|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Sex
RESPONDENT: If a man touched your nipples or your lips or any other erogenous zone would you experience pleasure? RICHARD: If any body – be it human, dog, monkey, and so on, and so forth, of either gender, or any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status – were to touch, stroke, caress, lick, suck, nuzzle, or in any other way set out to stimulate me in an erotic manner, then erogenous pleasure would (presumably) be experienced. RESPONDENT: And if so what does that imply? RICHARD: I am none too sure that it implies anything (other than the absence of prejudice already mentioned). RESPONDENT: Does the fact that animal or man can arouse you mean that you are not heterosexually oriented as you said in some post where you were discussing your sex life and companionship? RICHARD: First of all, virtually any flesh and blood body would experience erogenous pleasure when stimulated in an erotic manner. Vis.:
Second, I now comprehend just what implication it was you were fishing for ... and, as I understand it, there are various devices on the market which would (presumably) also bring about erogenous pleasure – and (probably) of a similar nature to that stimulated by the living creatures listed above – yet there is no way that would mean my sexual orientation was not heterosexual. Or, put differently, were my sexual orientation to have been homosexual, and a female (of any age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, and social status) was to then stimulate me in an erotic manner, the erogenous pleasure experienced would in no way mean that my sexual orientation was not homosexual. Last, but by no means least, there is a vast difference between hedonic pleasure, where arousal means desire, and anhedonic pleasure, where arousal remains sensate only ... in this actual world (the world of the senses) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (desirous) as the affective pleasure/ pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/ pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void. RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all? RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception. Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation. RESPONDENT: Does the flesh and blood body called Richard have a preference companions that wear skirts and have smaller bone structure? RICHARD: No, sexual orientation is not a preference. RESPONDENT: Your input on this matter is important to me as I am facing issues around my sexual (homosexual) identity/reality since AF. RICHARD: Neither heterosexuality or homosexuality (or bisexuality/ transsexuality for that matter) are a product of identity as other animals display variations in sexual orientation as well ... being born and raised on a farm I have personally witnessed, for just one example, cows in oestrous (aka on heat) sniffing, licking, nuzzling, rubbing and mounting each other (known colloquially as ‘bulling’). Nor are various sexual practices either, by the way, as I have also seen, for instance, a doe goat quite obviously enjoying fellatio with a buck goat and ‘water sports’ (aka golden showers), for another example, are also very common as urine often contains, especially when on heat, sexually stimulating pheromones. * RESPONDENT: I don’t understand how you can say that because you have observed same sex animal behaviour that this makes the animals homosexually oriented. RICHARD: That could be because I never said such a thing – as the cows in the example above also vigorously mate with the bull then the variation in sexual orientation they are displaying is bisexuality – and, anyway, the point I am making is that sexual orientation is not a product of identity (I only gave the ‘other animals’ example so that you would not have to take my word for it). RESPONDENT: How can a flesh and blood body be programmed in utero to prefer what is basically a social construct. RICHARD: I never said that a flesh and blood body is programmed in utero to [quote] ‘prefer’ [endquote] what is basically [quote] ‘a social construct’ [endquote] ... I specifically say (a) sexual orientation is *not* a preference ... and (b) both gender and *sexual orientation* are set in place whilst a foetus. RESPONDENT: Don’t get me wrong, I know the difference between a man and a woman but we all know that construction workers will whistle at anything that has on lipstick and heels! RICHARD: Both lipstick/heels and the skirts which you mentioned further above are but a particular society’s cultural aspects of the innate gender and sexual orientation ... in other societies those cultural aspects take on a different appearance (where the equivalent of those archetypal male construction workers you portray would vociferously express their sexual orientation in a corresponding culturally-conditioned way to anybody appearing publicly in that particular society’s female accoutrements). RESPONDENT: This is important to me. I need you to clarify. I don’t understand how you can be sans identity (affective feelings) and say you are heterosexually oriented. RICHARD: I say that my sexual orientation is heterosexual for no other reason than the reason already explained/exampled ... to wit: sexual orientation is not a product of identity (hence my ‘other animals’ example). RESPONDENT: What constitutes an object of your heterosexual orientation? RICHARD: A female human being (no matter her age, shape, size, appearance, race, ethnicity, or social status). RESPONDENT: Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory ... RICHARD: No, and especially not when I have already said that sexual orientation is not a preference ... here it is again (from further above)
RESPONDENT: ... [Perhaps you’ll tell me that the organism Richard has certain predilections based on his collective memory] ... so then ... well ... I’ll see what you have to say about this so far. RICHARD: As all I have done, essentially, is reiterate what I have already previously said then maybe you will see what I have to say this time around? CO-RESPONDENT: How can you say you have any sexual orientation at all? RICHARD: As I understand it, and this is a vaguely recalled generalisation, both gender and sexual orientation are set in place whilst a foetus – from memory around the tenth/ twelfth week for a male and the twelfth/ fourteenth week for a female – due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception. Be that as it may ... the extirpation of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto (and thus libido or sexual desire) does not eliminate sexual orientation. (...) RESPONDENT: How do you discover/know what your sexual orientation is (other than by performing a scientific study of genes and the body using various experiments)? RICHARD: By virtue of which gender one experiences oneself as (regardless of genitalia) ... RESPONDENT: It is interesting that you say ‘regardless of genitalia’. RICHARD: I am, of course, referring to well-documented reports by transsexuals (who experience themselves as being the other gender to what their genitals signify). RESPONDENT: What constitutes such an experience if not an affective feeling of ‘maleness’ or a ‘male identity’ or a ‘manliness’? RICHARD: It is an innate sensory experiencing of the gender set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception). RESPONDENT: Can you provide some further explanation/ details on the nature of this experience? RICHARD: It is not all that dissimilar to, say, experiencing oneself as being of a certain height. * RICHARD: ... in conjunction with which gender one is sexually receptive to ... RESPONDENT: Again the same question. What is the nature of this receptivity if neither an instinctual urge/desire/affective feeling of tenderness etc. nor a preference? RICHARD: Again the same answer: it is an innate sensory experiencing of the sexual orientation set in place, as I understand it, whilst a foetus (due to either the presence or absence of testosterone, in conjunction with other hormones, as determined by the type of chromosomes endowed at conception). * RICHARD: ... from earliest memory right up to the present day my experience has been that of a heterosexual male. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if your sexual orientation was otherwise it would have shown up as something even during all those days you were experiencing life as an identity (under the influence of instincts and cultural programming)? RICHARD: In effect ... yes. Vis.:
And:
RESPONDENT: Do you see any relationship between the orientation of raw instinctual desire (if it can ever be seen without the overlaying cultural program) and the sexual orientation? RICHARD: Yes, the one follows the other ... the former impulsively/ compulsively energises the latter. RESPONDENT: As an identity did you affectively experience any repulsion for the idea of physical closeness/sexual act with men? RICHARD: Not that I can recall (at least not of any significance) but by being born and raised in the ‘forties and the ‘fifties there was, of course, a culturally-induced disdain ... a deprecation which did not become apparent, curiously enough, until married and whilst serving in the military. RESPONDENT: Certainly not a desire, right? (from what you say). RICHARD: No, not at all ... the identity in residence never had any doubts/ any confusion about either gender or sexual orientation (even at pubescence when there was some minor same-sex experimentation). RESPONDENT No. 94: Do you become ‘aroused’ without any mental component (i.e. do you find yourself with an erection when a partner expresses some desire to engage in sex) or what? RICHARD: Here in this actual world it is impossible to ever be hedonic as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void. You may find the following self-explanatory:
And:
RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever get an erection without tactile stimulation? RICHARD: Yes ... nocturnal tumescence can and does occur during the transition from sleeping to waking (the autonomic release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, can enable erectile tissue to involuntarily engorge in both males and females). RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, for example? RICHARD: No ... all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:
* RESPONDENT No. 94: Would the idea of masturbation ever arise? RICHARD: Having lived with a female companion since 1992 there has been no occasion where, being but a substitute for the real thing, it would ... there is (presumably) no reason why it would not, though, were the situation to be different. RESPONDENT: Would you masturbate without thinking of a partner? RICHARD: As your query is drawn from my speculative response then what you are asking me to do is to further conjecture about a supposition ... what I can say, however, is that the anhedonic pleasure of sex and sexuality, here in this actual world, has nothing to do with mental imagery. Indeed, it is impossible to either imagine or form images where there is no identity (the affective faculty in its entirety – which includes its imaginative/intuitive facility – has no existence whatsoever in this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT: Just a physical stimulation of your genital organs would it be, then? RICHARD: If the hetero-sexual tactile stimulation already referred to in my initial response at top of this page is anything to go by there is (presumably) no reason why mono-sexual tactile stimulation would be any different ... other than, of course, a difference in quality. RESPONDENT: Richard, when talking with a female friend about your Journal she asked the following questions: 1) Were all three people in the three-way relationship with Irene, yourself and Grace engaging in sexual relations ... RICHARD: Yes, although the ménage à trois – ‘an arrangement or relationship in which three people live together’ (Oxford Dictionary) – started out as a platonic association for my current companion. RESPONDENT: ... (i.e. were Irene and Grace sexually active together, etc.)? RICHARD: As I do not have permission from my previous companion to publicly disclose personal information I will not be responding, be it either in the negative or the affirmative, to queries such as that. RESPONDENT: 2) Was there any hint that Irene may have been jealous of your sexual relationship with Grace? RICHARD: No, the fundamental, or pivotal, reason for what ensued is as detailed in ‘Richard’s Journal’ (of which my previous companion has had a copy ever since it was first published) and in various places throughout my correspondence ... to wit: having fallen in love with a person who loved another she energetically transformed that unrequited love into being Love Agapé ... and the rest is history. RESPONDENT: 3) Why, if you had a ‘perfect’ relationship with Irene, would you want to add a third party? RICHARD: This is the way I described how it all began:
My previous companion was, of course, well aware of such an intimacy. Vis.:
In short: the ménage à trois was initiated by, and primarily based upon, an actual intimacy ... and not sex and sexuality. RESPONDENT: I don’t remember this being covered thoroughly in past correspondence and now that I think about it, that is rather surprising to me. RICHARD: Oh? Are you not aware then, that were your female friend’s question to be asked in a world-wide context, rather than from a parochial point of view, it would look somewhat odd ... as in rather unusual or out of place? Mr. George Murdock, an anthropologist by profession, catalogued 853 societies globally: 83.5% of them permitted or preferred polygyny, with but 16% (mainly western) imposing monogamy by law (yet which, by allowing divorce, permit successive polygamy) and only four societies, out of the 853 catalogued, permitted polyandry. (Source: Murdock, G. P. Ethnographic atlas: a summary. Ethnology 6:109-236.). In other words a ménage à deux is not the norm. RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: That it [the company of a woman] is a privilege etc. RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ is, in fact, none other than delight (see immediately below). RESPONDENT: But the very fact that he would consider it a privilege, that is, something which adds value to his life, belies the claim that the world is perfect as is for an actualist. RICHARD: This is what I actually wrote:
Nowhere did I say that it is something which ‘adds value’ to my life (thus belying that this actual world is perfect) ... and the odd thing is that all what is required is to just simply ask me, if it be not obvious, what I mean by it being a privilege to be living with a female companion. Just look at what your e-mail brought forth:
And on and on it went ... here is your latest:
It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/love/adoration, no empathy/sympathy/commiseration, no high-paying career/house/car/money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/magnetism/radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/awakenment/self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Vis.:
And:
* RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to:
I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract):
Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends:
I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. * RESPONDENT: I have serious doubts as to whether Peter, Vineeto and Richard are free from the need for sexual congress. Vineeto claims she is free, Richard too claims the same. RICHARD: May I ask? What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you? RESPONDENT: Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where I said I prefer to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’ it would be most appreciated. RESPONDENT: You did not say this in so many words. RICHARD: I did not say this in any words ... here is the only instance I could find where this has ever appeared:
Put simply: it is your imaginary Richard who claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone ... not me. RESPONDENT: But as you claim it is a privilege, obviously you would prefer it to being alone. RICHARD: If I may point out? The e-mail wherein I wrote that it is both a delight and a privilege to be living with a female companion was posted on Friday 22/10/2004 AEST – whereas your (quoted from above) e-mail was posted on Wednesday 06/10/2004 AEST – which means that it was obvious to you 14 days earlier that Richard prefers to have the company of a woman ‘instead of being alone’. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that what calling it a privilege would imply? RICHARD: Even if it did (which it does not) that would not alter the fact that your ‘you did not say this in so many words’ justification, for claiming that Richard claims that he just prefers to have the company of a woman instead of being alone, is not to be found in my ‘it is both a delight and a privilege [to be living with a female companion]’ words. * RICHARD: It is this simple: there are over 3.0 billion females on this planet ... and one of them wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life. Now, that is something special (it is, so to speak, putting one’s money where one’s mouth is big time) ... hence ‘privilege’. RESPONDENT: Well, such a commitment is not to be sneezed at, but in what way does availability of this commodity (another person’s time for you) make you more delighted than being alone? RICHARD: The delight, to be living with a female companion, does not come from it being a privilege that a fellow human being wants to spend their most irreplaceable commodity (their time) living with me/being with me, twenty four hours a day/seven days a week, for the remainder of their life ... the delight is in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with that person. It does not provide for ‘more’ delight than being alone/living alone – there is just as much delight in the day-to-day enjoyment and appreciation in being alone/living alone – as it is the capacity to both enjoy and appreciate which determines the quality of the delight. * RICHARD: To put it all into perspective: I have nothing to offer in the normal sense – no affection/ love/ adoration, no empathy/ sympathy/ commiseration, no high-paying career/ house/ car/ money in the bank, no children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren (because of an irreversible vasectomy) – nor anything in the abnormal sense (no charisma/ magnetism/ radiant transmission outside of the scriptures, no enlightenment/ awakenment/ self-realisation through an intense master/disciple relationship) ... and nothing to offer in regards a singular dispensation in becoming actually free from the human condition (I cannot set anybody free). RESPONDENT: Of course, but it must be kept in mind that there is something special about you. RICHARD: Indeed ... as far as I have been able to ascertain no other human is being as-they-are and, thus indubitably, being liked solely for being what-they-are (and not for what they can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: You are an uncommon individual. Association with the rare can be quite gratifying in itself, as can be witnessed all over the world where people pine for a mere vision/handshake of a famous actor/leader. RICHARD: My female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am an uncommon individual ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth). * RICHARD: In short: a fellow human being likes me as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am ... and not for what I can give/ do/ provide/ dispense and so forth. And this is truly marvellous. RESPONDENT: Again, it may be gratifying for them to be living with a man who claims to be the first free man on earth. RICHARD: Again, my female companion derives no gratification whatsoever from being with me/living with me because I am the first free man on earth ... any delight she experiences, in this regard, stems from her enjoyment and appreciation of being with/living with me being as-I-am – with no strings attached/no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive – for what-I-am (and not for what I can give/do/provide/dispense and so forth). RESPONDENT: Is that so very unimaginable? RICHARD: If it is an imaginative discussion you are wanting you are at the wrong address. RESPONDENT: But let’s not talk about what gratifies them. RICHARD: Too late ... we already have. RESPONDENT: The question here was why you would want to spend time (during the day or during the night) with them? RICHARD: The reason why I am currently being with/living with a female companion, both day and night, is because it is both a delight and a privilege. RESPONDENT: And you still haven’t answered that. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
I, for one, can see a clear answer to two direct questions (as in ‘what ...? and ‘why ...?’) ... plus an unambiguous comment on an observation and information related to that comment. * RESPONDENT: I mean, can there be an icing on a cake, a cake which is infinitely big? RICHARD: Indeed there can be (and dollops of cream on top of the icing as well) ... bucket-loads of it, in fact. Vis.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self. [Richard]: ‘Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and no ‘self’ gets created. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... I don’t quite agree with the co-respondent that the after-thought creates the self. Maybe ... it needs investigation. But it is craving or need for a certain pleasure which creates suffering, whether or not the ‘self’ enters the picture. RICHARD: As long as there is a craving or need for a certain (hedonic) pleasure then untold bucket-loads of (anhedonic) pleasure will be being kept at bay. * RESPONDENT: My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ... RICHARD: Hmm ... given that you said you would be [quote] ‘very much interested in actualism’ [endquote] if you were to be informed that it was enjoyable, here in this actual world, to kiss a perfumed robot, yet in the very next e-mail stated that you would [quote] ‘find it quite pathological if a person imagined having sex with a dead body/robot’ [endquote], is it any wonder I drew that blatant dichotomy to your attention? RESPONDENT: As I very clearly explained the difference between the two evaluations, i.e. that it is not pathological if a thought-experiment is devised for investigative purposes as opposed to hedonistic/gratification-oriented purposes, I think your re-iteration of the so-called blatant dichotomy does not serve any useful purpose. RICHARD: If you could provide the passage where you ‘very clearly explained’ the difference between the two evaluations it would be most appreciated. * RICHARD: To cavalierly dismiss clarity in communication as being nit-picking is hardly the stuff of an intelligent dialogue. RESPONDENT: I agree. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that, at least, that is clear. * RESPONDENT: ... ( which was a mere part of the discussion but which became the focus of his onslaught). RICHARD: If I may point out? ‘Twas you that devoted an entire e-mail to it – snipping out all else which was being discussed – and not me. RESPONDENT: I repeatedly tried to generalize from the thought experiment so that we could leave it behind (when I mentioned what my real queries were, regarding ego, mutualness etc.) but you again and again turned to the thought experiment which you had claimed you were unable to answer meaningfully. RICHARD: Could it be the reason why I again and again, as you say, turned to it was only because you repeatedly tried to generalise from what I was immediately up-front about, when you first presented it in your third e-mail, as being such an implausible scenario (somewhat akin to licking a dead fish in lieu of cunnilingus) that I could not provide a meaningful reply? As for your ‘real queries’ – and thank you for that acknowledgement – about ego in regards mutuality ... it is this simple: there has, of course, been occasion when I have sensually kissed/had sexual experience with a fellow human being whilst they were sans identity – during a pure consciousness experience (PCE) both ego and being are in abeyance – so there is no necessity to concoct imaginative scenarios ... all you had to was ask. Vis.:
Yet what was your response? None other than this:
Did it never occur to you how come I could say, confidently, that neither person had to be subjectively alive/identity-based (both ego and soul)/be an identity to experience mutuality in sex and sexuality? Vis.:
I do not see how I can be more clear than that. * RESPONDENT: Also, if you look at Vineeto’s post about how Richard met a woman at a Satsang retreat, you will notice that Richard points out that there is a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before. RICHARD: Here is the extract from ‘Richard’s Journal’ you are referring to: (snip quote). I have highlighted the words which you refer to as ‘a certain ‘environment’ in the air, what has happened so many times before’ for reasons which will become clear (below). RESPONDENT: I don’t know how to distinguish this ‘feeling’ from how a normal person feels when he is starting to enter into courtship with a woman. RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following (from the first paragraph in the above extract): (snip quote). Here is the very next section which immediately follows on from where the above extract ends: [Richard]: ‘(...) this ambience is here, this very moment ... there is no denying of this. There is almost a breathless hush. Who will speak it? Who will say it first? Who will be the one to spell it out, to acknowledge the immanence that is the very air between us? [endquote]. I am using the word ‘immanence’ in its ‘(of God) permanently pervading and sustaining the universe’ Oxford Dictionary meaning for the clearly enunciated reason (in the extract) that the woman who was to become my companion was well-informed, from both the night before and the half-hour just gone by, as to just who it was she was sitting there with under the noonday sun on a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: You still have not responded to the criticism of your enlightenment that if you felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love for this woman) then your enlightenment falls short of the standards in this matter. RICHARD: If you would provide the passage where I say I felt romantically inclined (or felt a personal love) for the woman who was to become my companion I may be able to respond constructively to your query. In the meanwhile I will say this: I do not use the word ‘immanence’ lightly ... I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – or, rather, there was only That (Love Agapé and Divine Compassion) – when I first met the woman, who was to become my companion, halfway along a deserted white beach. RESPONDENT: How can you classify your own (past) state as enlightenment when comparing with the highest accomplishments in that field, your (past) reactions are to be found wanting? RICHARD: If I may ask? Just what, and where, are they (which are to be been found wanting in regards the highest/furthest reaches of spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment)? * RICHARD: What is the basis of your ‘serious doubts’ as to whether Richard is free of the instinctual drive to copulate (as in just what is it that I have reported/ described/ explained which would occasion such)? RESPONDENT: Because you are indulging in it ... RICHARD: Where did I say I was indulging in the instinctual drive to copulate? RESPONDENT: ... [Because you are indulging in it] and you consider it a privilege. RICHARD: Where did I say I considered it a privilege to indulge in the instinctual drive to copulate? * RESPONDENT: But why they choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you to ask the obverse question as well (why a person actually free of the human condition would choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: Because he wouldn’t need it ... RICHARD: If by ‘it’ you mean a person actually free of the human condition would not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person not choose such a life? Or, to put that the other way, because a person actually free of the human condition does not ‘need’ a life of heterosexual co-existence then why would such a person choose a solitary life of nonsexual mono-existence? RESPONDENT: [Because he wouldn’t need it], and involving another person (who is most likely not free of the human condition) in one’s life is going to involve conflicts, fights, struggles for space, etc. I mean why would one want to live in a fish market instead of around a peaceful garden? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have lived a life of heterosexual co-existence for many years now and not once have I ever ceased living in the magical fairy-tale-like paradise this actual world is. Here is a clue:
And:
And:
* RESPONDENT: Simply a matter of preference [to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]? RICHARD: Indeed ... any such choice, being a choice sans the instinctual drive to copulate, is a freely-made choice. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t really sound very convincing. RICHARD: What would really sound convincing, then (according to you)? RESPONDENT: That you are living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. RICHARD: I see ... do you want me to prove that a person actually free of the human condition does not need a life of heterosexual co-existence by living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, then? RESPONDENT: Why do you choose to live with a woman, by the way, and not a man? RICHARD: I draw your attention to the following:
Quite simply: my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Presuming you were a heterosexual during your human-condition years, it would be remarkable if now you could be happy living with a man or with a child (without any sex involved, of course) instead of a woman. RICHARD: It is indeed remarkable that I can be happy (and harmless) living with a man or with a child – just as I can be living on my own (as detailed much further above) – because, as the never-beginning/never-ending happiness (and harmlessness) which abounds here in this actual world is unconditional (no conditions at all), it means that any body can. Nobody is standing in anybody’s way except oneself ... your freedom, or lack thereof, is in your hands and your hands alone. RESPONDENT: Is it too much to presume that your choice of your current partner is based upon her gender? RICHARD: Yes – there are too many reasons to spell out here why my freely-made choice was to live with my current companion – however the reason why I am sexually active with her is because of her gender (given that my sexual orientation is heterosexual). Plus if I were to spell-out the reasons I would rather they be on one of those spinning wheels (such as at a fair-ground) so that none are deemed more important than any others simply because of their place on a list. RESPONDENT: What would that imply? RICHARD: Nothing other than that my sexual orientation is heterosexual. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t that imply that the possibility of sex is still important to you? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? I did not become actually free from the human condition just so that I could be single/celibate, be a vegetarian/vegan/fruitarian, live on a mountaintop/in a cave/in a jungle/be itinerant, be loving/compassionate/pacifistic, be transcendent/blissed-out/in a trance and ... and any other criteria you may care to provide from the institutionalised insanity popularly known as spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment which has been the summum bonum of human experience up until now. An actual freedom from the human condition is beyond all that ... this is a new paradigm, as it were, which is being presented. * RESPONDENT: Of course, they don’t need to convince me [that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life]. But ... RICHARD: If I may interject? You could have simply back-spaced out the words ‘doesn’t really sound very convincing’ before clicking ‘send’. RESPONDENT: What I mean is that you guys are free to live your life the way you want to. RICHARD: Aye ... yet because I do just that (make a freely-made choice to live a life of heterosexual co-existence) you say, on the one hand, that what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, whilst on the other hand say that I do not need to convince you that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life, but that if I do claim freedom from the human condition I open myself to scrutiny. Here is my question: how would living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress make me open to your scrutiny? Whilst you are considering that I will draw the following to your attention:
RESPONDENT: But if you claim freedom from the human condition etc., you open yourself to scrutiny. RICHARD: Perhaps you mean something like this:
If so, why would it take me to be living with a person, with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress, for it to sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life? * RESPONDENT: .. .[But] as part of the actualist cavalcade, they certainly are open to scrutiny, especially since they make claims that they are (to varying extents) free from the ‘human condition’. RICHARD: Why would you scrutinise that which you do not need to be convinced about ... is all this but a dilettante’s game to you? RESPONDENT: Of course not. I need to be convinced since you guys are claiming something which I am very interested in. If you were just living your life without claiming anything extraordinary, why on earth would I want to be convinced of anything regarding your life? RICHARD: Here is the situation: we have had more than a few discussions now, you and I, wherein I have made it abundantly clear that where there is no identity whatsoever all conditioning – be it self-inflicted conditioning, familial conditioning, peer-group conditioning, or societal conditioning – has nothing to condition and falls by the wayside (hence choices made are freely made choices) and that here in this actual world (the sensate world) it is impossible to ever be hedonic (aka ‘a pleasure-seeker’) as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain – as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate – is null and void ... which means that, being sans the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence, instead of a solitary life, or not. Yet you say what would sound convincing that it is simply a matter of preference to choose a life of heterosexual co-existence instead of a solitary life would be for me to be living with a person with whom there is no possibility of a sexual congress. Quite frankly ... it just does not make sense. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have had long email conversations with you about lust and sexuality. RICHARD: Aye ... and here is the crux of it:
RESPONDENT: This question [regarding sexual touch] has been brewing in me for the past few weeks: I will put this question in many ways: If a woman caresses you on your forearm, will your penis get erect? RICHARD: As the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain (as in the pleasure/pain principle which spiritualism makes quite an issue out of yet never does eliminate) is null and void all appetitive desires are non-existent. Vis.:
Put specifically: as the affective pleasure/pain centre in the brain is null and void tactile stimulation of a forearm is not tumefacient. RESPONDENT: If you watch a pornographic movie, will your penis get erect? RICHARD: What part of the word ‘no’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Isn’t the penis getting erect a physical manifestation of sexual desire ... RICHARD: What part of the words ‘all appetitive desires are non-existent’ is it that you are having difficulty in comprehending? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: ... and of the readiness and of wanting to penetrate a woman’s vagina? RICHARD: If what you are asking is whether genital tumescence is indicative of both a willingness and the readiness to engage in heterosexual intercourse then ... yes. RESPONDENT: Doesn’t the penis getting erect co-occur with increased blood pressure, increased heart rate and increased vasodilatation? RICHARD: In the sequence asked ... unknown, no, and yes (as I understand it the release of nitric oxide, synthesised from arginine and oxygen by the enzyme nitric oxide synthase, enables erectile tissue to engorge). RESPONDENT: Can you claim that you enjoy a sexual intercourse without your nerves participating in it, (participation in the sense of the nerves getting tense and then relaxing after orgasm)? RICHARD: I do not ever claim anything ... all my reports/ descriptions/ explanations of life here in this actual world are exactly that (reports/ descriptions/ explanations of what actually happens). RESPONDENT: Does your breathing remain calm throughout the sexual act? RICHARD: The rate of respiration, as in any physical activity, is directly proportional to the degree of vigour involved.
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 |
