebody who claims to have Enlightened (well, beyond enlightened). This is a good feeling. I am grateful to you (I know you don’t like it, but that is how I am, at least at present). RICHARD: Okay ... but do watch out for gratitude because the warm fuzzy feeling can lead to love. Interestingly, Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain told his disciples to be grateful to existence ... and to existence for sending a master. RESPONDENT: Yes, I understand that warm fuzzy feeling because I experience it. But why should I leave it till I get something better? RICHARD: Because it is dangerous ... 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone ... not to mention
all the other wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides. * RESPONDENT: When I try to comprehend it I get this meaning: The burning discontent is necessary to attain virtual freedom, but after once one is in virtual freedom, the burning discontent is no more possible (and no more necessary). Do you agree? RICHARD: In my personal experience in 1981, once I was fully launched on the one-way trip to freedom, discontent was left far, far behind. I said YES to life, the universe and what it was to be a human being – I embraced death – and the core resentment (as epitomised in the phrase ‘I didn’t ask to be born’) was eliminated upon the realisation that perfection was already always here ... now. I became as happy and as harmless as was humanly possible for twenty three hours and fifty nine minutes of the day ... this state is what the term ‘virtual freedom’ was drawn out of. At the time I considered that I had discovered the secret of living life successfully ... and boy oh boy, was I in for a surprise when it became apparent that there was more to come. Much, much more. ‘I’ did not know what it was to die ... in the peak experiences ‘I’ merely went into abeyance. RESPONDENT: Now the next question. If there is no discontent and one is happy most of the time in virtual freedom what keeps one still going towards actual freedom? RICHARD: Curiosity, fascination and what amounts to an obsession with finding out about oneself, about life, about the
universe and about just what it is to be a human being living in the world as it is with people as they are. All this and more becomes obvious the
further one proceeds ... one is inextricably drawn towards one’s destiny. It is intrinsically impelling, exciting, exhilarating, thrilling ...
one is living life fully. And it keeps on becoming better and better ... one is constantly amazed at the magical quality of life itself. One
experiences an ever-increasing excellence again and again ... and asks: ‘How can best get better?’ Yet it does ... and there is more ... and
more ... and more. Q: ‘... mostly, people don’t want to be here. There is a basic resentment against being a body and being here. R: ‘Which brings us back to the belief that life is inherently bad. In 1980, when I was looking at the stars one night, I realised that I could no longer believe that this gigantic happening called the universe could possibly be ‘set-up’ so that I would be perpetually miserable in it. Or any of us humans. It is simply too enormous for it all to be some sick joke, some divine punishment or some random accident ... what nonsense! I realised the vast perfection of everything happening all at once. From that moment on I could no longer go on believing it all to be bad. Not that I then believed it to be good ... it is no use whatsoever to be swapping one belief for another; going from a negative belief to a positive belief still leaves you living in the land of belief. Seeing the fact is what is important. The fact is that this universe is already perfect. It is only ‘me’ who is seeing it wrongly. ‘I’, as an identity, a self, should not be here. ‘I’ live in mortal danger of being found out for the usurper that ‘I’ am ... so ‘I’ am ready and willing to believe in ‘Whatever’ to appease ‘my’ unease. ‘I’ avoid looking at the fact, for such a ‘seeing’ will lead to ‘my’ inevitable demise. ‘I’ will spin fantasies of an after-life to ensure my immortality ... anything to deny death. *I have the greatest admiration for ‘Richard the identity’: He was willing to self-immolate so that I could be here. He never knew me, but was utterly confident that the universe knew what it was doing*. He was happy to disappear so that all this could eventuate. He was prepared to go all the way without reservation ... the ‘boots and all’ approach, he called it. What are you saving yourself for? Reach out. Extend yourself. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. Patience may be a virtue, but procrastination is an abomination. Be wary of virtues ... they are designed to perpetuate the self. [emphasis added]. GARY: As an aside, the thinking of a Krishnamurti seems strikingly similar to the thinking of a previous philosopher, Hobbes, who maintained that human beings are basically selfish and that governments are a contract between individuals, motivated primarily by self-interest, and the corporate whole. RICHARD: Again, any philosophical thinking that starts with a false premise is going to produce an elaborately false outcome and Mr. Thomas Hobbes is no exception with his version of a ‘social contract’ theory. GARY: Yes, you are quite right. I had not seen that before but it makes sense. To say ‘this is the way it is ... human beings are basically greedy ...’, to start with an assumption like this rather than leaving the question open and starting with inquiry, as we (sometimes) do here, however imperfectly, is bound to produce a whole system based on false premises. It is an approach designed to produce a particular end. Now, I hear you saying that equity and parity are involuntarily automatic when we recognize others as our fellow human beings. RICHARD: Yes, if one says that human beings are only ‘basically greedy’ or only ‘basically selfish’ and there is nothing else ... then an investigation is stymied before it gets off the ground (for then it is all over: ‘this is a sorry world’; ‘the universe is a sick joke’; ‘life is a bitch and then you die’ ... and so on and so on). Then one has no alternative but to construct evermore elaborate coping mechanisms ... as I remarked regarding Mr. Thomas Hobbes’ version of a ‘social contract’ theory:
GARY: The trouble is that we do not, we don’t recognize the humanity of others, we don’t see others clearly, we see sick images of others based on our conditioning, in other words, images put together by thought. RICHARD: I would question whether ‘sick images of others’ are only ‘based on our conditioning’ ... before concluding that images are only ‘put together by thought’. * GARY: So, where do equity and parity come into the picture? RICHARD: Only unilateral action will do the trick. GARY: Action as in not of thought? Care to expound? RICHARD: By ‘unilateral’ I mean that living with equity and parity is something one does entirely on one’s own ... it does not depend upon the cooperation of others. What they do is their business (as long as they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocol, they are left alone to live their lives as wisely or as foolishly as they choose). One does not have to concern oneself about any other person’s modus operandi at all ... they can carry on being grotty if that is what turns them on. Therefore, one’s basic starting point is this: how can one live with equity and parity in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? The integrity of intent born out of the intensity of this once-in-a-lifetime ‘starting-point’ question precipitates unilateral action which is not of ‘my’ doing once set in motion ... because, at root, it is ‘me’ who is the problem. Thus thought may or may not play a part in it depending upon the circumstances, each moment again, in one’s daily life. This ‘action’ is a neurological process occurring in the skull (specifically at the top of the brain-stem) that gathers a momentum of its own accord ... ‘me’ thinking and feeling may aid or hinder this process from time-to-time but essentially, once one sets the action in motion, the neurological process does the trick itself. It is the pure intent to live in peace and harmony (equity and parity) irregardless of other’s intentions that fuels the process. * GARY: Which brings me to a point: in my investigations of what it means to be a human being, I have been struck with how much of human socializing is based on commiseration – sharing a common plight and grievance, and additionally sharing feelings and emotions: whether it be returning to work on Monday, the state of the economy, the price of gasoline, how unfairly the work place is treating you, etc., etc. Human beings seems to revel in their complaints and gripes, and a sense of resentment is the cement that seems to bind people together in many social situations. Indeed, it is the raison d’être for political groups and political causes of various types. RICHARD: Aye ... this is something I come across almost on a daily basis and it is amazing how many people tell me that I am being ‘optimistic’, or ‘positive’, or ‘up-beat’, or that I am ‘forever trying to talk things up’. For example, I might comment upon what a great day it is and, as sure as eggs are eggs, the plighted person will find fault (even if only ‘it won’t last’) ... or I may say how marvellous it is to be living in a technologically advanced society (take contemporary surgical procedures, for instance, or current dental practice) and a whole litany of doom and gloom comes forth. Even sitting at a caff by myself, with snippets of nearby conversations drifting by from time-to-time, it is remarkable how much of the content of social chit-chat is, as you say, gripe, grievance, complaint, and resentment ... and the last-named is the key to it all (the basic resentment of being alive in the first place). Until one wakes up to implications and ramifications of the factuality of already being here on this planet earth anyway, whether one wants to be or not (‘I didn’t ask to be born’), one is fated to forever seek consolation and commiseration in the arms (both metaphorically and literally) of another similarly afflicted. Yet the simple fact is that, despite the ‘I didn’t ask to be born’ rhetoric, one does want to be alive (else one would have committed suicide long ago) and all that it takes is to fully acknowledge this and thus unequivocally say !YES! to being here now as this flesh and blood body ... and this affirmation is an unconditional agreement/ approval of life itself as-it-is. I did not ask to be born either (truisms can be so trite) ... but I am ever-so-glad that I was. IRENE to Vineeto: I am ... out to demolish ... [the] belief in the old spiritual man-made ‘ideal’ of getting rid of your self ... that Richard has augmented with getting rid of literally everything that you can possibly call human: the feelings, emotions, instincts, sense of humaneness towards other people around you, in short all that was a natural given to start off with. To be so anti-nature is called preposterous. Only a person who is deeply troubled by emotions will turn against them in anger and try to rid themselves of the whole plethora of emotional experiences (...) I don’t see Richard as free, but rather removed from being human. RICHARD: Aye ... in fact I am so far removed from being human that I am out of sight. Indeed it is unnatural what I did and – given that it is natural to kill one’s fellow human being – I am well-pleased to be so preposterous (the word ‘preposterous’ literally means being 180 degrees in the opposite direction). However, a person ‘deeply troubled by emotions’ who will ‘turn against them in anger’ in an effort to rid themselves of the ‘whole plethora of emotional experiences’ will fail spectacularly. Speaking personally, the first thing I did in 1981 was to put an end to anger once and for all ... then I was freed enough to live in virtual freedom. It took me about three weeks and I have never experienced anger since then. The first step was to say ‘YES’ to being here on earth, for I located and identified that basic resentment that all people that I have spoken to have. To wit: ‘I didn’t ask to be born!’ This is why remembering a PCE is so important for success for it shows one, first hand, that freedom is already always here ... now. With the memory of that crystal-clear perfection held firmly in mind ... that basic resentment goes. Then it is a relatively easy task to eliminate anger forever. One does this by neither expressing or repressing anger when an event happens that would previously trigger an outbreak. Anger is thus put into a bind ... and the third alternative hoves into view. RESPONDENT: Richard, you have written that it took three weeks for you to rid yourself of anger. RICHARD: You are, presumably, referring to the following text:
RESPONDENT: Can you please sketch what you did in that time? RICHARD: Sure ... as I was able to locate and identify that basic resentment which all
people I had spoken to have – to wit: ‘I didn’t ask to be born!’ – the first thing I did was to
unconditionally say !YES! to being here on earth. Remembering the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) I had
experienced was vitally important for success because they showed me, first hand, that an actual freedom from the
human condition is already always just here ... right now. With the memory of that crystal-clear perfection held
firmly in mind that basic resentment went, of course, never to return again. Then it was a relatively easy task to
eliminate anger forever. I did this by neither expressing or repressing anger whenever an event happened that would
previously trigger an outbreak. RESPONDENT: Were you analysing, reflecting on all possible situations in which anger arises? RICHARD: No ... it was an at-the-moment riddance. RESPONDENT: Or were you angry at something and tried to observe it deeply? RICHARD: No ... the instant the anger would have otherwise arisen there was the delicious experience of it being stillborn. RESPONDENT: Were you making yourself mad by thinking about various situations and through self-observation and reasoning and attentiveness eradicated it? RICHARD: No ... as there were more than enough situations anyway there was no need to fabricate any. RESPONDENT: Were you isolated at this point or did this exercise with your partner? RICHARD: Even though I was married at the time – I was a normal family man, with a wife and four children to support and a house to pay off and a car on hire-purchase, running my own business and working twelve-fourteen hour days six-seven days a week – I was essentially on my own in the whole enterprise ... my then wife, although initially intrigued and interested for herself in what I was engaged in, lapsed back into normalcy within a few months. As a matter of related interest ... one of the most persistent forms of anger is indignation (or righteous anger/ justifiable anger): it can be eradicated rather simply by the realisation that its raison d’être – a guardian against injustice, unjustness, unfairness, inequality (partiality, discrimination, and so on) – is as much a human invention as those concepts it defends ... justice, justness, fairness, equality (impartiality, indiscrimination, and so on). I have touched upon this elsewhere:
* RICHARD: (...) as I was able to locate and identify that basic resentment which all people I had spoken to have – to wit: ‘I didn’t ask to be born!’ – the first thing I did was to unconditionally say !YES! to being here on earth. Remembering the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) I had experienced was vitally important for success because they showed me, first hand, that an actual freedom from the human condition is already always just here ... right now. With the memory of that crystal-clear perfection held firmly in mind that basic resentment went, of course, never to return again. RESPONDENT: Is this basic resentment the source of all depression and sorrow? RICHARD: No, that basic resentment is what hampers sincere investigation and hinders genuine progress ... the source of sorrow itself, and thus depression and all the rest, is not being what one actually is. For instance:
* RESPONDENT: I understand what you are saying. But I still fail to grasp why (and how you can say) that ‘physical death’ is essential for being happy and harmless (as you haven’t died but still are happy and harmless). RICHARD: It is the very fact of physical death – everybody alive today on this planet will eventually be dead – which ensures happiness and harmlessness ... if everything alive today were to all-of-a-sudden endure forever then everything would matter in the long-term (everything would be of enduring importance (in this ultimate sense) and, therefore, life would be a serious business. * RESPONDENT: How does it have anything to do with being happy and harmless? RICHARD: It basically has to do with endurance and, therefore, seriousness. RESPONDENT: Can you please elaborate on this point? RICHARD: Sure ... this planet, indeed the entire solar system, is going to cease to exist in its current form about 4.5 billion years from now (or some-such figure). All these words – yours, mine, and others (all the dictionaries, encyclopaedias, scholarly tomes and so on) – will perish and all the monuments, all the statues, all the tombstones, all the sacred sites, all the carefully conserved/ carefully restored memorabilia, will vanish as if they had never existed ... nothing will remain of any human endeavour (including yours truly). Nothing at all ... nil, zero, zilch. Which means that nothing really matters in the long-term and, as nothing actually is of enduring importance (in this ultimate
sense), it means that life can in no way be a serious business. RICHARD: Put simply: nature is neither fair nor just – a volcanic eruption (for just one instance) does not discriminate between who
or what it obliterates/ destroys – and thus coupled with the basic resentment at having to be alive in the first place is the further grievance
that life is inequitable/ iniquitous. MARTIN: ‘I’ am fundamentally selfish and unless I temper this to some extent there’s no chance of being close to someone or liked as ‘my’ resentful urges are unrestrained (and affect my mood / disposition even if I don’t act out on them). Is becoming actually free a combination of becoming unselfish in a normal sense, and being harmless in an unconditional sense? RICHARD: First of all, each and every identity is “fundamentally selfish” by nature – which is why it takes a powerful instinctive impulse (altruism) to overcome a powerful instinctive impulse (selfism) – insofar as blind nature endows each and every human being with the selfish instinct for individual survival and the clannish instinct for group survival (be it the familial group, the tribal group, or the national group). (Hence the religio-spiritual practice of countering selfishness – as per the unliveable ideal of each and every ‘self’ being an unselfish ‘self’ via the nonsensical edict of each and every ‘self’ putting each and every ‘self’ before one’s own ‘self’ – is basically an institutionalised elaboration of the most primal of blind nature’s instinctual drives, urges, and impulses and, as such, is not at all intelligent). Second, as “being harmless in an unconditional sense” is to be actually free it makes no sense to ask if becoming actually free is a combination of being that and becoming an unselfish ‘self’. Third, rather than having to restrain your “resentful urges” forever and a day – so as to have a chance of “being close to someone or liked” as exemplified by intimacy experiences (IE’s) – why not find out why there is resentment in the first place? Speaking personally, the identity inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago first located the root source of
all ‘his’ anger – the basic resentment at being alive (as expressed in the “I didn’t ask to be born” type of plaint) – and was thus
able to rid ‘himself’ of (full-blown) anger Richard: To enable one to live in virtual freedom one can, among other things, renounce resentment. For the commitment to achieving peace-on-earth to become total, for it to become a complete devotion to effecting perfection, for it to become a dedication of oneself to the consummation of the freedom-of-the-moment, one gladly forsakes humankind’s ‘wisdom of old’. That ‘wisdom’ is a wishy-washy, part-time, lip-serving, casual approach to the ultimate goal. It is called ‘Hope’. All peoples are constantly exhorted to: ‘do not lose Hope’. But, as Hope is an impoverished proxy for the actual, the resentment remains. Only by firmly renouncing resentment, by abandoning one’s commitment to proving that life on earth is a ‘vale of tears’, can one’s commitment be staunch only to the ultimate goal. One is then no longer able to agree with others that ‘life on earth is a grim business’. One will easily cease saying things like ‘I didn’t ask to be born’, or ‘sorrow is part and parcel of life’, or ‘learn to accept suffering and grow by worshipping its beauty’. All of these desperate coping-mechanisms become humbug and are never validated again. With each experience of the fact that perfection is already here, the connection becomes stronger. One is laying down a path, as it were, with each cobblestone being the reminder of the purity of the atmosphere which lies at one’s ultimate destination. Renouncing resentment obviates the need to apply the commonly accepted antidote: gratitude. Gratitude is one of the many ploys designed, by those who expound on the merits of self-imposed suffering, to keep one in servile ignominy and creeping despair. As strange as it may initially seem, gratitude has the same deleterious effect upon one’s well-being as the resentment it seeks to reform. When gratitude is realised as being the panacea that it is, one will gladly renounce it along with the resentment it promises to replace. To successfully dispense with the despised resentment, its companion emotion, the extolled gratitude, must also go. It is a popular misconception that one can do away with a ‘bad’ emotion whilst hanging on to the ‘good’ one. In actualism the third alternative always applies. Good and Bad, Right and Wrong, Virtue and Sin, Hope and Despair, Gratitude and Resentment, and so on, all disappear in the perfection of purity. For thousands of years humankind has been struggling along, fumbling around in the dark for some
miserable ray of light to act as a beacon to guide one’s way to perfection and peace. All of the philosophies and psychologies and all of the
ideologies and theologies have not been able to deliver the goods. Peoples everywhere were forced to live on hope – and hope is a poor
substitute for the exquisite purity of the actual. It is the complete eradication of sorrow and malice that is the essential pre-requisite for
peace and harmony to prevail. One is then happy and harmless … and well equipped to face the now inaptly named ‘rigours of life’. One is
able to make one’s way in the world with joy and delight, marvelling in wonder at the magnificence of being alive on this verdant planet.
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 |
