Richard’s Correspondence

with Correspondent No. 54

November 07 2003

RICHARD: The instinctual passions [such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire] are the very energy source of the rudimentary animal self ... the base consciousness of ‘self’ and ‘other’ that all sentient beings have. The human animal – with its unique ability to be aware of its own death – transforms this ‘reptilian brain’ rudimentary core of ‘being’ (an animal ‘self’) into being a feeling ‘me’ (as soul in the heart) and the ‘feeler’ then infiltrates into thought to become the ‘thinker’ ... a thinking ‘I’ (as ego in the head). No other animal can do this. (...) Past the human conditioning is the human condition itself ... that which caused the conditioning in the first place. To end this condition, the deletion of blind nature’s software package which gave rise to the rudimentary animal ‘self’ is required. This is the elimination of ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’. The complete and utter extinction of ‘being’ is the end to all the ills of humankind.

RESPONDENT: ‘Being’ to me implies an ongoing, static, state that never ends. If you say that it can become extinct, then it must be impermanent. Therefore it falls under the category of a conditioned (impermanent) thing?

RICHARD: Yes ... and an illusory/delusory thing at that.

RESPONDENT: The extract you sent in the previous dialogue is dealing with erasing the human ‘self’ or ‘being’ but do you not agree that the two issues (permanency and ‘self’/identity) are linked?

RICHARD: Not as an actuality, no (the issue of permanency is linked to the issue of the properties of the universe).

RESPONDENT: Is not the sense of being a human being tied up with the belief in permanence, i.e. the belief that ‘I’ am at the root of everything (as a permanent entity)?

RICHARD: As the (sensorial) ‘sense of being a human being’ is tied up with impermanence – as in mortality – you can only be referring to the intuitive ‘sense of being a human being’ (as in immortality) ... the affective feeling of being a ‘presence’ inside the body (aka ‘being’ itself), in other words, as a psychological/psychic entity (a metaphysical identity) rather than the sensitive feeling of being this body as a sensate/material entity (a physical creature).

Hence spiritualism has it that, whilst the ego-self is impermanent, the soul-self is permanent and that ego-death, while the body is a living body, is essential to reveal who one really is – an immortal spirit-being – whereas actualism has that identity-death in toto (extinction) is essential to make apparent what one actually is (a mortal human being) ... and therein lies the rub: as a spirit-being one is so very real, so very, very real at times, one is prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion so that what is actually permanent can become apparent.

This infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is not conditioned by any definition of the word (especially No. 3):

• ‘conditioned: (from the noun) 1. having a (specified) disposition or temperament; in a particular condition or state; 2 placed in certain conditions; circumstanced, situated; (from the verb) 3. subject to conditions or limitations; dependent on a condition; not absolute or infinite; 4. brought into a desired state; with the balance of certain qualities adjusted; 5. taught to accept certain habits, attitudes, standards, etc.; accustomed to. (© Oxford Dictionary).

*

RESPONDENT: With regards to your statement that it is impossible to visualize images any more (if I have understood correctly): if you close your eyes and try and do some physical action, like turn on the TV, are there no mental images there to guide you?

RICHARD: None whatsoever ... the imaginative/intuitive faculty vanished when the affections ceased to exist (and thus their epiphenomenal psychic facility). I literally cannot imagine, visualise, envisage, envision, picture, intuit, see in the mind’s eye, feel-out, dream up, fall into a reverie, or in any other way, shape or manner imaginatively conceptualise anything whatsoever. I could not form a mental image of something if my life depended upon it ... whereas in earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my’ mind’s eye of ‘my’ absent father, mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take by car or whatever. If I were to close the eyes now, and try to visualise, all what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal and perpetual universe at night – which has been the case for all these years now. I simply cannot have images ... when I recall childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, being middle-aged or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of somebody’s life. There is only the direct experiencing of actuality.

RESPONDENT: If not, how do you guess where the buttons are?

RICHARD: By touch and memory (the on-off button on the TV remote control is the top-right button).

RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Surely the idea of top-right must relate to some kind of visual image?

RICHARD: No, the memory of ‘top-right’ relates to (prior) visual sight – it refers to the actuality of visually seeing that is where it is located – and in day-to-day practice I very rarely look at the buttons on TV remote control anyway as through constant usage it has become automatic to go by touch (the mute button is top-left and the channel selector is bottom-right).

RESPONDENT: What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)?

RICHARD: For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds.

RESPONDENT: If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing?

RICHARD: No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now.

RESPONDENT: How else can you link the word egg to the actual object?

RICHARD: If no actual egg be present ... intellectually.

RESPONDENT: What is the exact mental/physical process involved for one with no identity?

RICHARD: If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory.

*

RESPONDENT: By the way, I do read the actual freedom web site almost every day, including the introduction, its just taking a while to grasp what you are saying.

RICHARD: Okay ... if it can be comprehended that, just as it is essential for there to be an ego-death to become enlightened, it is essential there be soul-death (the extinction of ‘being’ itself) to go beyond enlightenment it will all fall into place.

RESPONDENT: I can’t just erase my current understanding of life.

RICHARD: I do not expect somebody – anybody – to grasp what I am saying overnight, as it were, as the implications and ramifications are enormous.

RESPONDENT: I have to somehow make sense of what you are saying through my own experience.

RICHARD: The only experience through which it all makes sense is, of course, your own pure consciousness experience (PCE) otherwise it reads/sounds like an altered state of consciousness (ASC) ... and any ASC is still a state of being no matter how sublime/profound/glorious it may be.

RESPONDENT: I also know I have not dived down to the depths of the human condition, I’m just choosing my swimming trunks.

RICHARD: Ha ... nudity is not optional (to be here, just here right now, is to be more naked than taking all your clothes off in the main street as to be actual is to be totally exposed).

*

RICHARD: Where I say I am this living flesh and blood body I am not identifying with this flesh and blood body – identifying with this flesh and blood body as an identity be it intrinsic or not – as what I am describing is what I am (what, not ‘who’) ... only an identity would translate my descriptions as describing a particular core/a static essence/an intrinsic identity (or a true identity/a real identity or whatever). (...) Perhaps if I were to put it this way: being alive, being a living body, is to be a process of constant change – birthing, growing, ageing, dying – on all levels (microscopic and macroscopic and anywhere in between). Furthermore, nothing is ever static – everything, literally everything, is in constant motion, constant change; nothing, literally nothing, is ever stagnant, ever stays the same – thus all is novel, never boring, all is new, never old, all is fresh, never stale. In short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis.

RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things?

RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a ‘teaching’ which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain).

This is what you had said (the modified version) in response to my initial query:

• ‘The actual freedom I believed is a possibility (before encountering your site) would be thus: 1) There are no permanent [conditioned] things (including I/Me, identity, self, states etc). 2) Consequently there is no [conditioned] basis for suffering to arise. Which is why I was attracted to your site. Its not that it [no permanent conditioned things] was a new concept, it’s more that I agreed with it. I guess I realise at some level that the crux of the issue is the above (as in points 1 and 2) and that if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those’.

RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/your above statement?

RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/my above statement is that any ‘teaching’ has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself.

RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent.

RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ... this is one of the ways I have summarised it before (a modified version):

1. Where does any ‘teaching’ say that there is no such thing as reincarnation (aka rebirth), that there is only this one mortal life currently being lived, and that physical death is the end, finish?
2. Where does any ‘teaching’ say that there is no such thing as god, truth (a non-material sacredness by whatever name), and that there is nothing other than this physical universe?
3. Where does any ‘teaching’ say that there is no such thing as immortality (a non-material deathlessness by whatever name) and that only this physical universe is infinite, eternal, and perpetual?
4. Where does any ‘teaching’ say that the answer to all the misery and mayhem lies here on earth (aka in the world), right now in time (aka this moment), and not away from the world (aka a spiritual dimension) sans time altogether (aka timeless)?

And I have summarised it this way because eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth – and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body (sans identity/affections in toto) ... just as western spirituality is not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body either (it is fundamentally all about avoiding a (specious) post-mortem punishment and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward).

In short: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both.

The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life.

November 27 2003

RICHARD: ... in short: the entire universe is a perpetuus mobilis.

RESPONDENT: What is wrong with saying: there are no permanent conditioned things?

RICHARD: Because nowhere have I ever come across a ‘teaching’ which says that ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’, is an impermanent conditioned thing ... on the contrary, all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have been saying that it is a permanent unconditioned thing (and, more often than not, the only permanent unconditioned thing into the bargain).

RESPONDENT: Is this statement at odds with actuality/your above statement?

RICHARD: What is at odds with actuality/my above statement is that any ‘teaching’ has ever said that ... spirituality is all about the permanence (aka immortality) and unconditionality (aka absoluteness) of ‘being’ itself.

RESPONDENT: How about: all conditioned things are impermanent.

RICHARD: If your phraseology ‘all conditioned things’ includes ‘being’ itself (aka God, Truth, That, Nirvana, Suchness, Isness, and so on), or ‘presence’ (quite often capitalised as Being or Presence upon self-realisation) then there is no problem with putting it that way ...

RESPONDENT: Thanks. I like putting it that way.

RICHARD: Are you aware this implies you like putting it that the unconditioned permanence all the sages, seers, god-men/god-women, gurus, masters, messiahs, saviours, saints, and so on, over the centuries have found is, in fact, a conditioned impermanent thing ... when all the while the only permanent (aka immortal) unconditioned (aka absolute) thing has been this physical universe they erroneously took to be an impermanent conditioned thing?

If so, do you now comprehend why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction?

*

RESPONDENT: What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)?

RICHARD: For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds.

RESPONDENT: If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing?

RICHARD: No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now.

RESPONDENT: How else can you link the word egg to the actual object?

RICHARD: If no actual egg be present ... intellectually.

RESPONDENT: What is the exact mental/physical process involved for one with no identity?

RICHARD: If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory.

RESPONDENT: Sorry for being a bit slow here, but when you say intellectual memory what do you mean?

RICHARD: I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me there are only three options:

I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg?

RICHARD: It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is.

RESPONDENT: Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination?

RICHARD: No ... visual memory *is* active imagination.

*

RESPONDENT: One other point: If you were in the situation of looking after little kids again, I’m presuming that you would have no difficulty shouting at them if they are being naughty.

RICHARD: I can speak clearly and firmly, lowering the tone and raising the pitch as appropriate, when interacting with any of my fellow human beings – and not just with the younger ones – who continue to not comply with the legal laws or not observe the social protocols even after being reminded of the sensibility of doing so ... if that is what you mean.

RESPONDENT: As this would be seen to many as anger, how would you differentiate?

RICHARD: Hmm ... it would appear that what I described (above) is not what you mean.

RESPONDENT: Could you smack their bottoms if necessary?

RICHARD: There are times when physical force/restraint is necessary with any of my fellow human beings – and not just with the younger ones – as the human condition is endemic per favour blind nature’s survival package of instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) ... no one is exempt.

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that its possible to be stern and forceful without being angry?

RICHARD: Indeed so ... to actually be harmless (be free of malice) means one does not have to pretend to be harmless (be a pacifist).

RESPONDENT: (My experience says yes – unless I am deluding myself).

RICHARD: You are not deluding yourself ... and, not all that surprisingly, interacting sans anger is far more effective anyway (especially in the long-term).

RESPONDENT: Or would you not ever shout at the kids?

RICHARD: Where the voice of reason has no effect (when a fellow human being is in the grip of a passion for example) or where the situation calls for instant effect (when a fellow human being is in danger for instance) speaking clearly and firmly, lowering the tone and raising the pitch as appropriate, is the only sensible course of action with any of my fellow human beings ... and not just with the younger ones.

RESPONDENT: (If you say never shout at the kids, I will find this more unbelievable than the belief in a supreme being!! ;).

RICHARD: Ha ... if one cannot stay one step ahead of recalcitrant children one does not deserve the title ‘mature adult’.

*

RESPONDENT: I’m getting the point, that one has to ‘tidy up ones house’ first before self-immolating.

RICHARD: Provided it be not an excuse for continued procrastination (as in ‘I’m not ready yet’) it is entirely sensible to become as happy and harmless as is humanly possible before the magical event, which renders all such house-cleaning null and void, actually happens.

RESPONDENT: I think I’ve been trying to do it without really becoming a happy ‘being’ first.

RICHARD: As the general thrust of your e-mails has been that the ‘self’-immolation in toto, as described on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, is not ‘a new concept’ it would appear that whatever it is you have been trying to do it has had nothing to do with what actualism is on about.

RESPONDENT: I have (big) issues to sort out first before I will be able to make the leap.

RICHARD: As there is no ‘leap’ – an actual freedom is not a spiritual freedom – it would indeed appear so.

RESPONDENT: I guess there are no shortcuts.

RICHARD: What I find telling – and this is a general observation – is just how much peoples object to being happy and harmless ... the vast majority of the correspondence in the archives is, in fact, a cutting indictment on the human condition itself.

Do you realise – and this is a personal observation – you have just said, in effect, that you guess you will have to become a happy ‘being’ before you can become actually free from the human condition (as if were there a way to be thus free without having to do so you would not)?

Whereas it is actually such a delight to finally be able to be happy (and harmless) ... and a relief.

March 02 2004

RESPONDENT: I have a question. I’m sure its probably been dealt with already, but what is the actualist answer to the old riddle: If a twig snaps in a wood where no one is present is there a sound?

RICHARD: As this question is only about aural perception the following can also be asked:

• cutaneous perception: if there is no one present to feel the snapped twig is there texture to the break?
• olfactory perception: if there is no one present to smell the snapped twig is there aroma around the break?
• proprioceptive perception: if there is no one present to ambulate around the snapped twig is the break three dimensional?
• gustatory perception: if there is no one present to taste the snapped twig is there flavour in the break?
• ocular perception: if there is no one present to see the snapped twig is there a break in the first place?
• cognitive perception: if there is no one present to be a witness is there a twig at all (or is there a wood for that matter)?

Upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite, eh?

March 18 2004

RESPONDENT: I have a question. I’m sure its probably been dealt with already, but what is the actualist answer to the old riddle: If a twig snaps in a wood where no one is present is there a sound?

RICHARD: As this question is only about aural perception the following can also be asked: • cutaneous perception: if there is no one present to feel the snapped twig is there texture to the break? • olfactory perception: if there is no one present to smell the snapped twig is there aroma around the break? • proprioceptive perception: if there is no one present to ambulate around the snapped twig is the break three dimensional? • gustatory perception: if there is no one present to taste the snapped twig is there flavour in the break? • ocular perception: if there is no one present to see the snapped twig is there a break in the first place? • cognitive perception: if there is no one present to be a witness is there a twig at all (or is there a wood for that matter)? Upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite, eh?

RESPONDENT: I thought that the point of the riddle is to show that without sense organs there can be no sensual information arising.

RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, the point of the riddle is to (supposedly) show that without the observer there is no the observed ... in a word: solipsism.

RESPONDENT: If there is no experience of the twig, how can it be proved that the twig exists in actuality?

RICHARD: Simple: point out to the solipsist that they are asking somebody who (supposedly) does not exist to prove that something else which (supposedly) does not exist does exist.

In other words, the very asking of another (a tacit acknowledgement of their existence) for proof is the very proof ... as is that referral to the something else an implicit acknowledgement of its existence as well.

As I said: upon closer inspection ‘the old riddle’ is somewhat trite.

RESPONDENT: If the twig was not in the visual field then the only way it could be referred to would be by imagination only.

RICHARD: We have been down this path before:

• [Respondent]: ‘What is memory if not partly mental images (along with words, sounds etc)?
• [Richard]: ‘For me memory is intellectual – the referent words only – with neither images nor sounds.
• [Respondent]: ‘If I say to you get me an egg, there must be some kind of visual image of an egg to compare it to the real thing?
• [Richard]: ‘No, there is sufficient familiarity with eggs to intellectually know what one is by now.
• [Respondent]: ‘How else can you link the word egg to the actual object?
• [Richard]: ‘If no actual egg be present ... intellectually.
• [Respondent]: ‘What is the exact mental/physical process involved for one with no identity?
• [Richard]: ‘If the egg be present ... the direct (unmediated) perception; if the egg be absent ... the intellectual memory.
• [Respondent]: ‘Sorry for being a bit slow here, but when you say intellectual memory what do you mean?
• [Richard]: ‘I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present.
• [Respondent]: ‘It seems to me there are only three options: 1) The ‘sound’ of the word egg. 2) The ‘visual’ image of the word egg. 3) The ‘visual’ image of an actual egg. I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg?
• [Richard]: ‘It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is.
• [Respondent]: ‘Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination?
• [Richard]: ‘No ... visual memory *is* active imagination.

RESPONDENT: Surely the actual world relies on sense organs to exist, otherwise how can it be experienced?

RICHARD: The physical world exists irregardless of any sentient being existing ... it is flesh and blood bodies which rely upon sense organs to experience physicality.

RESPONDENT: Surely it has no way of experiencing itself other than through sense organs?

RICHARD: Not ‘through’ ... as: as this flesh and blood body only one is this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself apperceptively ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.

And this is truly wonderful.

RESPONDENT: What is left if there is no sense data?

RICHARD: Ha ... the hoary ‘brain in a vat’ so beloved of the epistemologists, perchance?

RESPONDENT: Please clarify.

RICHARD: Sure ... this topic has come up before:

• [Richard]: ‘This universe is already here ... and it is always here now.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Well, it can equally well be argued the other way around: that there never was anything, and what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth.
• [Richard]: ‘Yet it cannot ‘equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’ (although there are those who try to argue this). There is a simple experiment that will demonstrate the actualness of physicality in a way that a thousand words would not:

1. Place a large spring-clip upon your nose.
2. Place a large piece of sticking plaster over your mouth.
3. Wait five minutes.

Now, as you rip the plaster from your mouth and gulp in that oh-so-sweet and patently actual air, I ask you: do you still say ‘it can equally well be argued the other way around’ that ‘what is ‘always here now’ is just an illusion, a myth’ ?

• Exit: abstract argumentation.
• Enter: facts and actuality.

Seeing the fact will set you free to live in the actuality which is already here ... and which is always here now.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... the eternal question still remains: who or what is the entity that gulps the air?
• [Richard]: ‘Yet ‘the eternal question’ does not remain at all as it is the flesh and blood body that gulps the air (a non-physical ‘entity’ does not breathe physical air). If ‘the eternal question still remains’ for you it means that you chose for the ‘abstract argumentation’ option (further above) rather than the intimate actuality of the sensate feeling of the air moving into and through the mouth; into and through the trachea ... and thence to an inflating of the lungs and a swelling of the chest.
‘Tis your choice.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If there is no one who gulps the air (and thus experiences it), is there any air at all?
• [Richard]: ‘As there is a flesh and blood body gulping the air this is a pointless conceptual question and the inevitable result of the ‘abstract argumentation’ choice made. If (note ‘if’) there was no body, here in space and time as form, this question would not be happening ... and this conversation would be a non-event. And, as there is a body, here in space and time as form, this question (and this conversation) is happening ... as is the concomitant perception.
It is a nonsense question – it may initially look valid logically – but it is nonsense nevertheless.
Howsoever, I am sure that you will now be motivated enough to traipse out into the forest and set-up an experiment (next to the tree that does not fall unless you are there to observe it fall), with bell jars, hoses, vacuum pumps, gauges and ancillary paraphernalia and then (whilst watching out for snakes masquerading as ropes whilst traipsing through the forest) come back the next day and make the appropriate measurements of the air in the jars.
Either that or look-up ‘self-centred’ in the dictionary.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I don’t think any conclusive answer to the above question has ever been found, or, could ever be found.
• [Richard]: ‘I just did (and I copy-pasted most parts of it from previous e-mails to this Mailing List).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Hence my comment that argued another way, ‘here and now’ is an illusion.
• [Richard]: ‘You cannot argue it rationally, though ... because if you argue that ‘all actuality ... is actualised through a perceiving mind’ (meaning that the actuality of ‘here and now’ cannot be reliably or accurately ascertained by a perceiving mind as objectively existing independent of that perceiving mind) then the definitive statement ‘‘here and now’ is an illusion’ is but a perception ‘actualised’ by that very-same perceiving mind which cannot reliably or accurately ascertain objectivity.
You are presenting a doubly-illuded argument, in other words.
Furthermore, you then present the argument to a body, which that perceiving mind definitively states is ‘an illusion’ ... presumably for rational feedback. Which feedback (be it affirmative to your argument or negative to your argument) must, of the necessity your argument dictates, be non-objective whichever way it goes ... which is further evidence of the irrational nature of your ‘it can equally well be argued the other way around’ comment.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Once again, what are space, time, and form sans perception?
• [Richard]: ‘May I suggest? Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that space and time and form are still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ or some similar cataleptic trance state and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist when they come out of their exalted state, you will notice that time and space and form was happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that time and space and form keep on keeping on. Or, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that time and space and form existed long before human beings and their perception appeared on the scene.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Time, space, and form, happen to /you/ in all the cases that you mention. Hence, a /you/ is necessary for time, space, and form to happen.
• [Richard]: ‘Surely you are not suggesting that before you were born (or at least before humans per se) nothing existed? No planet earth? No satellite moon? No central sun? No ‘Milky Way’ galaxy? No universe? No Time? No Space? No form? Nothing at all?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It is a tribute to the human faculties that manufacture space, time, and form that we are able to ask a question like the one you do.
• [Richard]: ‘Goodness me ... and yet it is Richard who is sometimes said to be arrogant (when I describe how superior living in the actual world is to living in the ‘real world’). Is it not obvious that ‘it is a tribute’ to the universe (limitless time and space and form) which ‘manufactures’ the human faculties that such questions are able to be asked?
When you look-up ‘self-centred’ in the dictionary ... check out ‘anthropocentric’ as well.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You are trapped in a universe of your own belief.
• [Richard]: ‘Since when has seeing the actual – observing the obvious – become a belief? This physical universe exists in its own right and does not require belief from me to bring it into being or sustain its existence. It was here before I was born and will be here after I die. Just how does that constitute it being a product of my – or anyone’s – belief system?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘One belief is that there is something outside this momentary flashing (of sensations) labelled ‘universe’ that continues to exist.
• [Richard]: ‘No belief is required ... not being a Krishnamurtiite I have not crippled my native intelligence by having to scorn memory. Memory is a record of a series of yesterdays, that were packed full of ‘momentary flashing (of sensations)’, going all the way back to one’s earliest memory. Before that, one can refer to the reports given by one’s parents (for example) back to one’s birth. Unless one is paranoid – thinking that there is a conspiracy by one’s parents to deceive one – then it is obvious that this universe has been here for all those years. Unless one wishes to be solipsistic and believe that this universe came into being when one was born (complete with 5.8 billion people whose sole aim in life is to convince you that it was here before you were born when it was not) then it is equally obvious that this universe has been here throughout human history.
As for before human history ... unless one is anthropocentric (and egocentric people often are) it is obvious that this universe does not require verification from human beings in order to exist. Palaeontology evidences this. Before that? Unless one is a religious cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Creation’) or a scientific cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Big Bang’) then it is obvious that this universe has always been here. As it has always been here ... it always will be here.
Observation renders belief redundant.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that your perception of physical reality is still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist, you will notice that your perception of physical reality keeps happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that your perception of physical reality keeps on keeping on.
• [Richard]: ‘You do seem to have missed the point of doing what I suggested. As their perception of physical reality is non-existent in all three instances – yet physical reality keeps on keeping on irregardless – then the same applies to my perception of physical reality in similar circumstances ... ergo: I am not necessary for the planet earth to exist; I am not necessary for the satellite moon to exist; I am not necessary for the central sun to exist; I am not necessary for the ‘Milky Way’ galaxy to exist; I am not necessary for the universe to exist. I am not necessary for time and space and form to exist.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘We are initiated at a young age into our culture’s description of reality.
• [Richard]: ‘Indeed ... any society, being a grouping of ‘selves’, corroborates, supports and enhances the newest genetically inherited ‘self’s intuitive description (the blind initiating the blind).
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘The cultural view is that on-going physical objects ‘exist’.
• [Richard]: ‘Well now ... they do ‘get it right’ some of the time, you know.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That view is perhaps essential to survival and functioning.
• [Richard]: ‘Why ‘perhaps’ essential? As the physical-world does exist it is indeed essential. Just stop eating the ‘perhaps’ essential physical food for 5+ months and see what happens; just stop drinking the ‘perhaps’ essential physical water for 5+ days and see what happens; just stop breathing the ‘perhaps’ essential physical air for 5+ minutes and see what happens; just stop the ‘perhaps’ essential physical heart beating for 5+ seconds and see what happens.

And:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To see the world or so-called physical reality ...
• [Richard]: ‘If I may interject? Just stop waiting for a gap to occur in the stream of ‘so-called physical’ cars, trucks, buses and trams on a highway before crossing and see what happens ... you will intimately experience what ‘so-called physical’ time (and motion), what ‘so-called physical’ space (and distance) and what ‘so-called physical’ form (and function) are in a practical and very demonstrable way.
One experience is worth a thousand words.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... [to see the world] as immeasurable energy means that the stranglehold that the cultural view has over our perception has loosened its grip.
• [Richard]: ‘Ha ... which culture? Because the eastern cultures, generally speaking, inculcate ‘the cultural view’ that physical reality is ‘immeasurable energy’ (God or Truth by whatever name) from the moment of parturition ... and their ‘cultural view’ is insidiously spreading through the western cultures (inasmuch as it is being force-fed to the newest recruits to the culture with the mother’s milk, as it were).
I kid you not ... I live in an area where such is now the norm.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It doesn’t mean that a tree only falls in the forest if we see it fall and all that nonsense.
• [Richard]: ‘You may very well be surprised at the number of otherwise intelligent human beings who have either baldly trotted out that psittacism to me over the past twenty-odd years ... or ...
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It means that in absolute energetic terms, there is no tree apart from consciousness.
• [Richard]: ‘... or who have adroitly trotted out a sophisticated version of that psittacism to me over the past twenty-odd years.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘That is not to say that a particular brain’s thought process creates the tree.
• [Richard]: ‘Let me guess ... it is the universal mind (by whatever name) that creates the tree?

And:

• [Richard]: ‘This is how this thread started: [Co-Respondent]: ‘... identity itself is an illusion’. [endquote]. From that simple starting point you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question: Why do you write e-mails to your illusions?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Oh, that is simple: it is all His Leela! I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them.
• [Richard]: ‘I am only too happy to re-phrase my question: why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions?
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Brahma doesn’t make anything happen. It is neither caused nor causes anything. That which is beyond cause is Brahma. Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘e-mails happen’.
• [Richard]: ‘If I may point out? I am not asking how the e-mails happen but why they happen ... why as in what purpose does it serve to communicate with your illusions when you already know they are your illusions? Or, to put that another way, is it because your illusions do not realise they are your illusions that you write to them to tell them that they are your illusions?
In other words: have your illusions taken on a life of their own, as it were, and are denying that you are their creator?

There is more ... but maybe this will do for now?

RESPONDENT: P.S. Even though you get a lot of stick on this mailing list, I thank you for sticking around.

RICHARD: Oh, I have been the target of all manner of criticism, abuse, blame, censure, reproach, reproof, condemnation for many years now ... and all because I report that it is possible to be both happy *and* harmless (neither sorrowful *nor* malicious ever again) for the remainder of one’s life.

And, more significantly, that the meaning of life being can be apparent 24/7.

March 19 2004

RESPONDENT: Richard, would you agree that without consciousness it is impossible for the experience of me typing these letters to exist.

RICHARD: Ha ... without consciousness it is impossible to be typing those letters in the first place.

RESPONDENT: If the answer to the above is yes, then without consciousness it is also impossible to verify the existence of the universe.

RICHARD: Hmm ... without consciousness it is impossible to conduct any directed activity.

RESPONDENT: Questions like ‘will the universe exist when I die’ can only exist when there is consciousness present.

RICHARD: Any question can only exist when there is consciousness ‘present’ (more on this usage below).

RESPONDENT: Any comments?

RICHARD: Yes ... the word ‘consciousness’ refers to a flesh and blood body being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and connotes being alive, not dead, being awake, not asleep, and being conscious, not unconscious (comatose).

All sentient beings are conscious ... and sentience means consciousness. Vis.:

• ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary).

A sentient being, and all animals are sentient (having the power or function of sensation), is a living organism capable of sensory perception (a virus, for example, is an organism without sentience) which means that sensory perception is what consciousness is at its most basic ... perception means consciousness (aka awareness). Vis.:

• ‘perception: the state of being or process of becoming aware or conscious of a thing, spec. through any of the senses; the faculty of perceiving; an ability to perceive; [synonyms: (...) awareness, consciousness]. (Oxford Dictionary).

In popular usage, however, the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean the (illusory) identity which is being conscious ... whereas the word ‘awareness’ does not usually carry that connotation.

To put that another way: while the word ‘conscious’ can mean the same as what the word ‘aware’ means the word ‘consciousness’ can also mean something other that what the word ‘awareness’ means ... it can mean the (supposedly) immortal entity which makes a sentient being alive and not dead (as in the phrase ‘consciousness has left the body’ to signify physical death).

Which is another way of saying consciousness is no longer ‘present’ in the body.

RESPONDENT: Do these statements mean I am a solipsist?

RICHARD: Given that a solipsist maintains that ‘only the self really exists or can be known’ (Oxford Dictionary) surely you can work that out for yourself?

Just as a matter of interest: I experienced a period of what I then called ‘extreme subjectivity’ whilst living in the Himalayas in 1984 (I did not know of the term ‘solipsist’ until 1993 when I read an edifying account by Mr. Leo Tolstoy, who went through a period of solipsism, and later wrote at length about his experience) and it is a ghastly state to be in ... those who intellectually entertain the notion, as in a philosophy for example, have obviously never personally experienced the reality of being solipsistic.

Put briefly: nothing can be verified (absolutely nothing) as everything (absolutely everything) is ‘my’ creation: to ask another, for instance, whether they independently exist is an exercise in futility as anything they might say is ‘my’ creation also ... or to seek psychiatric help, for another example, is to have one of ‘my’ creations prescribe yet another one of ‘my’ creations.

Which is why I tend to be forthright with those who dabble (as in the quotes in my previous e-mail).

March 26 2004

RESPONDENT: ... when you say intellectual memory what do you mean?

RICHARD: I mean the cerebral, or mental, recall of that which is not present.

RESPONDENT: It seems to me there are only three options: 1) The ‘sound’ of the word egg. 2) The ‘visual’ image of the word egg. 3) The ‘visual’ image of an actual egg. I can’t see any other way of remembering an object. Presumably when you read the word egg, you know what I am talking about. How can you know if not through the visual memory of an actual egg?

RICHARD: It may help to recall something without a tangible shape or form such as an egg has – maybe helium for instance or some other colourless and odourless gaseous substance – and you might get an inkling of what an intellectual memory is.

RESPONDENT: Are you distinguishing between visual memory and active imagination?

RICHARD: No ... visual memory *is* active imagination.

RESPONDENT: So just for the record, if I asked you to draw an egg, are you saying you would be unable to do so, as it would require visual memory?

RICHARD: No, I am not saying that ... the following may throw some more light upon the subject:

• [Richard]: ‘To be actually free of the human condition is to be sans ‘I’ as ego (the ‘thinker’) and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘feeler’) which is to be this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. And where there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (no psyche) there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty ... hence no ‘this other ‘mind’’ metaphysical projection. It is all so simple here in this actual world.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Why do you say that there is no imaginative faculty?
• [Richard]: ‘Because it is my on-going experience, night and day since 1992, that the entire imaginative/intuitive faculty has vanished. I literally cannot visualise, form images, envision, ‘see in my mind’s eye’, envisage, picture, intuit, feel, fall into a reverie, daydream or in any way, shape or form imaginatively access anything other than directly apprehending what is happening just here right now. I could not form a mental picture of something ‘other’ if my life depended upon it. I literally cannot make images ... whereas in my earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my mind’s eye’ of ‘my’ absent mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take in ‘my’ car or whatever. If I were to close my eyes and ‘visualise’ now, what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal space of the universe at night – that has been the case for all these years now. I cannot visualise, imagine, conceptualise ... when I recall my childhood, my young manhood, my middle ages or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of someone else’s life.
It is the affective content that makes memories ‘real’ – the entire psyche itself – and it is the self-same process that makes imagining a past or a future ‘real’ that makes an ‘otherness’ even more ‘real’ than everyday reality.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘To ‘imagine’ is a sane faculty of this multi-media-brain-mind.
• [Richard]: ‘I have not been sane for many, many years. It is pertinent to acknowledge that sane people killed 160,000,000 of their sane fellow human beings in wars this century alone ... and then there is all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides to further give pause to reconsider whether sanity is such a desirable state of being as sane peoples make out.
Sanity is personally insalubrious and socially reprehensible.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I can imagine a cow right now – with or without an I or ‘me’.
• [Richard]: ‘I cannot ... I can intellectually know what a cow is like in that I can draw a reasonable facsimile; yet as I am drawing I cannot visualise what the finished drawing will be like ... it becomes apparent as the drawing progresses.

*

RESPONDENT: And one more question: Are you saying that there are no other levels of physicality than this one, or could there be other ‘densities’ that could be tuned into?

RICHARD: To turn from the macroscopic – intuiting/conceptualising realities outside the universe – to the microscopic (intuiting/conceptualising realities inside the universe) is the same movement away from the actual ... only in a different direction.

Of course it is understandable that, from a real-world perspective, another reality be proposed because there is another dimension, as it were, to that real-world reality – the actual world of the senses, as evidenced in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), which all people I have spoken to at length on the matter have recalled experiencing – but unless a PCE is occurring as you write then where you say ‘than this one’ you can only be referring to a real-world physicality and not the actual one.

RESPONDENT: That is levels of existence with finer materiality than this?

RICHARD: Nothing is either ‘fine’ or ‘gross’ here in this actual world ... all is pristine, pure.

RESPONDENT: Just as if you heat up something solid, it melts, and then eventually turns into a gas. Or do you put this in the ‘spiritual mumbo jumbo’ category?

RICHARD: Yep.

RESPONDENT: (I’m not talking about gods etc.).

RICHARD: For the sake of clarification I will take this opportunity to point out that when I say ‘god’ I am not necessarily only referring to the popular usage of the word (such as the god of a church, a temple, a mosque, a synagogue, and so on) ... I am referring to any non-material otherness (other than physical) by whatever name.

In other words: that which is timeless and spaceless and formless.

RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 1997-2001