|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Identity
RESPONDENT: I’m retracting my post about personality. I came to my own conclusion that personality is relative. Aristotle said that personality is nothing but the actions taken my a protagonist. RICHARD: Whereas what personality, or character RESPONDENT: I am upside down the last couple of days. Socializing has become very different. I don’t know what to focus on as I’m marvelling at the sensations and associated feelings/ thoughts. RICHARD: The thing to focus upon, each moment again and regardless of events, is one’s goal ... and the requisite pure intent to have that come about. RESPONDENT: It’s like an ASC because if I’m talking to someone I can’t escape the ‘magical insanity’ of having my nerves innervate/ coordinate so much at once. Even when I’m by myself, which is easier but lonely, I’m in shock and awe. Reading a book I could stay on one word or letter and not be able to proceed without switching off the magical insanity that my brain understands the tiny, black print. I’m desperate here. RICHARD: In which case it is handy to remember that desperation is a feeling and, like all feelings of that ilk (such as anxiety/ panic attacks), as such it never goes anywhere ... provided, that is, one does not act upon it. In other words, by keeping one’s hands in one’s pockets, such feelings amount to zilch ... they are much ado about nothing. As for the ‘magical insanity’ itself: is it not amazing that not only is all this (life, the universe, and everything) happening but that one has the marvellous ability to (simultaneously) be aware of being aware of it all whilst it is occurring? Moreover, is it not truly a cause for wonderment that one can thus share experience, compare notes as it were, with one’s fellow human being? RESPONDENT: I usually refrain from posting my doubts and fears as up until now I have been able to come to a conclusion on my own. But I feel myself at a critical point. I feel like I’m living a character for the sake of my intimates. RICHARD: By preceding it with that indefinite article/ determiner you are using the word character (aka personality) in a different sense there ... for example:
Incidentally, the word identity can also be used to indicate the assemblage of qualities or characteristics which makes a person a distinctive individual/ the collective peculiarities or qualities distinctive of an individual – inasmuch it is used to indicate a set of collective characteristics by which a person can be known (as in the phrase ‘public identity’ for instance) and/or a set of behavioural characteristics by which a person can be definitely recognisable – and is not to be confused with the way it is used on The Actual Freedom Trust web site/ The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list to refer to the emotional/ passional entity/ being within (the ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’). RESPONDENT: I mean, how does an actualist refrain from talking about actuality all of the time when it applies so importantly to every single situation? RICHARD: For what it is worth I do recall going through a period where, when not even speaking and even when on my own, it was not possible to cease making a moment-to-moment commentary ... to the point that the very noticing of that ceaseless commentary occurring became yet more commentary (yet another commentary layered on top of the commentary itself). Again, it is handy to remember that it, too, is much ado about nothing ... the term ‘drama queen’
readily springs to mind RESPONDENT: Richard, couldn’t we be hypnotizing ourselves to believe that we are only our senses? RICHARD: An identity could ... yes; a flesh and blood body ... never. RESPONDENT: The novelty of the quest you propose here is that the Self is also to vanish (or not to arise altogether), and you say that the method for this to happen is by deleting the instinctual program (and thus avoiding the ‘trap’ of enlightenment when deleting only the self-social construct with the instinctual passions left intact). RICHARD: The ‘social construct’ part of what you describe as the ‘self-social construct’ is what I call the social identity ... it is otherwise known as a conscience, a moral/ethical and principled entity, with inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, overlaid upon the identity within (anybody who is or has been a parent will know that it is considered the parents’ duty to instil cultural values in their off-spring). The identity within is a two-part identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul/spirit) and enlightenment is when the ego-self collapses, dies, dissolves, or merges with the soul-self/spirit-self (whereupon there is a rapid expansion of identity until it becomes All That Is, or Self, God, Truth, Being, That, Suchness, Isness and so on and so on) ... whereas an actual freedom from the human condition only happens when the identity in toto becomes extinct. As ‘I’ am the instinctual passions and the instinctual passions are ‘me’ then altruistic ‘self’-immolation in toto is the deletion of the instinctual passions ... in other words you cannot delete ‘the instinctual programme’ without deleting yourself. RESPONDENT: I must confess that it sounds logical and sane enough. RICHARD: Okay ... one starts where one is at: the social identity cannot safely be whittled away unless there be the pure intent to be happy and harmless, each moment again, because this socialised conscience, the moral/ethical and principled entity with its inculcated societal knowledge of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ (cultural values), has been implanted for a very good reason. It is there to control the wayward self which lurks within the human breast ... which is why dedication to peace-on-earth is paramount. * RESPONDENT: And a few more questions ... what was the difference in experiencing sleep when enlightened compared to your actual present state of consciousness? RICHARD: In a word: identity. RESPONDENT: Richard, if I were to knock-knock on your brain there will be no-one to answer, let alone your heart? RICHARD: My previous companion would oft-times say ‘there is no-one in there’ or ‘there is no-one home’ when feeling me out whilst looking at me quizzically ... she also would explain to others that, contrary to expectation, it was sometimes difficult to live with Richard (it could be said that living with some body that is not self-centred would always be easy) as it was impossible for her to have a relationship because there was no-one to make a connection with. She would also say that Richard does nor support her, as an identity that is, at all ... which lack of (affective) caring was disconcerting for her, to say the least, and my current companion has also (correctly) reported this absence of consideration. Put simply: I am unable to support some-one who does not exist (I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world). RESPONDENT: And from what stuff are we made of (our identities) anyhow that it cannot be determined by any magnetic scanning? RICHARD: Primarily the identity within is the affections (the affective feelings) – ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ – as the instinctual passions form themselves into a ‘presence’, a ‘spirit’, a ‘being’ ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself. MRI scans, and all the rest, cannot detect a phantom being, the ghost in the machine. RESPONDENT: Are we as Shakespeare put it ‘... such stuff as dreams are made on; and our little life is rounded with a sleep’? RICHARD: No ... put expressively the affective feelings swirl around forming a whirlpool or an eddy (which vortex is the ‘presence’, the ‘spirit’, the ‘being’): mostly peoples experience ‘self’ as being a centre, around which the affective feelings form a barrier, which centre could be graphically likened to a dot in a circle (the circle being the affective feelings) which is what gives rise to the admonitions to break down the walls, the barriers, with which the centre protects itself. Those people who are self-realised have realised that there is no ‘dot’ in the centre of the circle ... hence the word ‘void’. RESPONDENT: Please feel free to reply to the whole post, if your views do not fundamentally differ from Peter’s. RICHARD: This part of your initial post seemed to be addressed to me:
First, it is not a question of whether I am ‘right’ and the other ‘wrong’ – I am simply describing what is actual – as my communications are expressed in a way which give a clear description of the direct experiencing of being this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and this report is a factual account. That which is actual is neither right nor wrong: it is evident. A fact cannot be argued with ... it can only be reported. For example, if I were to say ‘this
glass and plastic object you are reading these words on is a computer monitor’ I am reporting a fact which cannot be
argued with (without being silly It is the fact which pulls the rug ... not me. Second, the ‘lack of personal ‘touch’ in our email exchange’ which you were quite irritated by is easily explained: if you were to knock-knock at this brain there would be no-one there to answer ... my previous companion eventually became so disappointed by the lack of personal touch (as in ‘no-one to make a connection with’ so as to have a relationship) that upon making a deeply passionate connection with another person she packed her bags and moved out. You may find this exchange helpful:
In all fairness to my previous companion it must be remembered that the person she met, and initially formed an (undying) relationship with, was an enlightened being – she was showered with, drenched in, and subordinated by, Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and not this actual Richard ... whereas my current companion only knows me as-I-am (thus there is no-one to miss). Third, as ‘qualia’ (qualities) are sourced in properties – and not in the perceiver as some peoples contend – it is the percepts, and all the feeling memories associated with the percepts, which prevent the direct experiencing ... actual values are derived from qualities. Lastly, I am a strict teetotaller – I do not take any mood enhancing or mind altering drugs at all – as even caffeine (a chemical cousin to cocaine) has a psychotropic effect. Back when I was a normal person a fine port after a meal was my favourite tipple – these days I thoroughly enjoy a short black (decaffeinated) instead – and a sparkling apple-juice in a stemmed glass satisfies the social occasion admirably. Needless is to say that I do not miss alcohol at all? RESPONDENT: As identifications below the level of conscious thought are exposed and fall away, there is a sense of attention sinking into the centre of the body or the mid-section so that observation stems from there. RICHARD: Yes, the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is but a generic term as, for just one example, the Japanese use of the word ‘hara’ or ‘hari’ (which translates as ‘belly’) serves to locate the centre of attention, the core of ‘being’ itself, more precisely as being four finger-widths below the navel ... the everyday English equivalent would be the common expression ‘gut-feeling’ (when referring to an intuitive hunch). Another way of saying it is that there are the more superficial feelings (emotional) and that there are the deeper feelings (passionate) and that the emotions are what one has and that the passions are who one is. RESPONDENT: There the psyche has space for something new to enter in perception that is outside the field of the known. RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, where ‘being’ is all there is ... truth reveals itself, unsolicited. RESPONDENT: It is not localized in its operation to any particular part of the psyche. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is the psyche itself (albeit centreless). RESPONDENT: There are no attachments or identifications and that attention/energy has unlimited space. RICHARD: The following paragraph speaks for itself:
All the while you have been speaking of being ‘freed of identification with even an aspect of the known’ I have been speaking of identification as the unknown ... and where you say that ‘identity is not in the known’ but that ‘true identity lies in the energy of creative intelligence’ leaves no room for misunderstanding. An ego-less identity (an identity without the centre) is still an identity nevertheless. RESPONDENT No. 04: ... there is an inside as anyone who has mediated has experienced. K on meditation said: ‘First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe. (...) First of all sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax, I will show you. Now, look at the trees, at the hills, the shape of the hills, look at them, look at the quality of their colour, watch them. Do not listen to me. Watch and see those trees, the yellowing trees, the tamarind, and then look at the bougainvillea. Look not with your mind but with your eyes. After having looked at all the colours, the shape of the land, of the hills, the rocks, the shadow, then go from the outside to the inside and close your eyes, close your eyes completely. You have finished looking at the things outside, and now with your eyes closed you can look at what is happening inside’. – Pg 22, 36; ‘K on education’. Go further and the inner and outer dissolve and there is only awareness. RICHARD: Yet when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does ‘go further’ he says the following words (also on page 36): [quote]: ‘Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed. (Page 36, ‘K on Education’). Do you see that where you say ‘go further and the inner and outer dissolve’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that where you say ‘and there is only awareness’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the observer is the observed’? Furthermore, upon reading what ‘the inside’ is (because ‘the outside’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert inside is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? Or, to put that another way, upon reading what ‘the observer’ is (because ‘the observed’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? RESPONDENT: Yes, I would say that it is an unambiguous statement. The way I see it is that when there is no inside (no observer) then the outside (observed) is the inside. RICHARD: Ahh ... where there is no inside (‘no observer’ ) is there an outside? Or, to put that another way, does not the presence of an inside create an outside? Which means that there may just be the possibility that the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on all exist in their own right ... and that a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer fully engaged in being the observed (as in ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’) is nothing other than more chicanery on the part of an ‘inside’ fixated upon being a presence come what may. An impersonalised identification is still identification, is it not? RESPONDENT: I think I see your point here. I agree that the trees, hills, rocks, etc. exist in their own right without the observer. RICHARD: Yes, if nothing else palaeontology evidences that the physical world existed prior to human beings (in other words it exists in its own right) which establishes a firm basis in regards to determining what is fact and what is fancy. RESPONDENT: You also seem to be saying that it is chicanery for the observer to claim to be the observed which is still identification even though impersonalised. RICHARD: In the context of being the trees, the hills, the rocks and so on ... yes (an impersonalised possessiveness is still possessiveness when all is said and done). RESPONDENT: What I am trying to say is that without an identity inside (observer) then there is only the trees, rocks, etc. RICHARD: Okay ... going the one step further: where there is no ‘identity inside (observer)’ is there an inside (other than heart, lungs, liver and so on of course)? And in this (impersonalised) context I am using the word ‘inside’ as being synonymous with ‘being’ itself ... otherwise known as ‘presence’. Because it is this amorphous presence which lays claim to being all that is. RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. Arguing one culture’s ideals over another culture’s ideals is a distraction away from the real culprit. RESPONDENT: The parasite assumes the identity we think of as ‘me’, through which it lives and acts at the expense of the host. The host in return seeks victims in order to retrieve a sense of autonomy and lost power, which in reality is done in service to the foreign identity. That which we think of as the ‘me’ is the ‘it’. RICHARD: Sometimes in deep despair and desperation the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body involuntarily splits off the dark side of itself and anthropomorphises it ... the resultant magnification of its malice and sorrow into an horrific being existing independently of itself is so terrifying that a splitting off the light side of itself, and the anthropomorphising of this antidotal love and compassion out of desperate hope and despairing faith, happens coincidently and with awesome consequences (the flip side of dread is awe) as the two aggrandised beings engage in a titanic battle for supremacy. Neither ‘being’ has any existence outside the human psyche, of course. * RESPONDENT: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion. RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’). RESPONDENT: ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ is a simple observable fact – observer is the observed! RICHARD: As the ‘observer’ you refer to is an illusion how on earth can such an identification be observable as a fact? Only further illusions – or delusions such as ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ – can be observable by an illusion. Maybe you were meaning ‘truth’ and inadvertently wrote ‘fact’ instead? * RESPONDENT: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core. RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects. RESPONDENT: Within the realms of causality and temporality things are rotten and non-rotten. For example, dependence on chemicals, anger, violence, etc. are rotten while a wholesome, serene and a healthy life are not-rotten. RICHARD: I am using the word ‘rotten’ in the sense of ‘corrupt’ and/or ‘tainted’, of course, and there is nothing of that description here in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – as nothing illusional or delusional can get in. The realms you describe sound like the pits. RESPONDENT: I am referring to a realm that is beyond causality and temporality – in that realm, there is nothing that is rotten or non-rotten. RICHARD: As that realm is the projection of a rotten illusion it is a rotten realm ... so rotten, in fact, that it has deluded you into viewing all the wars and deaths and so on as an illusion. Vis.:
To say that ‘all this is but illusion’ demonstrates a blatant lack of engagement in being here on this verdant and azure planet now ... and maybe the best way to show that such estrangement is a sickness would be to suggest that you try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone whose fellow human has just been murdered; try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who has just been tortured; try telling that to someone on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to someone who is the victim of child abuse; try telling that to someone who is sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide. More specifically: if your daughter or mother or grandmother or sister was being raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘all this is but illusion’ ? * RESPONDENT: There is no core even. RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: Brahma has no existence outside or inside of the human psyche. RICHARD: As what the word ‘existence’ can mean is easily equated with what the word ‘ubiety’ means it would be more useful for the purposes of communication to rephrase what I wrote above. Vis.: No core means that Brahma has no presence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: That which is beyond existence is Brahma. RICHARD: As the illusory core is an illusory presence your connotative point is a moot point ... and going beyond an illusory presence and being a delusory presence instead only magnifies its rottenness (as is evidenced by your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on). A dissociated presence can only deal with abstractions. RESPONDENT: The core isn’t this infinitude either ... RICHARD: Oh? What does ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ mean to you, then? RESPONDENT: ... nor the universe. RICHARD: As the ‘infinitude’ you speak of is a delusory infinitude this physical universe is certainly not that ... this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is an actual infinitude. RESPONDENT: The core, like Brahma, doesn’t exist. Try peeling an orange to get to the core. It doesn’t exist! Same with the human beings – there is no ‘core’: just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’. RICHARD: I am adaptable enough in this instance to use your terminology if doing so will assist communication: in the same way that there is no core – just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’ – there is no Brahma: just a bunch of delusions that masquerade as ‘Brahma’. And a rotten bunch of delusions they are, too. RESPONDENT: In summary: the core – like Brahma – is neither rotten nor non-rotten and it doesn’t exist. RICHARD: Despite your ‘neither-nor’ avowal the evidence of the rottenness of Brahma’s presence is plain to see in its rotten effects ... I am, of course, referring once again to your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on. Methinks you might find that facts have a remarkable way of exposing ‘the truth’ for what it is. * RICHARD: Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway. As will any other advice you may come up with. RESPONDENT: The confusion is one of establishing identity in psychological time. That confusion may actually be occurring but that doesn’t mean there ever was a separate entity in time. Is the observer really separate from the observed? No. RICHARD: Here the presence of the corrupting seer – the identity who is that ‘confusion’ (despite trying to redefine it out of existence further above) – becomes even more evident than what your ‘separate identity’ and ‘fragmented consciousness’ phraseology displayed. Not only has the coupling of the word ‘separate’, to what was initially a stand-alone identity/entity, crept in twice – thus implying divided from or split off from something as yet unnamed – but the implication of divided from or split off from also contained in the word ‘fragmented’ has been adroitly established by coupling it with what was heretofore a stand-alone consciousness as well. Thus with the stage comfortably set up to produce the desired result ... now comes the blatant identification of the seer (aka the observer) with the seen (aka the observed). This is but a hop, skip and a jump away from realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom ... which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion. RESPONDENT: All at once the division ends and truth or the other which is undivided is realized. RICHARD: Did you notice that what ends is the division (aka the separation) and not the identity itself ... and that an undivided identity is still an identity nevertheless? Which just goes to show that, despite a sinuous redefinition halfway through the discussion, there was a rotten core all along. RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. RESPONDENT No. 33: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion. RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’). RESPONDENT No. 33: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core. RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects. RESPONDENT No. 33: There is no core even. RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: If we believe there is a rotten core we make efforts to chip away at it and remove it. If we see directly that in fact there is no core, there is no effort to sustain what is really illusion. RICHARD: As one can only ‘see directly that in fact there is no core’ when that coreless condition is actually happening – else the word ‘directly’ is being misused – the remainder of your sentence is irrelevant ... because then there is no illusory identity in situ to either sustain itself or not sustain itself (be it with or without effort). Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway. As will any other advice you may come up with. RESPONDENT: Ok, I think I understand what you are saying: The instinctual passions are genetically inherited and have a perception of self which becomes the feeling of self. RICHARD: No, the genetically-inherited instinctual passions do not have a perception of self ... what they do is usurp the sensate perception of self and create the feeling of ‘self’. RESPONDENT: It is the feeling of self (‘me’/soul/core) which is illusory which gives rise to the ‘I’/ego or thinker. In other words, the instinctual passions are genetically inherited and they give rise to the illusion of the ‘me’ and the ‘I’. RICHARD: Exactly, and what is vital to comprehend is that the feeler is primary and the thinker is secondary ... and that the thinker is but the tip of the iceberg. I kid you not ... the feeler automatically creates its own feeling reality, usurping sensate actuality as already explained, which reality is so all-pervasive that it is only in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that this actual world becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that in order to eliminate the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ that the instinctual passions themselves have to be eliminated ... RICHARD: No ... and the reason why not is this simple: who would be doing the eliminating of the instinctual passions? As ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’ it is an impossibility because the result of trying to do so would be a stripped-down rudimentary animal ‘self’ (seemingly) divested of feelings ... somewhat like what is known in psychiatric terminology as a ‘sociopathic personality’ (popularly known as ‘psychopath’). Such a person still has feelings – ‘cold’, ‘callous’, ‘indifferent’ and so on – and has repressed the others. RESPONDENT: ... and in order to do that the layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ have to be peeled back in order to uncover the raw instinctual passions? RICHARD: In the end, only altruistic ‘self’-immolation, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, will release the flesh and blood body from its parasitical resident and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, the end of ‘me’ is the end of ‘my’ feelings (aka the instinctual passions and all their cultivated derivations). Of course, one does not psychologically and psychically self-immolate just because it seems like a good idea at the time. It requires a rather curious decision to be made – a decision the likes of which has never been made before nor will ever be made again – as it is a once-in-a-lifetime determination and takes some considerable preparation. So, in the meantime, what one can do is choose to be as happy and harmless as is humanly possible each moment again – the means to the end are not different from the end – and with this pure intent, as one goes about one’s normal everyday life, each moment again provides an opportunity to find out what is preventing one from living in the already always existing peace-on-earth (as evidenced in the PCE). RESPONDENT: The layers of the ‘I’ and ‘me’ consisting of beliefs and identity. RICHARD: Well, as the word ‘identity’ is used to delineate the entity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul), it is clearer to say that the layers of identity consist of, not only beliefs, but all the rest of what constitutes identity. Asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive will incrementally reveal what ‘all the rest’ is made up of ... and of particular importance is the beliefs masquerading as truths. This moment of being alive is the only time one is alive, of course. RESPONDENT: There is an interchange between Richard and a respondent in Emotions, Passions, and Calentures where Richard says ‘You are not Jewish, by any chance are you, answering a question with a question?’ Is that an example of someone ‘devoid of feelings who has the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ from Richard’s own words several paragraphs later. He goes on with ‘if there is insufficient information I can certainly form an opinion, or make an interpretation but then I will clearly state this is only an opinion or an interpretation when I speak about it’. Is this an example of someone devoid of an identity? Is this a benign non-malicious form of humour as what Richard claims in his own right? RICHARD: Here is the interchange in question:
It will be seen that it was a rhetorical question – when faced with an often used debating technique – designed to draw attention to the fact that my co-respondent had not answered my entirely sensible query regarding the typical spiritual practice of detachment. I had some time previously watched a television documentary of religious students in a Jewish Yeshiva (an orthodox Jewish college or seminary; a Talmudic academy) who were trained to debate their religious scriptures, and the commentaries on their scriptures, in this very manner – a manner which, if my memory serves me correctly, is also used by the Tibetan Monks in their seminaries – and also discovered that it was a time-honoured technique. I have had literally thousands of exchanges with many, many people on the subject of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being and quite often it becomes apparent that the other person would rather debate than discuss. If you read through all my e-mail exchanges you will find more than a few examples of me endeavouring to shift the exchange from argumentation to dialogue. As for ‘the freedom to appraise without prejudice’ ... I am quite ecumenical in my endeavours because at other times I have pointed out to peoples that I discuss these issues with that they are quibbling over trivialities like an Hindu Pundit or hypocritically disputing the issue like a Born-Again Christian and so on. Lastly, it is certainly not funny so any attempt to ascertain whether it be ‘a benign non-malicious form of humour’ or not is besides the point. * RESPONDENT: I wonder if the readers of this site realize that when Richard glowingly puts up his diagnosis by psychiatrists of psychosis and depersonalisation that this is not a light fickle assessment. RICHARD: I was not aware that I was ‘glowingly’ putting up the psychiatrist’s diagnosis ... are you sure you are not reading something into it here that simply does not exist outside of your imagination? RESPONDENT: This is a very serious affliction which is encompassed by delusions of thinking oneself to ‘not exist or to be perfect’. RICHARD: You apparently know more about the matter of depersonalisation than the psychiatrists I consulted as neither of them ever said to me that I had delusions of thinking myself to ‘not exist or to be perfect’ ... can you provide the source from which you obtained this quote? RESPONDENT: Does anyone see how analogous this is to thinking oneself is Christ or Napoleon? RICHARD: No ... such delusions of grandeur as you refer to here are in a different category entirely to depersonalisation. * RESPONDENT: If the individual alone can claim they have no identity, and uses whatever ‘pretzel logic’ to refute any evidence to the contrary ... RICHARD: I am not familiar with the term ‘pretzel logic’ so I will assume it means ‘twisted logic’ (and please correct me if I am in error) and thus ask you to provide some substance to your allegation. I will proffer the following exchange for your consideration:
Now I ask you ... where is the ‘pretzel logic’ in this exchange? RESPONDENT: ... even though in their writings it is evident that they have particular tastes, preferences, & judgements and assess situations all unique to a ‘person’ with an identity!! RICHARD: Indeed I have ‘particular tastes, preferences, & judgements and assess situations’ ... how does that demonstrate that there is an identity inhabiting this body? You may be interested to read the following:
* RESPONDENT: Richard has talked of he alone being in this state or non-state devoid of ego or soul. Now since he is supposedly doesn’t want followers or financial support I guess the whole matter is more or less benign. Yet that shouldn’t preclude the ability to question him even when you show evidence to the contrary. RICHARD: Indeed not ... when you get around to providing the ‘evidence to the contrary’ I will be very interested to read it. RESPONDENT: A person can clearly choose to ignore whatever they don’t care to address, even when it is evident in their own verbiage. RICHARD: If you will provide the evidence I will be only too happy to address your concerns. RESPONDENT: If Richard chooses to ignore or be oblivious to the fact that he has an identity, does that mean that everyone should also pretend that they don’t see, that the ‘Emperor has no clothes’. RICHARD: Yet I am not choosing to ignore anything of the sort – nor am I oblivious to it – as this is an experiential matter ... again I will draw your attention to the following exchange:
RESPONDENT: If you read the writings you can clearly see evidence where he calls things nonsensical ... RICHARD: Aye, if something someone states is nonsense then I will say so ... I make no claims of being politically correct. RESPONDENT: ... dismisses things that don’t align with his worldview ... RICHARD: Where it is a matter of an actual freedom from the human condition I do not have a ‘worldview’ ... I simply provide a report from direct experience. RESPONDENT: ... and clearly has less than benign or delicate commentary on anything that is in contrast to his pronouncements. RICHARD: It would appear that you are confusing superficial politeness with genuine
benignity ... you may find the following link edifying: * RESPONDENT: I had a friend who constantly use to tell me rather argumentatively that she also had ‘no identity’. I would query, ‘then who is arguing so adamantly for their particular point of view’. She was oblivious to the fact that she was a definitive person, who was born at a specific time, had a particular life history, and occupied a particular physical space. She would continually pronounce that she didn’t exist. RICHARD: Unlike your friend I am a definitive flesh and blood body, that was born at a specific time, that has a particular life history and occupies a particular physical space ... I most certainly exist as a flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: She had been sexually abused at an early age and certain boundaries were beyond her perceptive abilities. RICHARD: I was not sexually abused at an earlier age – nor at any age – and I am well aware of all the normal human boundaries ... plus I rather fail to see why you would want to be likening me to someone you know personally who is oblivious to bodily existence. * RESPONDENT: Do any of you realize the magnitude of what it is when someone is called psychotic. RICHARD: Well, I certainly do (as I have personal experience of being diagnosed thus). RESPONDENT: It is not a haphazard, cutesy, light state of affairs. RICHARD: I have never said that it is a ‘haphazard, cutesy, light state of affairs’ ... what I have repeatedly said is that I find it cute that an actual freedom from the human condition – meaning peace-on-earth in this lifetime – should be classified as a psychotic illness ... it speaks volumes about the lack of salubrity in what is called sanity. I am using the word cute in its ‘quaint, fascinating’ meaning. (Oxford Dictionary). RESPONDENT: It’s a serious disturbance in one’s ability to perceive reality on Planet Earth! RICHARD: You are now speaking about derealisation – losing contact with reality – and I make no secret of the fact that I am living in the actuality of the world as-it-is ... and not in the reality that the identity imposes over it as a veneer. Your appeal to the status-quo does not cut ice with me. RESPONDENT: If you still have feelings extant and this person through accident, breakdown or some unknown explanation doesn’t, it seems a little foolhardy follow their blueprint as to how to navigate your life to optimal existence. RICHARD: In my case it was no ‘accident, breakdown or some unknown explanation’ ... I clearly delineate how, when and where I came to be in this condition. RESPONDENT: I’ve been wanting to stay on board in this enterprise but the more I’m reading the more disturbing it seems. RICHARD: You are not the first person to be initially pleased to discover actualism only to later on find it disturbing ... and I dare say you will not be the last. RESPONDENT: My brother a bona fide born-again Christian reports that his life is wonderful. He weighs in at 300lbs, his wife 400lbs as well as the accompanying health, wealth and relationship problems. RICHARD: Whereas I am the normal weight for my height and age and have no health, wealth or relationship problems. RESPONDENT: I’m not going to argue with him. I’m not starting a group. Moonies and Daidists, as well as people connected with Osho all report feeling wonderful at various times along a continuum. I don’t think that life’s answers lie there. RICHARD: I agree completely ... I lived that/was that enlightenment experience, night and day, for eleven years and thus have intimate knowledge that it is not the answer. * RESPONDENT: I’m not about to debate someone so convinced they don’t exist. RICHARD: Then why are you writing this e-mail – and your previous ones – to this mailing list? The Actual Freedom Mailing List was set-up to discuss these very matters. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I remember when Richard Bandler from NLP and several other therapists hit a guy who thought he was invisible. He wasn’t! RICHARD: As I am not invisible this is a pointless comment. RESPONDENT: There is benefits to this work. But for chrissake you guys exist. You all have identities and tastes as unique as a snowflake. RICHARD: If you say then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as the examples and analogies and so on that you provide have nothing to do with what I experience. RESPONDENT: If the circumstances were right we could all prove that very easily! RICHARD: What circumstances do you require? RESPONDENT: You all know it too! RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I do not have a clue as to how you can prove it. RESPONDENT: There’s some great stuff on this site but cut the silliness, and pretence. RICHARD: And just what ‘silliness, and pretence’ is it that you would like me to cut? RESPONDENT: Just cause someone doesn’t have feelings or ‘an identity’ that they are unaware of doesn’t make them the third coming! RICHARD: Yet I make no claims of being ‘the third coming’ (whatever that is). RESPONDENT: I was born at night but not last night. RICHARD: Perhaps this may be an apposite moment to refer you to your own writing:
It may very well be that this e-mail is the product of that vengeance, eh?
Footnote: (1.)being silly:
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON IDENTITY (Part Three) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust 1997-2001 |
