Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘D’ Correspondence

June 08 2012

Re: Actual sensations VERSUS Physical sensations

RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, Actual sensations VERSUS physical sensations.

Would you consider sharing an explanation of the difference?

RICHARD: G’day [No. 28], Sure ... for a person living in this actual world (using the word ‘actual’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website and not as per the many and various dictionaries which equate it with the word ‘real’) there is no difference betwixt the actual sensation of, say, these fingertips touching these keyboard keys and the physical sensation of same.

For a person living in the real world (using the word ‘real’ as per its usage on The Actual Freedom Trust website and not as per the many and various dictionaries which equate it with the word ‘actual’) there is no actual sensation of, say, that person’s fingertips touching their keyboard’s keys as the physical sensation of same is overlaid, and thus tempered affectively/ psychically, by an ‘outer world’ reality imposed auto-centrically by virtue of their ‘inner world’ reality.

*

For the sake of clarity in communication:

1. Please note there is no ‘inner world’/‘outer world’ in actuality (using the word ‘actuality’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website and not as per the many and various dictionaries which equate it with the word ‘reality’) – nor any such [quote] ‘sense doors’ [endquote] as you refer to further below, which serve as an interface through which sensation is experienced, either – even though what is popularly known as ‘consensus reality’ currently informs around 7.0 billion peoples otherwise.

2. Please note that the actual world (using the word ‘actual’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website and not as per the many and various dictionaries which equate it with the word ‘real’) is invisible to all those 7.0 billion or so peoples currently informed by that consensus reality ... and invisible, as in imperceptible/ indiscernible, not only ocularly but aurally, olfactorily, gustatorily, cutaneously and proprioceptively as well.

(Which means that only a handful of people alive today are capable of seeing me – the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – and/or hearing me, touching me, and so on, as a living actuality).

RESPONDENT: Here is my own interpretation of such descriptive ‘terms’ for experience. I would be interesting if you commented on it. If not, all good.

Physical sensations: There are the sense doors experienced as ‘objectified’ phenomena, given ‘form’ by the mind, give a ‘name’ by the mind. This then leads to a subjective reaction towards such ‘objectified’ phenomena. Ooh, those physical sensations! Sensations given ‘form’, segregated from all the rest of sense contact to become fabricated bases for the leaping off of a ‘feeling me’ or rather ‘sensations’ experienced through the warping mental overlay of a mind that ‘objectifies’ and segregates fabricated ‘parts’ of the whole field of experience, objectified phenomena. This same process gives rise to a subjective reaction to the fabricated ‘object’. That subjective reaction could be termed ‘the feeling me’ or ‘the feeling being’.

A mind that does not ‘objectify’ and segregate ‘parts’ of the field of experience into fabricated ‘objects’ is a mind that does not experience the subjective reaction to said ‘objects’, and experiences the actuality of sense contact, unsegregated, pure, unwarped by conceptualizing and fabricating tendencies, where there is no lunging consciousness that co-arises with the creation of such ‘objects’. Actual sensations, actual seeing, actual hearing, actual cognising, all non-objectified, non-segregated, simultaneous 360 degree sense contact experience of being alive as this mind/body organism. Nothing segregating nor cutting up ‘the universe’ from experiencing itself. Different words for the same thing?

RICHARD: No, not different words for the same thing; rather, they are the same words for a different thing (for an entirely different thing, in fact, to the point of it being 180 degrees opposite to the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website).

RESPONDENT: Or something that does not match the ongoing experience of continuous apperceptive awareness?

RICHARD: Aye ... and, moreover, it is something that does not match the usage of the word ‘apperceptive’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website, either. For instance:

On the ‘Library’ page titled ‘Pure Consciousness Experience’ there is a quote from me explaining how I chose the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience’ (PCE), in 1997, in order to specify the ‘consciousness without a subject’ purity of the apperceptive awareness which is the hallmark of the PCE. Vis.:

[Richard]: ‘Mr. Robert Forman, on page 131 of the ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies’, Volume 5, Issue 2, 1998, (in a paper called ‘What Does Mysticism Have To Teach Us About Consciousness?’), described the introversive ASC [altered state of consciousness] as a pure consciousness event so as to emphasise the absence of any experienced object – it is pure subjectivity in other words – which is also why such terminology as ‘Consciousness Without An Object’ is used (...). When I first came onto the internet in 1997 I subscribed for a while to an academic consciousness studies mailing list associated with the ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies’ and it was there I first heard of the phrase ‘pure consciousness event’ – with the emphasis that there be no experiencing in such a state – and thus chose the phrase ‘pure consciousness experience’ so as to make the generic phrase ‘peak experience’ I had been using for eleven years more specific and to regain the actual purity of the unadulterated sensuous experience of *consciousness without a subject* (a body sans identity) from the adulterated mystical experience of consciousness without an object (an identity sans body)’. [emphasis & footnote added].

I have highlighted my ‘consciousness without a subject’ words simply because of what you wrote on another online forum, on the same day (June 02, 2012) as you wrote the above post, regarding what you consider ‘apperceptive’. Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘This is what I consider ‘apperceptive’. (...) a conscious functioning *consciousness without ‘object’*... booya’. [emphasis added].

I have highlighted your ‘consciousness without ‘object’’ words so as to draw attention to the fact that what you consider ‘apperceptive’ is indeed 180 degrees opposite to what is reported/ described/ explained, in meticulous detail and with precise meaning given to terminology, on The Actual Freedom Trust website.

Ain’t life grand!

Regards, Richard.

June 11 2012

Re: Actual sensations VERSUS Physical sensations

RESPONDENT: Actual sensations VERSUS physical sensations. Would you consider sharing an explanation of the difference?

RICHARD: Sure ... for a person living in this actual world (...) there is no difference betwixt the actual sensation of, say, these fingertips touching these keyboard keys and the physical sensation of same.

RESPONDENT: Yes, this is what I mean by ‘unobjectified’ experience of sensations.

RICHARD: G’day [No. 28], Your affirmative response above – in which your [quote] ‘this’ [endquote] obviously refers to my report that there is no difference betwixt actual sensations and physical sensations – is at odds with what you wrote in your initial post of the 2nd of June 2012.

For example:

Under the heading ‘Physical Sensations’, you explain how physical sensations are [quote] ‘‘objectified’ phenomena, given ‘form’ by the mind, give a ‘name’ by the mind’ [endquote].

Under the heading ‘Actual Sensations’, you explain how actual sensations are [quote] ‘not given form nor name (like physical sensations), not objectified’ [endquote].

Thus you expressly differentiate actual sensations from physical sensations.

To then say that my report of no difference betwixt them is what you mean by what you wrote, under the heading ‘Actual Sensations’, is a non-sequitur.

*

RICHARD: 2. Please note that the actual world (...) is invisible to all those 7.0 billion or so peoples currently informed by that [inner world/outer world] consensus reality ...

RESPONDENT: Yes.

RICHARD: I am pleased you comprehend this salient fact.

RESPONDENT: I understand that consensus reality is epidemic. I also understand how the use of language can play its part there. Something I’m trying to work on myself.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, the use of language played no part whatsoever for the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh-and-blood body all those years ago (thus ‘he’ never worked on ‘himself’ in that regard) once ‘he’ sussed-out how that inner world/outer world consensus reality was of an affective/ psychic nature ... and how the sensate and cognitive faculties (sensuality and thinking) were needlessly copping the blame.

RESPONDENT: Your use of ‘actual sensations’ versus ‘physical sensations’ which is equally difficult to see the difference for many.

RICHARD: I cannot recall ever saying there is any difference – as there is none it would never have occurred to me to say so – which makes that above comment of yours a trifle curious.

If you could provide a (suitably referenced) quote where I have ever said any such thing it would be most appreciated as I have also checked with Vineeto who (by virtue of her active involvement as webmaster, for more than a decade now, knows more about the particulars of my writings and where they are located on the website than probably any body on this planet including me) is as equally puzzled as to what could have prompted you to say ‘Your use of ...’.

*

RICHARD: ... and invisible, as in imperceptible/ indiscernible, not only ocularly but also aurally, olfactorily, gustatorily, cutaneously and proprioceptively as well.

(Which means that only a handful of people alive today are capable of seeing me – the flesh-and-blood body typing these words – and/or hearing me, touching me, and so on, as a living actuality).

RESPONDENT: What is it based on?

RICHARD: It is based on the fact that this actual world (which, of course, includes every body and every thing in it) is invisible to the 7.0 billion or so identities parasitically inhabiting the 7.0 billion or so flesh-and-blood bodies currently estimated to be populating this planet.

(It is those 7.0 billion or so identities who live in that inner world/outer world consensus reality previously referred to; the 7.0 billion or so flesh-and-blood bodies are already here in this actual world, of course, just as each and every one of them has been all along).

During the 17+ years of being here on my own the only people who got to meet me, as an actuality, were those having a PCE whilst physically interacting; it was always quite an event, at the time, to have somebody ‘visit me’ (so to speak) for the duration of their PCE – all the while knowing their appearance here would be of a temporary nature – only to then witness the abeyant identity gradually reclaiming its host body as the PCE wore off.

Ahh ... this is all such fun!

*

RESPONDENT: Different words for the same thing?

RICHARD: No, not different words for the same thing; rather, they are the same words for a different thing (for an entirely different thing, in fact, to the point of it being 180 degrees opposite).

RESPONDENT: Or something that does not match the on-going experience of continuous apperceptive awareness?

RICHARD: Aye ... and, moreover, it is something that does not match the usage of the word ‘apperceptive’ as per the reports/ descriptions/ explanations on The Actual Freedom Trust website, either.

RESPONDENT: So it doesn’t match this in your opinion?

[Richard]: When one first becomes aware of something there is a fleeting instant of pure perception of sensum, just before one affectively identifies with all the feeling memories associated with its qualia (the qualities pertaining to the properties of the form) and also before one cognitively recognises the percept (the mental product or result of perception), and this ‘raw sense-datum’ stage of sensational perception is a direct experience of the actual. Pure perception is at that instant where one converges one’s eyes or ears or nose or tongue or skin on the thing. It is that moment just before one focuses one’s feeling-memory on the object. It is the split-second just as one hedonically subjectifies it ... which is just prior to clamping down on it viscerally and segregating it from pure, conscious existence. Pure perception takes place sensitively just before one starts feeling the percept – and thus thinking about it affectively – which takes place just before one’s feeling-fed mind says: ‘It’s a man’ or: ‘It’s a woman’ or: ‘It’s a steak-burger’ or: ‘It’s a tofu-burger’ ... with all that is implied in this identification and the ramifications that stem from that. This fluid, soft-focused moment of bare awareness, which is not learned, has never been learned, and never will be learned, could be called an aesthetically sensual regardfulness or a consummate sensorial discernibleness or an exquisitely sensuous distinguishment ... in a word: apperceptiveness. Taken from: actualfreedom.com.au/richard/articles/attentivenesssensuousnessapperceptiveness.htm

RICHARD: No, it does not match this (the above quote you have helpfully provided) – and that is not a matter of opinion (be it mine or otherwise) – as it is patently evident by your differentiating of actual sensations from physical sensations, in your initial post of the 2nd of June 2012, that it is not a case of different words for the same thing and how it is indeed something which does not match apperceptive awareness.

*

RESPONDENT: PS: On a more curious line of unobjectified, non-segregated thought, how would you describe the occurrence of ‘weeping for joy’ for Justine, a professed actually free person who you have claimed AF as well?

RICHARD: Hmm ... I would, perhaps, be inclined to describe it as being ‘par for the course’ (for those first few, daring, pioneers) if the following extract from a private email Vineeto wrote to another in February last year is anything to go by.

(It is an extract as I only have her permission to make it public on the proviso that certain personal details were snipped out). Vis.:

[Vineeto]: ‘(...) before Richard left for India I experienced this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard (the word energy used in its general purpose sense) as being bathed in a delicious, delicate and appreciative intimacy, and Pamela reported the same. At one time, a couple of months ago, I experienced this immanence surrounding Richard as an over-whelming sweetness, so overwhelmingly sweet that tears were running down my face.

At another time I experienced a tenderness so vast that I was speechless for a good time afterwards.

Presently, I apperceptively experience this fine energy/ gentle energy surrounding Richard on a daily basis. Often I experience it as ambrosial in nature, of a quality that fills me with extraordinary delight and well-being, in a way that it makes every cell in my body hum with fulfilment as if a missing chemical has suddenly been added to each cell’s physical structure.

I sometimes have a grin from ear to ear stitched on my face and even when just touching Richard’s little toe (for instance) it can fill me with an ambrosial gentleness.

Other times this immanence was of a more expediently potentiating nature that furthered my progress to become fully actually free (...).

This fine energy/gentle energy is unique to Richard – I have not experienced it with anyone else nor have heard anyone reporting that they experienced it around somebody other than Richard’. (Sunday, February 20, 2011 5:24 PM).

Regards, Richard.

June 19 2012

Re: Actual sensations VERSUS Physical sensations

RESPONDENT: Thanks for the reply Richard.

I guess we disagree and as I see it it is more a language issue than not.

RICHARD: G’day No. 28, I would suggest you give up guessing as it is not the case that [quote] ‘we’ [endquote] disagree, on what does not match apperceptive awareness, because it is not a matter of opinion on my part as to what apperception is.

Put succinctly, *you* disagree.

And the peculiar thing about this disagreement of yours is that were it not for me you would have never, ever known about apperceptive awareness (and actual freedom and PCE’s and so on and so forth).

It is weird, to the point of bizarrerie, that anyone would even begin to think they could know better than me just what the word apperception, as per its usage on The Actual Freedom Trust website, refers to.

For just one (recent) example: I know for a fact – as a perpetual actuality – that apperceptive awareness is not ‘just a soup of sensations’ (as in ‘the end of name and form’ such as to be ‘without the concept of ‘soup’ overlaying it all’) in any way, manner or kind.

Vis.:

[Respondent]: ‘This is what I consider ‘apperceptive’. (...). The end of name and form. Just a soup of sensations, without the concept of ‘soup’ overlaying it all. (...) a conscious functioning consciousness without ‘object’...booya’. (dharmaoverground.org/web/guest/discussion/-/message_boards/message/3174815#_19_message_3178473).

Furthermore, it is not a language issue on my part, either, as you have more than adequately conveyed just what your experience is, on various online forums, over an extended period.

For instance, I followed your progress on your ‘Down The Rabbit Hole’ web log, since its inception on the 5th of April last year (2011), copy-pasting each instalment in sequence, as you posted them, into a long document on my hard drive so that I could scroll back up and refresh my memory, as to what you had posted before, so as to read in context.

I also read your ‘Yogic Toolbox’ articles, copy-pasting them into the same folder on my hard drive where that ‘Down The Rabbit Hole’ document is located, as you were posting them online.

I read what you had to write on DhO, copy-pasting any that particularly caught my attention, and followed-up on URL’s you provided there.

I read what you had to write on KFD, again copy-pasting those which particularly stood out, so as to be able to cross-reference what you wrote under the different framework which prevails there.

I watched the videos you participated in, transcribing some relevant sections of conversation word-for-word, and listened carefully to the way certain exchanges took place.

I listened to various recorded conversations (podcasts) you featured in and took specific note of the way information flowed.

And I have your ‘Practice Journal’, from The Hamilton Project Forum, copy-pasted into its own long document on my hard drive as well ... adding to it as you update.

*

So, as you keep saying it is a language issue for you – and given that you translate actualism terminology into Buddhist terms – you will find it more useful to equivalate an actual freedom with ‘anupādisesāya nibbānadhātuyā parinibbāyati’ (colloquially, parinibbana), rather than equating what my words refer to with ‘saupādisesā nibbānadhātu’ (colloquially, nibbana).