Selected Correspondence: Apperceptive Awareness versus Choiceless Awareness

Richard’s Selected Correspondence

On Apperceptive Awareness versus Choiceless Awareness

RESPONDENT: By the way can you go slightly deeper into actualist attention and Buddhist mindfulness in detail please. It would be of great assistance to me.

RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this:

• [Richard]: ‘... the words ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ simply refer the make-up of the attentiveness being applied ... as distinct from, say, the buddhistic ‘mindfulness’ (which is another ball-game entirely). In other words the focus is upon how identity in toto is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent just here right now’.

The focus of the buddhistic ‘sati’ – a Pali word referring to mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention – is upon how self is not to be found in the real-world ... as Mr. Buddha makes abundantly clear, for example, to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic) in Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59.

Which is why it is another ball-game entirely.

RESPONDENT: Richard, from recent correspondence with you its been pointed out that I’ve misused the word apperception. Here is a dialog between me and another which raises some questions that I have no ready answer to.

[M]: ‘The non-duality of which I speak has nothing whatsoever to do with Pure Consciousness without content’.
[Respondent]: ‘I’ve never ever heard Richard say anything about consciousness without content so I’m guessing you may have misunderstood something here’.
[M]: ‘Richard seems to be rather clear about this point:

[Richard]: ‘The potent combination of attention, fascination, reflection and contemplation produces apperception, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness’. [endquote].

To be ‘aware of consciousness’ is for consciousness to be aware of itself. This is the same as his statement: ‘mind becomes aware of itself’. This is not really an important issue for me, but as you seem to follow his teaching in a rather dedicated way, it may be worth your effort to find out for yourself if this is possible. The question is: What is nature of that which becomes aware of the other. I.e. Mind of mind, awareness of consciousness? Which comes first and are either or both possible? As a sideline remark, I have a little saying by Hakuin stuck to my computer screen. It somehow always makes sense when my eye catches it: [quote] ‘One can no more look at his mind with his mind, than see the pupils of his eyes with his eyes’ [endquote]. It could be quite relevant to Richard’s remark about mind becoming aware of itself. As I said I have never managed that trick’. [endquote].

It’s funny that I never really questioned the ‘mind being aware of mind’ thing much.

RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘If you are conscious that you are aware you are not aware.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... all experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself).
And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Consciousness is always a process of the past.
• [Richard]: ‘The word ‘consciousness’ refers to the condition of being conscious (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) and to be conscious is to be alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose) ... and as it is impossible to be alive, awake, and sensible in the past (only this moment is actual) you are way out there on your own with that observation’.

There is nothing mystical about a mind perceiving itself – it is simply a matter of a living brain, sans identity in toto, being conscious of being conscious/being aware of being aware – that there need be any question whatsoever about what the nature is of that which is aware of being aware/ that which is conscious of being conscious ... unless, of course, one is unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity (the genetically-inherited instinctual passions in action).

RESPONDENT No 84: The feeling of ‘being’ would not exist anywhere in the universe without these instinctual passions which are the body's biological inheritance.

RESPONDENT: Without passions no feeling of ‘being an entity’ ...

RICHARD: If I may interject, for the sake of clarification, before you go on? Your co-respondent was right on the nose again ... without passions there is no feeling of ‘being’, period.

RESPONDENT: ... but this doesn’t mean that you are not ‘present to yourself’ (’conscious’) without these instinctual passions.

RICHARD: A flesh and blood body, sans instinctual passions/identity in toto, when being conscious is not being conscious in a present-to-itself manner as such a body is being conscious apperceptively (aka apperceptive awareness) ... and the word apperception is utilised here, as in all actualism writings, to refer to direct (unmediated) perception.

And what this means is that, as there is no mediator present, there is no presence to be present-to-itself.

RESPONDENT: Richard is still present to himself.

RICHARD: This (apperceptive) flesh and blood body is not only *not* still present-to-itself it never has been and never will be ... the affective ‘being’ however, who used to have residence all those years ago, was indeed present-to-itself (right up to the instant of oblivion) thus this flesh and blood body is well aware of the distinction, between such a presence being present-to-itself, and apperceptive consciousness.

RESPONDENT: He states to be the mortal body.

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body does indeed report being this mortal body ... but, more specifically on occasion, reports being this (mortal) flesh and blood body only. For example (just one instance among many):

• [Richard]: ‘... what I am, as this flesh and blood body only (sans ‘being’ itself), is this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being. (...) It is this simple: the very stuff of this body (and all bodies) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of the universe in that it comes out of the ground in the form of the carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese, and whatever else is consumed, in conjunction with the air breathed and the water drunk and the sunlight absorbed.
I am nothing other than that ... that is what I am, literally’.

RESPONDENT: Now in order to state something like that you have to be still present to yourself ...

RICHARD: If I may interject again? In order to report something like that a (mortal) flesh and blood body only does not have to be present-to-itself (let alone ‘still’ that).

RESPONDENT: ... and your present to yourself is independent from the instinctual passions ...

RICHARD: If I may ask? What is [quote] ‘your present to yourself’ [endquote] ... did you mean to convey ‘and your present to yourself-ness (consciousness) is independent from being the instinctual passions, perchance?

Be that what it may ... as you go on to say, further below in your e-mail, that the only thing you really know is that you are present to yourself (and that is the only real knowledge you have) and then ask why you should not remain present to yourself when the body is gone (and further go on to say, in effect, that even though human consciousness/flesh and blood body will be gone it does not change a thing about the metaphysical truth that ‘I’, the Mind, the Transcendent, Infinite and Etcetera, is your real nature and indestructible) it is patently clear that your comprehension of what this flesh and blood body is reporting/ describing/ explaining is so heavily handicapped by attempting to understand it in terms of a wide-ranging mish-mash of what you have extensively read, about religiosity, spirituality, mysticality, and metaphysicality, that you have resorted to steam-rolling over nearly anything anybody else has to say.

RESPONDENT: ... otherwise Richard wouldn’t be able to state to be the mortal body.

RICHARD: Hmm ... this may be an apt moment to point out that you are not dealing with a mere tyro, here, in these matters and, furthermore (just in case you have not noticed), that you are way, way out of your depth on this mailing list. What I would suggest is that you stop thrashing and flailing about and tread water for a while ... so as to catch your breath, so to speak, and be able to have a good look around.

‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you.

RESPONDENT: Another example of what actual freedom calls apperception. [quote] ‘So from that one asks a question: can thought be aware of itself? This is a rather complex question, I hope - one hopes you don’t mind looking at the complexity of it. Can thought, the whole process of thinking, can that thinking be aware of itself, or there is a thinker who is aware of his thoughts? You understand the question? Is this becoming difficult for you? You are interested in all this? (J. Krishnamurti Ojai 1st Public Question & Answer Meeting 17th May 1983).

RICHARD: Here is another example of how I describe apperception:

• [Richard]: ‘Apperception is a self-less awareness that is on-going throughout the entire waking hours. *Thought may or may not operate* as required by the circumstances ... apperception goes on regardless. Apperception is the perennial pure consciousness experience of being alive; being awake – not asleep in bed – and being here now at this moment in time and this place in space. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Richard, can you tell me please if apperception, does not take place, then what is taking place?

RICHARD: Oblivion ... such as, for example, being asleep, having fainted, under anaesthesia, knocked out, or in any other way comatose.

RESPONDENT: In other words, if you are not apperceptively aware, then in what state are you?

RICHARD: None.

RESPONDENT: The base of actualism is apperception. Read everybody please very carefully this JK speech. Richard says can the mind be aware of itself. He took definitely this concept from JK and change the word, by calling it apperception to look more sophisticated and so he can always hide behind this word. JK was very familiar with this concept thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self. Please read carefully. Is nothing new for JK what Richard is saying.

RICHARD: I have never said that apperception is ‘thought aware of itself, no you aware of thought but thought aware of its self’ ... that is what you make of it.

Here is but one instance of how I describe what I mean by apperception:

• [Richard]: ‘... apperception occurs when identity, by whatever name, is temporarily absent – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – or permanently extinguished – as in an actual freedom from the human condition – and is best explained as consciousness being aware of being conscious (rather than the normal ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Vis.:

• ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’ (Oxford Dictionary).

Put simply: apperception is direct perception (perception unmediated by any identity whatsoever) which is the same thing as saying direct sensation – be it ocular sensation, cutaneous sensation, gustatory sensation, olfactory sensation, aural sensation or even proprioceptive sensation – because in the PCE, and in an actual freedom, only the sensate world exists in all its splendour and brilliance.
*Thought may or may not be operating* as required by the circumstances. [emphasis added].

RESPONDENT: Are you contradicting now your own words? [Richard]: ‘apperception: the mind’s perception of itself’. [endquote]. You have defined mind as brain in operation, that means thought.

RICHARD: You have to be joking, right? The mind, the human brain in action in the human skull, is more than just thought. For example:

‘mind: 1. The human consciousness that originates in the brain and is manifested especially in thought, perception, emotion, will, memory, and imagination. 2. The collective conscious and unconscious processes in a sentient organism that direct and influence mental and physical behaviour. 3. The principle of intelligence; the spirit of consciousness regarded as an aspect of reality. 4. The faculty of thinking, reasoning, and applying knowledge’. (The American Heritage® Dictionary).

RESPONDENT: So the mind’s perception of itself = the thought’s perception of itself. Are you playing with words now?

RICHARD: No, it would appear that you are.

RESPONDENT: Richard, can you tell me please if apperception, does not take place, then what is taking place?

RICHARD: Oblivion ... such as, for example, being asleep, having fainted, under anaesthesia, knocked out, or in any other way comatose.

RESPONDENT: In other words, if you are not apperceptively aware, then in what state are you?

RICHARD: None.

RESPONDENT: PCE = pure consciousness experience. Pure consciousness means that does not exist self right?

RICHARD: Yes, neither ‘I’ (as ego) nor ‘me’ (as soul) are present where consciousness – the condition of being conscious – is a pure consciousness ... the word ‘pure’ in this context means the unadulterated condition of being conscious and the word ‘conscious’ means being alive, not dead, awake, not asleep, and sensible, not insensible (comatose).

RESPONDENT: Now by adding the word experience, the question that arises is who has the experience?

RICHARD: Why does that question arise? To be conscious is to be experiencing (perceiving) as perceiving (experiencing) is what the very word means at is most basic. For example:

• [Respondent]: ‘You always are covering behind the word ‘apperceptively aware’. How you know you are alive? Do you have any other mean except thought to know it?
• [Richard]: ‘Yes ... you will see, upon re-reading my response (above) regarding proprioception, that I clearly say the sense of being here, in space, as a body is not just because of sight (visual perception), sound (auditory perception), touch (cutaneous perception), smell (olfactory perception), and taste (gustatory perception) but proprioception as well.
And 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).
And consciousness means sentience. Vis.:
• ‘sentience: the condition or quality of being sentient; consciousness, susceptibility to sensation’. (Oxford Dictionary).
And sentience is direct, immediate (sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary). (July 17 2003).

RESPONDENT: [... who has the experience?] The body?

RICHARD: The body is not ‘who’ has the experience... the body is *what* has the experience (of being unadulteratedly conscious) as the condition of being conscious is a bodily condition.

RESPONDENT: The body works with the senses.

RICHARD: That is one way of putting it but as sentience means being sensorial it would be more helpful for comprehension of what experiencing means to say that the body works as the senses: for instance, of all the senses – cutaneous, ocular, aural, olfactory, gustatory, and proprioceptive – the cutaneal sense, being by far the largest of all senses (the skin covers the entire body) is what defines/delineates where the body stops and the rest of the world begins/where the rest of the world stops and the body begins ... the skin is the main demarcation line, so to speak, thus cutaneous experiencing is major experiencing by any definition.

RESPONDENT: If we must attach to the body even the consciousness, then we can go very far.

RICHARD: That just does not make sense: consciousness – the condition of a body being conscious – is indistinguishable from what a body is (when it is alive, awake, and sensible) ... to say that consciousness is something attached to the body is to imply that consciousness (the condition of being conscious) is a clip-on, a removable accessory, as it were.

RESPONDENT: We may have any illusion and blame the body for that.

RICHARD: Yea verily ... anything but put the ‘blame’ onto where it really lies (on the ‘being’ within the body), eh?

RESPONDENT: It appears that we are going to get nowhere in our original discussion of the distinction between qualities and properties (latest post being mine of 7/17), as we have become bogged down in the point of first and third person distinctions, which was raised chiefly to clarify the distinction of qualities and properties.

RICHARD: A suggestion only: if, as you now say, you raised the point of first and third person distinctions chiefly to clarify the distinction of qualities and properties then it would have been helpful to have said so instead of saying [quote] ‘why is all this important?’ [endquote] and then proceeding to discuss standards of validity ... to the point of stating that you are not really interested in others’ expositions of their states because the truth or falsity of their claims were simply a non-issue to living inquiry and that it was barking up the wrong tree (with further comments about such discussions being ‘outright speculations’ or unable to be settled ‘in the third-person sense’).

In other words: you set the agenda of the discussion (standards of validity) and I responded accordingly.

RESPONDENT: The sub points about first vs. third party settleability, in, for example, someone’s claims of personal insight, etc., were only definitionally supporting and peripheral, and were not intended to go off on the tangent of standards of validity. Alas, this sideshow, so to speak, has become flypaper. Again, the main point, which you will not return to, was to clarify the distinction between qualities and properties ...

RICHARD: So as to set the record straight I would like to point out that I made it quite clear what I would not ‘return to’ – discussing the apperceptive experience with a person who was not interested in such an exposition unless it could be settled by the ‘third person’ way – and not, as you say here, clarification of the distinction between qualities and properties ... as the following exchange shows:

• [Respondent]: ‘I think there is much subtly to what you are addressing by ‘apperception’, and I hope we can continue getting at it beginning by way of the rest of my last email.
• [Richard]: ‘Not by way of your last e-mail, no ... I read it through three times before I responded as I did and in it you made it patently obvious that unless a matter was able to be settled in the ‘third-person’ way then it was a matter of [quote] ‘outright speculations’ [endquote] to discuss it ... in fact you observed that otherwise [quote] ‘usually, fine and entertaining disputes develop’ [endquote].

As you have now made clarification of the distinction between qualities and properties the main point of that e-mail I can attend to that topic straight away: as I understand it qualities are the anthropocentric experiences of objects and are sourced in the properties; properties are the inherent characteristics of objects and exist irregardless of humans being present (palaeontology evidences that this planet existed long before humans appeared on the scene).

Incidentally, I am using the word anthropocentric in its ‘regarding the world in terms of human experience’ meaning.

RESPONDENT: ... which are, to me so far, simply conflated in your descriptions of apperception, in a way which simply dismisses by definition, without elucidating probative reasons, the qualitativeness of apperception, as if it were some kind of incompatibility, throwing us back into duality. This, I believe, may be only an artifact of your implicit assumption regarding or prior definition of qualitativeness qua qualitativeness. With clarification of what qualitativeness means (or better, how it is caused), it is not incompatible.

RICHARD: Perhaps what gives you the impression that qualities and properties are conflated in my descriptions of apperception is because, as I said in an earlier e-mail, I do not go about seeing things in terms of their properties, qualities or values as such classifications never occur to me – I simply delight in the wonder of it all and marvel in the amazing display – and my descriptions reflect this experience.

This is how I have explained such descriptions before to other respondents:

• [Richard]: ‘It may be useful for me to explain that what I write is expressive prose – it is not a thesis – as I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself. My writing is not intended to stand literary scrutiny for scholarly style and form and content and so on – the academics would have a field-day with it – for it is an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into this magical wonder-land that this verdant planet is’.

As to whether I dismiss the ‘qualitativeness of apperception’ or not depends upon what you mean by the word ‘qualitativeness’ as I have been unable to find it in either the Oxford or the Merriam-Webster’s dictionary (nor in the Encyclopaedia Britannica). The Oxford Dictionary describes ‘qualitative’ as meaning ‘relating to or concerned with quality or qualities’ and that is all it has to say ... it elsewhere says that the addition of the suffix ‘-ness’ indicates that a word is now ‘an instance of a state or a condition’.

Until then I can say this much: I certainly do not dismiss the qualitative nature of apperception as apperception is quite obviously a human experience (apperception cannot exist irregardless of a human being present) ... I have already given two examples of this (splendour and brilliance) in an earlier e-mail.

RESPONDENT: Since we are not moving in this subject, I agree it is time to start afresh, and I will follow your suggestion to look again at your website material.

RICHARD: Okay ... but as you had already re-started the subject in this e-mail I took the opportunity to respond rather than leave it all dangling.

RICHARD: The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality?

RESPONDENT: The universe aware of itself as an apperceptive human being is consciousness that includes but is not limited to the apperceptive human being.

RICHARD: No, it is a consciousness which only exists as an apperceptive human being (as far as space exploration has thus far discovered).

RESPONDENT: One of the hallmarks of awakening is an intuitive knowing that consciousness is not limited to what is of time. A different dimension is realized and becomes part of daily life. It is what gives life meaning because there is a direct energetic connection to all that is.

RICHARD: That is the experience of ‘awakening’, yes ... it is just that I was responding to your comment on an ‘apperceptive human being’ and not an awakened human being in this section of this e-mail.

RESPONDENT: What awakens is impersonal but operates in the particular.

RICHARD: Aye ... and when that which is ‘impersonal’ then sacrifices itself, for the benefit of the body and every body, an apperceptive human being becomes apparent.

RESPONDENT: The personal is biological or cultural conditioning.

RICHARD: So too is the ‘impersonal’ ... one needs to dig deeper than what the many and varied saints, sages and seers have done so far in human history.

RESPONDENT: Creative activity comes from outside the known as opposed to activity that is merely replication, imitation, invention, patterning, etc.

RICHARD: Whereas apperception lies beyond both the known and the unknown ... it lies in that area which is called ‘the unknowable’ (to use the religio-spiritual jargon).

RICHARD: The entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being ... and the actual meaning of life is apparent as an on-going experiencing.

RESPONDENT: You seem to assume that your way of experiencing is the same as the way others experience.

RICHARD: It is not an assumption ... this is something I have checked at length with many of my fellow human beings when discussing the characteristics of the pure consciousness experience (PCE).

RESPONDENT: But there is no reason to assume that any way of being is ‘right’ for anyone else or some kind of ideal for humanity to pattern itself after.

RICHARD: There is every reason in the world ... there is the on-going experiencing of the perfection of the purity of the already always existing peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: The psyche is established in the known.

RICHARD: Also in the unknown ... primarily in the unknown, in fact.

RESPONDENT: It is a certain kind of development.

RICHARD: Basically ‘the psyche’ is a state of being ... it is the source of ‘being’ itself.

RESPONDENT: If there is a highly developed intuition, that operates in an apperceptive human.

RICHARD: Again ... the entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being ( ‘the psyche’ itself disappears).

RESPONDENT: If there is a more highly developed analytical capacity, then that function will more naturally be employed.

RICHARD: The ability for analysis has nothing to do with ‘the psyche’ ... intellectual scrutiny is but one of the functions of human intelligence.

RESPONDENT: Centreless awareness is not bounded by anything, not contained within anything because the experiencer is the experience.

RICHARD: A disembodied ‘awareness’ , in other words, that a human being can be contacted by ... and then be (‘I am That’).

RESPONDENT: It is not experienced as disembodied awareness.

RICHARD: It is easy to check your experience for validity: does it die when the body dies?

RESPONDENT: Death only has meaning in the context of what is part of the movement of time.

RICHARD: Ahh ... then ‘centreless awareness’ is indeed a disembodied awareness after all.

RICHARD: ... Thus one is reliably rendered relatively innocent (and virtually happy and harmless) by the benefaction of the perfection and purity of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and therefore one is no longer alone in this monumental endeavour ... one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal.

RESPONDENT: Could you please explain the last part a bit more [‘one has all the energy of infinitude at one’s disposal’] as it does sound somewhat metaphysical.

RICHARD: Not metaphysical, no. I am talking of the physical infinitude of this physical universe (‘this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe’) thus the energy of infinitude referred to is a physical energy ... specifically the calorific energy of an apperceptive consciousness.

I can explain it this way: the apperceptive brain in action in the human skull is a ‘self’-less consciousness (a consciousness not fettered by any identity whatsoever) and as such is an unlimited consciousness automatically conscious of the perfection and purity of the infinitude of the universe as an on-going awareness. For a person in the ‘real world’ such a consciousness exists in another dimension – in the infinite and eternal and perpetual actual world in fact – yet is mostly mistaken by peoples to be a god-like consciousness (a non-calorific energy in some timeless and spaceless and formless dimension).

Yet it is nothing more mysterious than the flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware.

One needs to contact, or have a connection with, this apperceptive awareness so as to no longer be alone in the monumental endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Hence the activation of one’s innate naiveté – the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’ – ensures that such a connection is sustained.

This connection I call pure intent.

RESPONDENT: So ... http://altzen.freeyellow.com/page7.html: (snipped from article): ‘Once Ejo asked: ‘What is meant by the expression ‘Cause and effect are not clouded’?’ This expression is found in the famous Koan known as ‘The Wild Fox’ or ‘Hyakujo’s Fox’ and the following is the first part of the story as it appears in the Mumonkan: When Hyakujo Osho delivered a certain series of sermons, an old man always followed the monks to the main hall and listened to him. When the monks left the hall, the old man would also leave. One day, however, he remained behind and Hyakujo asked him, ‘Who are you, standing there before me?’ The old man replied, ‘I am not a human being. In the old days of Kaashyapa buddha, I was a head monk living here on this mountain. One day a student asked me, ‘Does a man of enlightenment fall under the yoke of causation or not?’ I answered ‘No, he does not’. Since then I have been doomed to undergo five hundred rebirths as a fox. I beg you now to give the turning word to release me from my life as a fox. Tell me, does a man of enlightenment fall under the yoke of causation or not?’ Hyakujo answered, ‘He does not ignore [cloud] causation [cause and effect]’. No sooner had the old man heard these words than he was enlightened’. (end article). So the obvious question is to be: ‘Does a man of apperception fall under the yoke of causation or not?’

‘Tis only from within the human condition that such concepts as karma and samsara arise (along with their rebirth/reincarnation implications).

RESPONDENT: I’d say: be careful with your response here ... ‘five hundred rebirths as a fox’ ... wow! On the other hand better then ‘five hundred rebirths as a roach’.

RICHARD: It essentially makes no difference (be it either as a fox or a roach) because, according to eastern spirituality, it is only as a human being that a sentient being has a chance for enlightenment (which is the main point of being sent back down the metempsychosical path).

RESPONDENT: To be fair on that my guess is ‘Yes’ ... but then again the risk is high.

RICHARD: The only risk on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may be enticed to wander off the path and become enlightened instead.

I kid you not.

RESPONDENT: So ... I say I don’t know.

RICHARD: Okay ... here is a hint: both karma and samsara have no existence here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Does a man of apperception fall under the yoke of causation or not?

RICHARD: Actually it is not such an obvious question after all as the words ‘a man of enlightenment’ and the words ‘a man of apperception’ refer to two entirely different things: enlightenment is the release from the otherwise endless round of birth/death/rebirth and apperception is the release from the human condition. ‘Tis only from within the human condition that such concepts as karma and samsara arise (along with their rebirth/reincarnation implications).

RESPONDENT: I’d say: be careful with your response here ... ‘five hundred rebirths as a fox’ ... wow! On the other hand better then ‘five hundred rebirths as a roach’.

RESPONDENT: To be fair on that my guess is ‘Yes’ ... but then again the risk is high.

RICHARD: The only risk on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom is that one may be enticed to wander off the path and become enlightened instead. I kid you not.

RESPONDENT: So ... I say I don’t know.

RICHARD: Okay ... here is a hint: both karma and samsara have no existence here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: That seems to logically follow from: [‘tis only from within the human condition that such concepts as karma and samsara arise (along with their rebirth/reincarnation implications)]. As to: [I kid you not] though my posting of the Zen story, the question along with the remark [I’d say: be careful with your response here ... ‘five hundred rebirths as a fox’ ... wow! On the other hand better then ‘five hundred rebirths as a roach’] was written partly tongue in cheek, it also had the purpose of probing. Thus it’s taken that karma and samsara are concepts from within the human condition, however my question was not about karma it was: [does a man of apperception fall under the yoke of causation or not?] am I to take it that it that you say no to that?

RICHARD: The story which prompted your query came from Zen Buddhism ... which means that the English word ‘causation’ is a translation of the Indian word ‘karma’ (or maybe it is even a translation of the Japanese word for the Chinese word for the Indian word ‘karma’). And as karma is inextricably linked with samsara then causation, in this context, is inextricably linked with birth/death/rebirth.

And that, being metaphysical, is what I am saying ‘no’ too.

RESPONDENT: As for giving a hint to the answer of that. I did not mean Karma with [the yoke of causation] my guess is ... Yes ... but then again I don’t know.

RICHARD: If you did not mean ‘karma’ then perhaps your query would have been better served if you had simply asked whether physical cause and effect operates here in this actual world.

Which, of course, it does.

RESPONDENT: By the way I have enjoyed this conversation so far.

RICHARD: Good ... it can be such fun to find out about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being, eh?

RESPONDENT: (...) So one’s attentiveness must always be ‘scanning’ the belly/ chest/ throat/ face area for feelings?

RICHARD: No, all it takes is to be attentive to the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing.

RESPONDENT: So its a more general ‘attentiveness’ rather than a specific bodily attentiveness to the chest?

RICHARD: No, it is an attentiveness to the quality of whatever felicity/innocuity it is that one is currently experiencing (as any diminishment of same will automatically direct attention to the reason for such).

RICHARD: With practise even the slightest diminishment of whatever degree of felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing is unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: This kind of attentiveness sounds more like awareness (a more relaxed, general, yet alert awareness, rather than a focused, more one pointed attentiveness).

RICHARD: As I have never used the term ‘one pointed’ (or ‘one-pointed’) you can only be referring to someone else’s method.

RESPONDENT: Basically attentiveness (to feelings in chest) and sensuousness (to visual field, air on skin, etc.) seem to be similar yet have different ‘areas’ of focus. It seems that I can only do one well at a time, yet I get the impression that you’d say *both* must occur simultaneously for anything *substantial* to take place in my very nature. Am I correct?

RICHARD: Nope ... all it takes is to be attentive to the quality of the felicity/innocuity one is currently experiencing and, with the pure intent born of naiveté, the requisite noticing of/attending to happens virtually of its own accord.

RESPONDENT: Hmm ... it seems I have some experimentation to do.

RICHARD: Obviously (else you would never have asked whether finding a belief were enough in the first place).

RICHARD: And the key to unlocking naiveté is sincerity, pure and simple.

RESPONDENT: Can one ‘try’ to be more sincere? Curious.

RICHARD: Sincerity, or any expansion thereof, is not a matter of trying: anybody can be sincere (about anything) – all it takes is seeing the fact (of anything) – and in this instance the perspicuous awareness of blind nature’s legacy being the arch-crippler of intelligence ensures one stays true to/correctly aligned with that (that very factuality/ facticity seen).

And which (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere is ... being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous.

RESPONDENT: I think I have found perhaps why some struggle with this method. 1) unless like Vineeto and Peter you have a history of training of the attention (i.e. meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation) your control over your attention will likely not be stable enough to usefully examine feelings and beliefs.

RICHARD: There is, of course, a major flaw in your thought ... to wit: the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, had no history whatsoever of attention-training (as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation). Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘... I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again’.

RESPONDENT: One could benefit in practicing attentiveness sitting down with a simple focus like the darkness you see when you close your eyes.

RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could ask oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (the only moment one is ever alive) whilst going about one’s normal everyday life.

RESPONDENT: After you gain some control over your attention you could start practicing attentiveness to a not to changed belief before you move on to bigger stuff.

RICHARD: Or, alternatively, one could be attentive to whatever felicity/ innocuity one is currently experiencing because, with practise, even the slightest diminishment of that happiness/harmlessness is then unavoidably noticed, and thus attended to forthwith, so as to recommence feeling felicitous/innocuous sooner rather than later.

RESPONDENT: After you get good at this you could work on attaining a degree of apperceptiveness.

RICHARD: Hmm ... in a manner somewhat similar to being partly pregnant, perchance?

RESPONDENT: Once you can do that somewhat you could then delve in experientially to feelings that are seemingly not really tied to thoughts. By fully experiencing them with apperceptiveness one can begin to disempower then more and more until they minimise from non-use.

RICHARD: In actualism the term ‘apperception’ refers to unmediated perception – and for perception to be unmediated it needs to be sans mediator (aka without identity) – and as an identity is its feelings (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) there are no feelings to experientially delve into/fully experience apperceptively ... let alone disempower until minimised from disuse.

RESPONDENT: Basically I think ‘actualism’ asks too much for many people.

RICHARD: Whereas the actualism on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site asks very little ... so little as to appear simplistic to some. For instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Whatever presents itself in terms of divisive thought and feeling can dissolve in awareness.
• [Richard]: ‘Nothing substantive can happen in awareness while the instinctual survival passions dominate ... and the word ‘survival’ should explain why.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘It comes through earnest self-study.
• [Richard]: ‘If the above quoted understanding [‘the self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/feeler/doer is thought’] is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You mean simplistic advice like keep asking ‘what am I experiencing?’ ;-)
• [Richard]: ‘Ahh ... I always like it when someone says something like this as it shows that they are beginning to take notice that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté.
Maybe its very simplicity is why it has been overlooked all these aeons?

In a nutshell: to the cultured sophisticate to be simple is to be simplistic.

RESPONDENT: Some training in attentiveness could be helpful. Those with experience or with a ‘knack’ for this kind of thing would not of course.

RICHARD: ‘Tis just as well the identity in residence all those years ago never had you to advise ‘him’ (else this conversation would not be taking place), eh?

RESPONDENT: Yes, I knew that, which is why I referred to Peter and Vineeto instead. To be objective, it has not been determined that you are not a freak of nature yet.

RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, was a freak of nature just because ‘he’ required no attention-training – as in meditation, passive awareness, mindfulness, self observation – before both devising and putting into effect what has nowadays become known as the actualism method (being acutely conscious as to how one is experiencing each and every moment of being alive)? Look, ‘he’ was just a simple boy from the farm (not at all sophisticated) and what ‘he’ set about doing, consciously and with knowledge aforethought, was to deliberately imitate the actual – as experienced six months prior in a four-hour pure consciousness experience (PCE) – each moment again for as far as was humanly possible ... and there is nothing freakish about that, quite prosaic, action of consciously channelling all ‘his’ affective energy into the felicitous/ innocuous feelings whilst simultaneously being conscious of the slightest diminution of such felicity/ innocuity. Indeed, as success begets success it becomes so laughably easy, to be happy and harmless, one does wonder what all the fuss is about.

RESPONDENT No. 60: The way Richard put it, it sounded like he was able to simply *choose* the way he felt, and seemed surprised that others could not.

RESPONDENT: It does sort of give that impression.

RICHARD: It does far more than merely give that impression ... it is precisely what I am saying. For a recent instance:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘I think its important to be free of malice (...) but I’m not sure why we need to free of sorrow.
• [Richard]: ‘You do not need to be free of sorrow (or malice) ... it is your choice, and your choice alone, each moment again as to how you prefer to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment you are ever alive)’.

If then choosing to be as happy and as harmless (as free of both malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as was humanly possible thus makes the identity inhabiting this flesh and blood body, back in 1981, a freak of nature then so too is my current companion as she comprehended right from the beginning that it is her choice, and her choice alone, each moment again as to how she prefers to experience this moment of being alive (the only moment she is ever alive) ... and which would also make my previous companion a freak of nature as well (not forgetting to mention, of course and for the very reason of it being topical, both Peter and Vineeto too).

Incidentally, the identity in residence in 1981 was not surprised that others could not but, rather, that others would not (having a victim mentality, it turned out, ran much deeper than the singular mentation such nomenclature indicates).

Much, much deeper ... so much so as to be past fixation, entrenchment, and well into being an impressment, an embedment bordering on an embodiment.

RESPONDENT: Interestingly ‘the option method’ is built upon the premise that one can choose at any moment happiness ... interesting.

‘Tis not a [quote] ‘premise’ [endquote] that one can choose to be as happy (and as harmless) as is humanly possibly each moment again – it is experientially evident that it be possible – and the main thrust of the actualism method is to be aware of the quality of such felicity (and innocuity), via enjoyment and appreciation of simply being so delightfully alive at this very moment (the only moment which is dynamic), inasmuch the slightest diminishment thereof is unavoidably noticed as to occasion an immediate attendance to whatever caused that diminution and thus resume being happy (and harmless) forthwith.

It all depends upon whether one is going to continue to be a victim of one’s moods or a victor – or, in the jargon, whether one is going to take charge of one’s life, in this regard, or not – and, yes, that too is a choice.

Your felicity (and innocuity), or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone.

Footnote:

(1.)an immediate attendance to whatever caused that diminution:

• [Richard]: ‘It is essential for success to grasp the fact that this is your only moment of being alive. The past, although it did happen, is not actual now. The future, though it will happen, is not actual now. Only now is actual. Yesterday’s happiness and harmlessness does not mean a thing if one is miserable and malicious now ... and a hoped-for happiness and harmlessness tomorrow is to but waste this moment of being alive in waiting. All you get by waiting is more waiting. Thus any ‘change’ can only happen now. The jumping in point is always here ... it is at this moment in time and this place in space. Thus, if you miss it this time around, hey presto ... you have another chance immediately. Life is excellent at providing opportunities like this.
What ‘I’ did, all those years ago, was to devise a remarkably effective method of ridding this body of ‘me’ (I know that methods are to be actively discouraged, in some people’s eyes, but this one worked). It takes some doing to start off with, but as success after success starts to multiply exponentially, it becomes automatic to have this question running as an on-going thing (as a non-verbal attitude towards life ... a wordless approach each moment again) because it delivers the goods right here and now ... not off into some indeterminate future. Plus the successes are repeatable – almost on demand – and thus satisfies the ‘scientific method’. ‘I’ asked myself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’?
As one knows from the pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s), which are moments of perfection everybody has at some stage in their life, that it is possible to experience this moment in time and this place in space as perfection personified, ‘I’ set the minimum standard of experience for myself: feeling good. If ‘I’ am not feeling good then ‘I’ have something to look at to find out why. What has happened, between the last time ‘I’ felt good and now? When did ‘I’ feel good last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end those felicitous feelings? Ahh ... yes: ‘He said that and I ...’. Or: ‘She didn’t do this and I ...’. Or: ‘What I wanted was ...’. Or: ‘I didn’t do ...’. And so on and so on ... one does not have to trace back into one’s childhood ... usually no more than yesterday afternoon at the most (‘feeling good’ is an unambiguous term – it is a general sense of well-being – and if anyone wants to argue about what feeling good means ... then do not even bother trying to do this at all).
*Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel good is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – one is once more feeling good ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old*. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand ... with application and diligence and patience and perseverance one soon gets the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. And, of course, once one does get the knack of this, one up-levels ‘feeling good’, as a bottom line each moment again, to ‘feeling happy and harmless’ ... and after that to ‘feeling perfect’.
The more one enjoys and appreciates being just here right now – to the point of excellence being the norm – the greater the likelihood of a PCE happening ... a grim and/or glum person has no chance whatsoever of allowing the magical event, which indubitably shows where everyone has being going awry, to occur. Plus any analysing and/or psychologising and/or philosophising whilst one is in the grip of debilitating feelings usually does not achieve much (other than spiralling around and around in varying degrees of despair and despondency or whatever) anyway.
The wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and the slightest diminishment of such felicity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way.
One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday events. [emphasis added].

•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••

RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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.