|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Self-Immolation versus Immortality
RESPONDENT: If your intentional self-immolation and the ‘sensational’ event was not effective in eliminating the ‘soul’ in toto, what part does the ‘sensational’ event play in the eventual elimination? RICHARD: There were two events which precipitated much sensational activity at the nape of the neck – at the top of the brain-stem/ the base of the brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’/ ‘reptilian brain’) – and it was in the first of such incidences, in 1981, that the ego/ self (aka ‘the thinker) died whereas the soul/ spirit (aka ‘the feeler’), or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself), did not similarly die until 1992 whereupon then, and only then, could it be said that identity in toto was extinct. RESPONDENT: The quote below doesn’t make it clear that the intention to fully self-immolate did not achieve the desired end. It in fact tends to reinforce the idea that the deed was done.
RICHARD: I did preface the above text with the qualifier ‘to cut a long story short’ as that was a response to a query about the amygdalae in relation to fear and the source of the instinctual self and/or of the instinctual passions ... rather than when and how extirpation of same happened. Here is the text in full:
And:
RESPONDENT: I do understand that the intention is to put the emphasis on the reptilian brain as the source of the instincts and the origin of beingness and ego selves. Am I all wet and the quote refers only to the final (1992) event? RICHARD: No, it is simply a composite of the two events, both of which precipitated much sensational activity at the nape of the neck, so as to not complicate the issue being discussed with unnecessary detail. Perhaps if I were to put it this way: the process whereby identity in toto went into oblivion was hijacked halfway through its
course ... thus necessitating eleven more years before completion (before the hijacker, too, went into oblivion) as it is incredibly difficult to
bring the massive delusion of being the source of everything (an institutionalised insanity known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment)
to an end. * RESPONDENT: The ‘sensational’ event did not remove the survival drives? RICHARD: The event in 1981, which also precipitated much sensational activity at the nape of the neck, did not remove the basic survival passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) ... there was, in effect, a sublimation/ transcendence of them. RESPONDENT: Was the experience of transcendence of the passions sufficiently entrancing enough to fool you into thinking that the passions were truly vanished and you had achieved the desired ends? RICHARD: No ... immediately after the 1981 event it was obvious that the nature, or character, of experiencing was not that of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) but of an altered state of consciousness (ASC) which I was soon to be made cognisant of as being popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Is it only in retrospect that you viewed your intended self-immolation as both ego and being selves dying? In other words, did you have the clear distinction of the two types of identity in mind when you originally chose to get rid of your SELF? RICHARD: Basically, all that I knew (from the four-hour PCE in mid 1980 which set the entire process in motion) was that there were two types of identity – specifically labelled, then, as a social ‘me’ and a grand ‘Me’ – and that there was someone/something else which had observed those two ‘me’s. * RESPONDENT: [The ‘sensational’ event did not remove the survival drives?] Or if it did, somehow a vestigial self/identity remained? RICHARD: In essence what remained, as is the case with any spiritually enlightened/ mystically awakened being, was the rudimentary animal ‘self’ (an inchoate affective presence, an embryonic feeler, an incipient intuiter), which virtually all sentient beings are per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival software hereditarily endowed at conception, aggrandised like all get-out. RESPONDENT: Presumably, in spite of the ‘aggrandising’, it took you 11 years to get what was happening sufficiently to do something about it. RICHARD: I got what was happening after about six years ... for instance:
Somewhere around 1989-90 it increasingly dawned upon me that I was being dilatory – putting-off going that extra step – for a number of reasons ... the main one being that it was all uncharted territory/ untraversed terrain. ‘Twas no little thing to do, to venture where none had gone before, and the apprehension was considerable. RESPONDENT: [Richard] ‘Vanity, egoism, selfishness – all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ as ‘me’ being ceased to be’. [endquote]. I don’t doubt that the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be and transformation took place in you for a time or times ... RICHARD: Yet I never said ‘the ‘I’ as ‘me’ ceased to be’ as the quote of mine clearly states ‘I’ as ‘me’ *being* ceased to be (that which you describe, elsewhere, as ‘fullness-of-being’ has ceased to be) nor was there any ‘transformation’ take place as ‘ceased to be’ means extirpation, annihilation, extinction ... thus there was no ‘for a time or times’ about it as ‘self’-immolation in toto is the end, finish (as in there being no phoenix to rise from the ashes). As dead as the dodo, in other words, but with no skeletal remains. RESPONDENT: Ok, I think I understand what you are saying: The instinctual passions are genetically inherited and have a perception of self which becomes the feeling of self. RICHARD: No, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not have a perception of self ... what they do is usurp the sensate perception of self and create the feeling of ‘self’. RESPONDENT: It is the feeling of self (‘me’/ soul/ core) which is illusory which gives rise to the ‘I’/ego or thinker. In other words, the instinctual passions are genetically inherited and they give rise to the illusion of the ‘me’ and the ‘I’. RICHARD: Exactly, and what is vital to comprehend is that the feeler is primary and the thinker is secondary ... and that the thinker is but the tip of the iceberg. I kid you not ... the feeler automatically creates its own feeling reality, usurping sensate actuality as already explained, which reality is so all-pervasive that it is only in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that this actual world becomes apparent. * RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that in order to eliminate the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the instinctual passions themselves have to be eliminated ... RICHARD: No ... and the reason why not is this simple: who would be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions? As ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ it is an impossibility because the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ and so on – and has repressed the others. RESPONDENT: ... and in order to do that the layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to be peeled back in order to uncover the raw instinctual passions? RICHARD: In the end, only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, will release the flesh and blood body from its parasitical resident and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the end of ‘me’ is the end of ‘my’ feelings (aka the instinctual passions and all their cultivated derivations). RESPONDENT: Isn’t it the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ investigating itself which brings one to the point of self-immolation and isn’t it the ‘I’/‘me’ that makes the decision to self-immolate? RICHARD: Yes ... only ‘I’ can do it as it is all in ‘my’ hands and nobody else’s hands (nor is it in the hands of any god or goddess either, of course, despite some popular postulations to the contrary). RESPONDENT: You said above that the ‘I’/‘me’ cannot eliminate the instinctual passions but then you next said that the body is released from them by self- immolation. I am just trying to get a clear picture of it. RICHARD: Okay ... I was just making the point that, although it is hypothetically correct that the elimination of the instinctual passions would be the elimination of ‘I’/‘me’, it does not work that way in practice (for reasons such as already explained further above). Not only is it dangerous it is an impossibility ... only altruistic ‘self’-immolation will do the trick. Which is why I advise minimising both the ‘good’ and the ‘bad’ feelings and maximising the felicitous feelings – as far as humanly possible – as a salubrious modus operandi in the meanwhile rather than trying to eliminate them. Not only does this approach have the immediate benefit of feeling happy and harmless as one goes about one’s normal everyday life but it has the ultimate benefit of assisting in the rewiring of the brain’s habitual circuitry before the once-in-a-lifetime event happens which wipes out the identity in toto. To be more specific: what the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is on about is a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception). To be even more specific: delight is what is humanly possible, given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience, and from the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive now. Then one is no longer intuitively making sense of life ... the delicious wonder of it all drives any such instinctive meaning away. Such luscious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté – the nourishing of which is essential if fascination in it all is to occur – and the charm of life itself easily engages dedication to peace-on-earth. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But refrain from possessing it and making it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. RICHARD: To put it bluntly: ‘you’ in ‘your’ totality, who are but a passionate illusion, must die a dramatic illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. RESPONDENT: You saying that ego does not end without the drama of death. RICHARD: Yes ... it is ‘your’ moment of glory. It is ‘your’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘your’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. RESPONDENT: Hmm, the ego dies from moment to moment but this seems to be a breaking from a deep response or reflex memory. RICHARD: Does it really die ‘from moment to moment’ ... or does it appear that way? A ‘deep response’ from what? A ‘reflex memory’ of what? How is this ‘breaking’ experienced? The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event that
eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. RESPONDENT No. 25: Are you being predatory? RICHARD: I do not have that capacity ... only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’. RICHARD: Only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’. RESPONDENT No. 25: As the thinker assuming divided existence through a one-dimensional adulterating of the more than 3-D fullness of that, I doubt ‘I’ am going anywhere. RICHARD: On the contrary ... ‘you’ are going into oblivion for this is ‘your’ birthright. The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble? RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh? RESPONDENT: By what? RICHARD: Not ‘by what’ ... by ‘who’: by the malicious and sorrowful and antidotally loving and compassionate ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’. RESPONDENT: The illusion ends. RICHARD: Yes ... totally, completely, absolutely. End, finish, extinction. RESPONDENT: It is nothing special. RICHARD: If it is experienced as ‘nothing special’ ... then the illusion cannot have totally, completely and
absolutely ended for you, then. * RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble? RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh? RESPONDENT: If a delusion is seen as delusion, it stops. RICHARD: When the delusion of ‘me’ transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘I am That’) is seen ... that is the end of everything thus far known in human history as being the summum bonum of human experience. Thus the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ ends ... being atavistically tied to the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples is finally over. Set free from the apron-strings of spirit ... one can allow the actual to become apparent. RESPONDENT: It is silly to personify deluded thought and then praise an imaginary being for stopping itself. RICHARD: Why on earth would you say ‘it is silly’? That was how the total, complete, absolute end of illusion came about. That was the finish, the extinction of delusion. Why would you call that which enabled peace-on-earth ‘silly’? Sometimes the response I get from people defies sensible comprehension. * RESPONDENT: The illusion ends. RICHARD: Yes ... totally, completely, absolutely. End, finish, extinction. RESPONDENT: It is nothing special. RICHARD: If it is experienced as ‘nothing special’ ... then the illusion cannot have totally, completely and absolutely ended for you, then. RESPONDENT: Soon the flesh and blood body labelled as Richard will be dead and gone and the memory of all experiences with it. RICHARD: Of course ... a million or more words detailing the experience remain in print, though. RESPONDENT: Before death everything is equal and what we believe to be special is but human vanity. RICHARD: Going by this, then, all I can say is that it may very well be that you believe which is preventing the total, complete and absolute end of illusion and delusion for you. The word ‘extinction’ means what it describes: along with the psyche itself the entire intuitive/imaginative faculty is extirpated. I do not have the capacity – let alone the need – to believe. * RESPONDENT: Desire to bring about a certain end such as self-liberation or peace on earth has nothing to do with freedom as I understand it. RICHARD: First and foremost: as peace on earth has nothing to do with ‘self-liberation’ whatsoever, and everything to do with ‘self’-immolation instead, you are not talking to me at all but to your own misunderstanding of what I say. RESPONDENT: Self-immolation implies that there is a mind-state that is capable of bringing about its own ending. But desire for a particular state to result from one’s effort is self-motivated. It is a kind of grasping or choosing to become. That may not be what you mean but to tell people they can end a rotten core by doing something, seems contradictory. The core is the ‘doer’ or state of being a separate experiencer. When the melon is ripe, it falls from the vine. It is a natural event, not a forced one. And there is no reason to assume that if it occurs, it occurs the same way or to the same extent for everyone. RICHARD: First, ‘self’-immolation implies that there is no denial of there being an identity which is capable of
‘self’-sacrifice (as contrasted to ‘self’-surrender) ... which honesty ensures the integrity of the ensuing freedom. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. ALAN: The apparent end of the process is the realisation that all that was occurring was a process and completely meaningless – just part of ‘my’ antics. RICHARD: The contents of the process are meaningless, yes, but the process itself is essential for the ending of ‘me’. ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ can do to bring about this ‘death’ is that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously – and with knowledge aforethought – set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and intentionally, is to press the button which precipitates a momentum – oft-times alarming but always thrilling – that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ freely and cheerfully sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is a welcome release into actuality. Then I am finally here ... now. I discover that I have always been here now ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except in illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. ALAN: ‘I’ cannot accept that ‘I’ will never know the answer. RICHARD: You will find, as the process proceeds, that ‘I’ will come to accept that ‘I’ can never know the answer – and gladly – when ‘I’ realise that ‘my’ psychological and psychic self-immolation is the best contribution that ‘I’ can make for peace-on-earth. ‘I’ have an in-built tendency for self-sacrifice – human history bears this out in silly physical self-sacrifice – so ‘my’ ending of ‘myself’ it is what ‘I’ am well-equipped to do ... it is what ‘I’ am good at doing. Literally millions of peoples throughout history, mistakenly identifying with ‘I’, have readily sacrificed the physical body for whatever ‘good cause’ that they have been brainwashed into believing. As I wrote in ‘Richard’s Journal’:
And again:
These are the wondrous workings of the exquisite quality of life. ALAN: Whatever ‘process’ (if it was a process) started last night has continued today and intensified on my walk with the dog this morning. Strange sensations, mainly ‘pressure’ in the head and all the time the question ‘is this an actual process or something ‘I’ am making up’. The realisation that everything which occurs is just something ‘I’ am making up and, though real, it is not actual. At one stage, when very intense, I pick up a stone and clutch it desperately for the knowledge that the stone actually exists. The pain in my hand, when I clutch the stone tightly is an actual pain. Everything else is an illusion. All I have lived for 46 years is an illusion. ‘I’ desperately want a reply from Richard and now I know the reason why – to verify whether the process is actually happening. RICHARD: Aye ... it sure sounds like the genuine article to me. From your description it would appear that this is indeed the same-same kind of process that went on in me when I had an ‘I’ lurking around within this body ... and being able to recognise a similarity is the only type of ‘verification’ worth anything I can give. A ‘pressure in the head’ I can relate to ... with me it was most intense at the base of the brain (at the top of the brain-stem) but it permeated throughout the head. It could last anywhere from five minutes to two-three hours, and sometimes would move down to the small of my back (between the shoulder blades) as it diminished prior to finishing. I would then get a convulsive jerking of the left leg for up to half an hour, then all would be over ... for that time round. At the time I took heed of the fact that these symptoms are well known among mystics and are called ‘Kriyas’ by the Indians (who have been doing this kind of thing for centuries), as I had nothing else to go by to explain these bizarre happenings. The stone actually exists ... and the physical pain you get by ‘clutching it desperately’ is actual (the ‘desperately’ part is real, not actual ... but I understand the desperation that is engendered when reality – your entire world-view – breaks down). Rest assured that the flesh and blood fellow human being called Richard that is writing these words is also actual. It is a weird thing to go through ... but then again, war and rape and murder and torture and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide are equally bizarre. The Human Condition is weird, so any dissolution of it is correspondingly weird. Also, your pride can begin to take a hammering, so watch out for the tendency to becoming humble to ameliorate your condition whilst you go through this process ... else you may become enlightened. You will not have an ounce of pride – or humility – left in you by the time it is all over. ALAN: An aside to write of the outstanding PCE I have just had while it is fresh: it only lasted a few minutes and was occasioned by reading the next few paragraphs and deciding what to reply. I was contemplating that what you wrote was correct – ‘‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history’ and suddenly ‘got it’. ‘I’ only imagine that ‘I’ began existence with this body. ‘I’ have never actually existed, do not actually exist and will never actually exist. WHAMMM!!! As in every PCE, everything was immediately clear and obvious, life was perfect, amazing and full of wonder. Then, intense pressure at the base of the skull – like nothing I have ever experienced before. A flash of dread. A knowledge that this was to be the death of ‘me’. A realisation that this was the moment and there was nothing to fear as it was only ‘me’ feeling fear and fear did not actually exist. I let go of the controls!!! Shaking so much I can hardly write. Fear and excitement. Riding the wave. What an adventure. And Richard is correct – altruism is necessary. ‘I’ cannot do this thing or rather ‘I’ cannot will this thing. It has to be ‘my’ sacrifice for the whole of humanity. It is the only thing ‘I’ can do. ‘I have no choice. The seeing that ‘I’ am ‘my’ instincts and therefore responsible for all of the suffering is too, too much for ‘me’ to bear. And then ... ‘I’ copped out. Obviously ‘I’ want to remain in existence a bit longer! RICHARD: I can recall the ‘Richard’ that was getting chicken-feet at the crucial moment and desiring to return to the familiar and comfortable ... except that when ‘he’ did regain normality ‘he’ regretted not taking advantage of the opportunity presented. Accordingly, the next in PCE ‘he’ went a little further – pushing the envelope – before backing-off once again. Eventually one gets to the point where courage (or the lack thereof) is no longer applicable. Then one is just doing it, anyway, irregardless of the imagined dangers inherent. ALAN: And all of this sitting at the kitchen table!! This is obviously the way to go. As I write this there is a knowledge, a certainty, that ‘I’ am going to ‘give up’ – whether it be hours, days or months. Ah well, that is the end of that little adventure, for the moment anyway – and all I’m left with is ... a pain in the neck. The sensation was, and is, as though there is an unused muscle there, very stiff and it hurts a bit to use it. I cannot describe the sensation I felt. You describe it as ‘something turning over’. Well it has not ‘turned over’ yet but it moved a hell of a lot. If I had stuck with it an instant longer, that would have been it – next time, no cop outs!! RICHARD: It is important to be friends with oneself ... no berating oneself for ‘chickening-out’ (because, as you
said above, ‘it is, indeed, a strange state of affairs’). MARK: With all belief systems abandoned, no way to imagine new ones, no trigger for emotions and incumbent feelings, the last days, hours, moments, of the self, (and this obviously conjecture on my part) must be extreme in the poignancy of their primal and purely instinctual nature. RICHARD: Aye ... when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’
am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’
moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to
physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. In an ecstatic moment of being present, ‘I’
expire. ‘I’ am extirpated, rubbed out. ‘I’ cease to exist, permanently. Something irrevocable takes place and every thing and every body
and every event is different, somehow, although the same physically; something immutable occurs and every thing and every body and every event is
all-of-a-sudden undeniably actual, in and of itself, as a fact; something irreversible happens and an immaculate perfection and a pristine purity
permeates every thing and every body and every event; something has changed forever, although it is as if nothing has happened, except that the
entire world is a magical fairytale-like playground full of incredible gladness and a delight which is never-ending. RESPONDENT: As I said before that these words by themselves, in my opinion, wouldn’t help for ‘I’ to self-immolate either. RICHARD: Yet there is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. It manifests in humans in the way that ‘I’ will passionately defend ‘myself’ and ‘my group’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. However, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. This is called altruism ... albeit misplaced. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. Now, it is ‘I’ that is responsible for an action that results ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ that is the cause of bringing about this sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result ... because it is already here. ‘I’ was merely standing in the way of this always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent. The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple. RICHARD: When ‘I’ willingly and voluntarily sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological or psychic identity residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what one holds most dear. RESPONDENT: Is it not what a true surrender is (or should be)? We can ‘laundry’ this old dirty word. RICHARD: Yet ‘surrender’ means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim to it; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of compliance, acquiescence, passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency. Speaking personally, I have never, ever given in. I do not know how to – thus it has never been an option – and never will know how to. Whereas ‘sacrifice’ means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate destruction, abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, depart from, leave, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, spontaneous, free and easy, relaxed, informal, open, candid, outspoken, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled ... none of which is implied with ‘surrender’. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. ALAN: Along with the realisation that I am (almost) this universe experiencing itself – and only that – came a tinge of fear, with the knowing that when I am actually this universe experiencing itself, ‘I’ will no longer exist. RICHARD: True ... the apprehension of the end of ‘being’ – which is all ‘I’ know and all ‘I’ have known and all ‘I’ can know – automatically produces fear. This is because ‘I’ am fear and fear is ‘me’ – the instinctual passions are ‘being’ itself – and fear is perhaps the most fundamental of all the instinctual passions. Fear rules the world (both the animal world and the human world) and as terror it stalks its prey maliciously ... only to convulse in upon itself in horror. Interestingly enough, the Christians have transmogrified this psychic energy into being their devil (they say ‘The Devil’ rules the world) and some of these peoples, meeting me face-to-face, have convinced themselves that I am in league with their institutionalised phantasm. ALAN: Am ‘I’ really willing to sacrifice ‘my’ self to allow this to happen? RICHARD: The question that the ‘I’ that was inhabiting this body back in 1981 asked was: ‘what am I saving myself for’? ALAN: And yet, ‘I’ know it is inevitable, if I am to fulfil my destiny. RICHARD: Aye, to escape one’s fate and achieve one’s destiny is what one is alive for: being here – now – is the very reason one was born. ALAN: As you said in one of your posts (approximately), it is an irresistible pull, a momentum and impetus which is not of ‘my’ doing. RICHARD: Yes, once altruistically set in motion, a momentum happens of its own accord. One knows, from the perfection of freedom from the human condition as evidenced in the PCE, that it is possible to live the actuality that is already always here. What ‘I’ do is unreservedly allow ‘my’ eventual demise to occur ... pure intent, born out of the connection between one’s inherent naiveté and the perfection of the infinitude of this physical universe, will provide one with the necessary intestinal fortitude. And once embarked upon the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom, you are not on your own: this perfection is with you all the way ... but if you waver, you are indeed doing it on your own. It is a matter of having the courage of your convictions and letting nothing stand in your way; determination and perseverance are the essential prerequisites to ensure success ... coupled with application and diligence. One finds one must – one needs must actually do it – for no one else will do it for you as no one else can do it for you. And although one may think and feel that it would be a lonely journey to take on one’s own it is not ... it is the most joyous escapade one can ever enter into. It is the jaunt of a lifetime. ALAN: It is like being on the outer edge of a massive whirlpool, being dragged closer and closer, and faster and faster, to the inevitable moment of entering the vortex – and ‘popping’ out the other side – I see I have not yet quite lost the imaginative faculty! RICHARD: Yet this is so correct, for I am talking of nothing else but extirpation ... annihilation ... extinction ... the non-existence of any identity whatsoever. All of one’s precious ‘being’ will disappear ... not only the ego but the soul as well. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ will cease to exist in any way, shape or form. What you are calling ‘the vortex’ is blessed oblivion ... the same-same as physical death. ALAN: So, as I sit here watching another sun rise, with the crescent moon and Venus still visible, and the clouds turning a delightful shade of pink, I glory in the opportunity of being able to be the universe experiencing itself. What a gas! RICHARD: I am constantly amazed at the colour of this world ... and I am particularly struck by the sheer exuberance of it all. To put it in the lingo: this universe surely is flamboyant in its expressiveness! It is impossible to take it seriously. RICHARD: But then again, ‘I’ am by nature cunning and deceitful. ‘I’ will do anything but face the fact of ‘my’ own demise. With ‘my’ psychological ‘death’, however, comes release from the fears of physical death. All of the unnamed terrors surrounding death arise from apprehension as to what will happen to ‘me’ as a ‘being’. I regard death with equanimity; when it happens I will welcome it as I do the oblivion of deep sleep each night. Like sleep, it is an agreeable actual occurrence. RESPONDENT: ‘Do not go gentle into that good night. Rage. Rage against the dying of the light’ – so wrote Dylan Thomas. Fear of death is life preserving and is part of our instinct to survive and precedes any ‘apprehension of what will happen to ‘me’ as a ‘being’’. That apprehension is merely a psychological afterglow of the instinctive fear. RICHARD: This is a bit at odds with your earlier statement: ‘Our human instinctive behaviour is proving ruinous to the planet and so we need to be able to consciously amend our ways or continue ruining things.’ Personally, by the extirpation of the self – and the Self – I have eliminated all of those debilitating instincts which
blind nature endowed me with at birth. Consequently I experience that I am more free than a bird on the wing ... being totally without the
instinctual fear and aggression, for example, I find that my life is blithesome and gay. Having abolished malice and sorrow forever, I am both
happy and harmless ... and will be for the remainder of my days. RESPONDENT: A few questions Richard; was it after that you read Krishnamurti that you went to the island with only a loin cloth (or something of the sort) where you stayed x number of years before you finally experienced the ‘final death of the soul’? RICHARD: Of all the books I read, the one that was most informative for me was his pencil-written diary spanning six weeks, where profound ‘otherness’ events were happening for him. (‘Krishnamurti’s Journal’; J. Krishnamurti; Published by HarperCollins; ISBN: 0-06-064841-4; 100 pp). It was the only book I initially took with me when I went through a time I call my ‘puritan period’. I eventually whittled my worldly possessions down to three sarongs, three shirts, a cooking pot and bowl, a knife and a spoon, a bank book and a pair of nail scissors ... but for eight months or so that was my only reading material (I then gave the book to a ‘Krishnamurtiite’ I met along the way in the Himalayas). My experiences on an uninhabited island in the tropics off the north-eastern Australian seaboard came after being in India: there was a group of islands where I stayed for the best part of three months in total silence, on my own, speaking to no one at all and moving from island to island at whim. It was towards the end of the period when I was homeless, itinerant, celibate, vegan, (no spices; not even salt and pepper), no drugs (no tobacco, no alcohol; not even tea or coffee), no hair cut, no shaving, no washing other than a dip in a river or the ocean. I possessed nothing else anywhere in the world and had cut all family ties ... whatever I could eliminate from my life that was an encumbrance and an attachment, I had let go of. In other words: whatever was traditionally seen as an impediment to freedom I discarded. It was there I finally discovered that it was Spiritual Enlightenment that was at fault and that I could ‘purify’ myself via these ‘Tried and True’ means until the moon turned blue ... to no avail. The first of these experiences occurred at maybe three in the morning (I had no watch) and was accompanied by a sense of dread the likes of which I had never experienced even in a war-zone – made all the more acute because I had not experienced fear for four years (I was living in a state of Divine Compassion and Love Agapé which protected me from malice and the underlying fear). The condition I experienced was of the nature of some ‘Great Beyond’ (I have to put it in capitals because that is how I experienced it at the time) and it was of the nature of which has always been ascribed, in all the spiritual/mystical writings I had read, as being ‘That’ which one merges with at physical death when one ‘quits the body’. Sometimes known as ‘The Ocean of Oneness’ or ‘Mahasamadhi’ or ‘Parinirvana’. It seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. To put it into a physical analogy, it was as if I were to gather up my meagre belongings, eradicate all marks of my stay on the island, and paddle away over the horizon, all the while not knowing whence I go ... and vanish without a trace, never to be seen again. As no one on the mainland knew where I was, no one would know where I had gone. In fact, I would become as extinct as the dodo and with no skeletal remains. The autological self by whatever name would cease to ‘be’, there would be no ‘spirit’, no ‘presence’, no ‘being’ at all. This was more than death of the ego, which is a major event by any definition; this was total annihilation. No ego, no soul – no self, no Self – no more Heavenly Rapture, Love Agapé, Divine Bliss and so on. Only oblivion. It was not at all attractive, not at all alluring, not at all desirable ... yet I knew I was going to do it, sooner or later, because it was the ultimate condition and herein lay the secret to the ‘Mystery of Life’. It was to take seven more years to eventuate ... but that is another story. RESPONDENT: I have distinct memory of a lot Krishnamurti’s general phrases, words, and meaning. One instance of a Krishnamurti statement was that most people just don’t want ‘it’ (freedom) enough ... to do what it takes to know that freedom. Did you ‘want’ that freedom more than anything else in the world; is that why you left civilization behind and went to the island? RICHARD: Yes, one has to want it like one has never wanted anything else before ... so much so that all the instinctual passionate energy of desire, normally frittered away on petty desires, is fuelling and impelling/propelling one into this thing and this thing only (‘impelling’ as in a pulling from the front and ‘propelling’ as in being pushed from behind). There is a ‘must’ to it (one must do it/it must happen) and a ‘will’ to it (one will do it/it will happen) and one is both driven and drawn until there is an inevitability that sets in. Now it is unstoppable and all the above ceases of its own accord ...one is unable to distinguish between ‘me’ doing it and it happening to ‘me’. One has escaped one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny. RESPONDENT: Was it your being alone on the island that lead to the death you experienced and of which you speak? RICHARD: Yes, I then experientially knew that the ultimate goal both existed here-on-earth and was possible here-on-earth ... as it was indelibly experienced on several occasions. This knowing works away on one at a non-conscious level. RESPONDENT: Do you feel that the sort of renouncement you made of the world is necessary to know the veritable paradise of which you also speak? RICHARD: No. An actual freedom from the human condition, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body has now been discovered, demonstrated and described ... no one else need ever take that route again (and I would not wish upon anyone to have to follow in my footsteps for I had to run the full gamut of existential angst to break through to what lay beyond). I always liken it to the physical adventure that Mr. James Cook undertook to journey to Australia two hundred plus years ago. It took him over a year in a leaky wooden boat with hard tack for food and immense dangers along the way. Nowadays, one can fly to Australia in twenty-seven hours in air-conditioned comfort, eating hygienically prepared food and watching an in-flight movie into the bargain. No one has to go the path of the trail-blazer and forge along in another leaky wooden boat. As an actual freedom is peace-on-earth as this flesh and blood body it is here in the actual world – it is not an ‘inner freedom’ requiring withdrawal and detachment – and it is to be accessed in the market place, as one goes about one’s normal daily life, in the world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: What was it exactly that brought about the death which lead to the ability to live in a veritable garden of eden? RICHARD: In late September 1992 a woman, who had been coming to see me on and off for some time, earnestly asked that she be taken on as a disciple ... she seriously wished me to be her master. I was astounded, for I had been at pains to explain that I was not interested in being anyone’s master, for I considered the entire system of the master-disciple relationship, with its attendant surrender, trust, worship and obedience, to be not only insidious, but pernicious as in regards to another person’s freedom. I declined, of course, yet I had to question just what I was ‘putting out’ to people to precipitate such a request. What was my part in all this? What was I doing – indeed what was I being – to encourage another to consider taking this step? I had been dismantling various aspects of the make-up of the Altered State Of Consciousness that I was living in – a state of Spiritual Enlightenment that I called Absolute Freedom – and had thought myself to be virtually free of all that hocus-pocus that goes on in the name of freedom. I asked myself what turned out to be a seminal question: ‘What am I in relation to other people?’ I asked the question in such a way so that I would not get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer. I wanted an experiential result ... and I kept the question burning in the depths of my psyche, discarding any intellectual answers that inevitably popped-up in the course of the next five or six weeks. And then it happened as a direct result of keeping the question open – which is another story – thus these days I empirically know what I am in relation to other people: I am not an ‘Enlightened Master’ sitting in an exalted position ... and what a relief that is. I am a fellow human being, who happens to live in a condition of perfection and purity, offering my experience to whomsoever is interested. What they do with this information is their business. RICHARD: Any state hypothesised from a delusion can only be a further delusion ... or an illusion. One must psychologically and psychically ‘die’ to find out the actuality of what is. Then there is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity, oneness or wholeness. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – the passionately longed-for ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ and ‘wholeness’ vanishes. Unity’, ‘Oneness’ and ‘Wholeness’ were merely concepts created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul for all eternity ... a very self-centred and thus, ultimately, an extremely selfish approach to life-on-earth. No wonder that so much hatred and blood-shed follows in the wake of all Enlightened Masters’ attempts to bring a spurious peace into the world (not to mention Love and Compassion ... but that is another matter). RESPONDENT: Are you (the thinker or chooser) bringing about this psychic death? RICHARD: Yes and no ... and I am not being tricky here. Yes, in that ‘I’ bring about this ‘death’ in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. And no, in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself. When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. * RESPONDENT: That [dissolution of the conditioning] means there are actual chemical or neuro-physiological changes, not the ‘death’ of an imagined psyche although it may seem like ‘me’ dying. RICHARD: One may call the ‘psyche’ imagined; one may call the ‘me’ imagined; one may call the ‘death’
imagined ... yet, whatever it is that dramatically ‘dies’ is but a playing-out of the tragedy of ‘being’ ... when the process that ‘I’
initiated with full intent wipes out all the instinctual passions one was born with. You see, there is this rudimentary animal ‘self’ of the
survival instincts endowed by blind nature as evidenced in animals ... and there is the rub. The presence of this base ‘self’ – which is ‘being’
itself – has nothing to do with imagination – or with conditioning and programming or thought and memory – you were physically born this way. RICHARD: As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’, there is no way that ‘I’ can end ‘me’. What ‘I’ do is that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button – which is to acquiesce – which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable self-immolation. The acquiescing is that one thus dedicates oneself to being here as the universe’s experience of itself now ... it is the unreserved !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body. Peace-on-earth is the inevitable result of such devotion because it is already here ... it is always here now. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ was merely standing in the way of the already always existing perfect purity from becoming apparent by sitting back and moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all (as epitomised in ‘I didn’t ask to be born’). How can one be forever sticking one’s toe in and testing out the waters and yet expect to be able to look at oneself in the mirror each morning with dignity. The act of initiating this ‘process’ – acquiescence – is to embrace death. GARY: I am curious about what you mean by ‘embracing death’. RICHARD: In the context where one unreservedly says !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body I am referring to physical death. If it were not for physical death one could not be happy ... let alone harmless. GARY: So, from what you are saying here, I take it that embracing death and embracing life are part, perhaps I should not say ‘part’, but rather they are the same. It seems there is no difference. RICHARD: If I may interject ... ‘life’ and ‘death’ are not an opposite (unless a person believes in an after-death realm); there is simply birth and death. Matter arranges and rearranges itself as the infinitude of this material universe and life is what happens in between each arrangement and rearrangement (as animate matter and as sensate animate matter). Before I was born, I was not happening. As I am alive, I am happening. After death, I am not happening ... whereas this universe always was, already is and always will be existing. Thus when I unreservedly say !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body I am embracing birth and death, not ‘life and death’ ... if it were not for birth this universe would not be able to experience itself (in this case) as a sensate and reflective human being. There is an imperative to being born. GARY: If one embraces death, I mean accepts it totally, not on a superficial level, but realizes the impermanence of ‘me’ and ‘mine’, then one is free to live totally in the present. RICHARD: Yes ... if I may explore this word ‘accept’ (and ‘accepting’ and ‘acceptance’) as I see that you qualified it with ‘totally, not on a superficial level’? It has a lot of currency these days and popular usage has given it somewhat the same meaning as ‘allow’ or ‘permit’ or ‘tolerate’ ... which is why I say ‘embrace’ (as in unreservedly saying !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body) as a full-blooded approval and endorsement. Those peoples who say that they ‘accept’ ... um ... a rapist, for just one example, never for one moment are approving and endorsing ... let alone unreservedly saying !YES! to the rapist. GARY: By refusing to accept the fact of death, the inevitable end of ‘me’, by positing notions of eternal life, reincarnation, etc. one is simply postponing living life fully in the now, one is actually resisting life, clinging to the ‘me’ and one’s survival as a biological or spiritual entity. It actually does not matter – one has a notion of oneself as actually continuing in the future, whether through the Christian notion of the resurrection of the physical body at the Final Judgement, or an imagined continuance of a spiritual entity through reincarnation, etc. RICHARD: Yes ... one is but a skipped heart-beat or two away from death each moment again. If one does not live in the optimum manner now one may never do so. GARY: When one is concerned about one’s survival as a biological or spiritual entity, harm arises as one is clinging to life not surrendering to the inevitable demise of ‘me’. RICHARD: Yes ... except if I may also explore this word ‘surrender’ as it too has a lot of currency these days. Basically ‘surrender’ means the giving up of oneself into the possession or power of another who has or asserts a claim; to yield on demand or compulsion to a person or a god ... as in submission to an enemy in resignation as a prisoner. It basically means to give in, to relinquish possession of, give up, deliver up, part with, let go of, yield, submit, capitulate, lay down one’s arms, throw in the towel, throw in the sponge, succumb ... and lose. It smacks of passivity, docility, meekness, sufferance ... a seeking of clemency. Speaking personally, I have never, ever given in, in this sense. I do not know how to – thus it has never been an option – and never will know how to. Whereas the ‘I’ that was sacrificed ‘himself’ ... and ‘sacrifice’ means to die as an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s life as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired, especially one’s life, for the sake of something regarded as more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate destruction, abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, depart from, leave, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, spontaneous, free and easy, relaxed, informal, open, candid, outspoken, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled ... none of which is implied with ‘surrender’. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. I embrace death ... if it were not for physical death one could not be happy ... let alone harmless. GARY: And you are saying the demise of ‘me’ (from your perspective) is an accomplished fact? RICHARD: Yes ... in psychiatric terms it is called ‘depersonalisation’ (as in ‘lost touch with one’s identity’). The question ‘who am I’ has no relevance whatsoever (whereas ‘what am I’ is the obvious question to ask). However, this particular ‘depersonalisation’ goes hand-in-hand with another psychiatric term: ‘derealisation’ (as in ‘lost one’s grip on reality’). Thus psychiatry cannot explain this actual freedom from the human condition accurately as there is no precedence in that both ‘identity’ and ‘reality’ have ceased to exist – as in extinct – whereas, nominally, a depersonalised or a derealised patient can be (somewhat) brought ‘back to reality’ or can ‘regain their identity’ to some degree. Embracing death is a one-way trip. * GARY: Krishnamurti talks about a lot about dying to self, dying to your thoughts, your name, etc. It sounds pretty much like a comprehensive dying to everything. But this is not what most of us are doing – quite the opposite, we are cultivating a continuity, craving a permanency. I have found that when I experiment with this death, embrace death as you say, there is a profound disorientation that sets in followed by an exhilarating feeling of freedom. Now, this is not an actual physical death that you are talking about, is it? Elsewhere you talk about one’s demise, one’s self-immolation. So could you say more about what it means to you to embrace death? RICHARD: Death is a fact to be embraced while alive or it will never be known. To not ‘be’ is inconceivable; it is impossible to imagine not ‘being’ because all one has ever known is ‘being’. What does it mean to not ‘be’? One has always been busy with ‘being’ ... being ‘me’ as ‘being’ itself. What is it to not exist? GARY: It is indeed incomprehensible. RICHARD: Yes ... an actual freedom from the human condition is inconceivable, unimaginable, unbelievable and undreamed
of. Actuality is far, far better than anything ‘I’ could want ... ‘I’ did not know that this pristine perfection could possibly exist. RESPONDENT: What is the difference between the state you described (that lasted 4 hours, and changed your being) and the permanent state you are in now? RICHARD: Apart from the obvious quantitative difference (on-going for the remainder of one’s natural life) there is a
qualitative difference that is more than the outcome of permanence. In a PCE, the identity is merely in abeyance – not extinct – and this
abeyant ‘me’ casts an ever-so-faint shadow over the purity of the perfection made apparent. This ever-so-slight pall is of little or no
account, however, given the vast differentiation betwixt ‘reality’ and the actuality being evidenced and what one sees is, more or less, what
one gets. The actual is so perfect, you see, that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in, as it were ... thus it needs no protection whatsoever.
Consequently, the actual freedom is qualitatively different in that there is a safety and security here that has to be lived to be known ... in a
PCE one will inevitably revert to ‘normal’ where menace and insecurity prevail. In an actual freedom – as distinct from a PCE – one is
pristine, immaculate, impeccable, unimpeachable, unassailable, untouchable and so on as an absolute and irreversible fact. One is utterly harmless
and totally reliable ... and peace-on-earth occurs effortlessly. RESPONDENT: After this ‘experience’ you concluded, or felt, that Richard had to go. RICHARD: It was so blatantly obvious, when ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ was (a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning social identity), that thought and feeling had no part to play ... because at the instant ‘I’ saw ‘myself’, an action that was not of ‘my’ doing occurred, and I was not that identity. It all happened of its own accord as a direct result of the ‘seeing’ ... and I was this very material universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. I was living in this fairy-tale-like actual world, that all carbon-based life-forms live in (and could be aware of if only they realised it), which has the quality of a magical perfection and purity; everything and everyone has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence – the actualness of everything and everyone – because we do not live in an inert universe. The infinitude that this very material universe is, is epitomised apperceptively as an immaculate consummation that has always been here, is always here and will always be here. Thus nothing is ‘going wrong’, has ever been ‘going wrong’ and will never be ‘going wrong’. This was what ‘I’ had been searching for – for 33 years – and the joke was that ‘I’ had not known that this is what ‘I’ had been searching for! Thus, when I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’, ‘I’ knew, with the solid and irrefutable certainty of direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go – become extinct – and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ just knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. It was flagrantly evident that the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. Naturally, there was a lot of thinking and feeling about it all – and discussion with one’s peers who all said it was not possible twenty four hours a day – yet there was an awareness that predominated all the while that disregarded all this thinking and feeling and which simply and wordlessly said ‘THIS IS IT’ no matter what conclusions and decisions were reached. When one has experienced the best ... one cannot settle for second-best. RESPONDENT: Was there another movement, experience, fact, involved to make it go? RICHARD: Oh yes ... the PCE was in July 1980 and ‘I’ did not deliberately and consciously and knowingly step onto the wide and wondrous path that leads to an actual freedom from the human condition until January 1981. Thus there was a six-month gestation period wherein the implications and ramifications of abandoning ‘humanity’ were ruminated and digested subliminally. Also, and this is but a personal thing, a close friend of many years standing went ‘stark staring mad’ in December 1980 – what I nowadays know of as ‘divine madness’ – and the event shook ‘me’ to the core. Thus ‘I’ was determined to put to an end, once and for all, to all the religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical nonsense that has saturated and dominated both 5,000 years of recorded history and perhaps 50,000 years of pre-history. The war that I volunteered for in 1966 was not just an ideological war (capitalism versus communism) ... I went to war as a gilded youth in order to stop the spread of that ‘godless regime’ from sweeping south. The never-to-be-achieved triumph of ‘Good’ over ‘Evil’ has dominated all conflict since the dawn of human consciousness ... with the nature of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ being culturally determined, of course. RESPONDENT: Self-immolation is another separate fact? RICHARD: Yes ... it requires a rather curious decision to be made: a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again. It is a once-in-a-lifetime determination and takes some considerable preparation because ‘I’, the aggressive psychological entity and ‘me’, the frightened psychic entity will both vanish forever. After ‘my’ close friend’s ‘divine madness’ began to unfold in its inevitable course through ‘parousia’, the first thing ‘I’ did, in January 1981, was to put an end to anger once and for all ... then ‘I’ was freed enough to live in an ad hoc 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. And all this while I asked (as an open question) ‘how do ‘I’ do it?’ (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) ... and the essential character of the perfection of the physical infinitude of this material universe was enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. This enabling is experienced as a ‘pure intent’ running as a ‘golden thread’, as it were, from the purity and perfection of the infinitude to that little-used faculty: naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence). Thus the thing is to live, each moment again, a virtual freedom wherein the ‘good’ feelings – the affectionate and desirable emotions and passions (those that are loving and trusting) are minimised along with the ‘bad’ feelings – the hostile and invidious emotions and passions (those that are hateful and fearful) – so that one is free to be feeling good, feeling happy and harmless and feeling excellent/perfect for 99% of the time. If one deactivates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) with this freed-up affective energy, in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on), then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperceptiveness (unmediated perception). Delight is what is humanly possible, given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience, and from the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive now. Then one is no longer intuitively making sense of life ... the delicious wonder of it all drives any such instinctive meaning away. Such luscious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté – the nourishing of which is essential if fascination in it all is to occur – and the charm of life itself easily engages dedication to peace-on-earth. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with sensuously caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. The other thing ‘I’ did was to become accustomed with the territory that ‘me’, the frightened psychic entity, lurked
about in: fear itself. Fear is both the barrier to and the gateway for an actual freedom ... and one runs the full gauntlet from disquietude,
uneasiness, nervousness, apprehension, anxiety, fear, terror, horror, dread and existential angst. Dread is the passion to watch out for as the
foreboding Thus one can become virtually free from all the insidious feelings – the emotions and passions – that fuel the mind and give credence to all the illusions and delusions and fantasies and hallucinations that masquerade as visions of ‘The Truth’. One can become virtually free of all that which has encumbered humans with misery and despair and live in a state of virtual freedom ... which is beyond ‘normal’ human expectations anyway. Then, and only then, can the day of destiny dawn wherein one becomes actually free. One will have obtained release from one’s fate and achieved one’s destiny ... and the world will be all the better for it. This, the third alternative, is now possible.
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 |
