Richard’s Selected Correspondence
RICHARD: I never have private thoughts about these matters discussed here ... I take the pristine perfection of this already always existing peace-on-earth for granted.
RESPONDENT: What do you mean by never having private thoughts?
RICHARD: For large chunks of my daily life there is no thought, thoughts or thinking at all ... thought, thoughts or thinking only happens, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and ceases happening as soon as the sentence is written. What the other person has to say initiates thought, thoughts or thinking about these matters ... it is their interest that occasions these words.
RESPONDENT: Or that you take it for granted?
RESPONDENT No. 45: Many feelings are felt only when the thinker is thinking on it, but when the thinker stops and there’s silence those feelings also stop, seeming that the thinker and the feeler are only the two sides of the same coin. On the other hand, when observing a sunrise and the conscious thinking is stopped a feeling of beauty can also rise in silence, seeming that the thinker and the feeler are different. The feeler seems to be a thinking-dependent process in the first case and independent of conscious thinking in the second.
RICHARD: The ‘thinking-dependent process in the first case’ is all-too-common and leads to the notion that thought creates feelings. They do not ... thought can only trigger off the prior existing feelings.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying here that thought triggers off the prior existing feelings that are being generated by the instinctual passions? In other words the feeling is already there before the thought?
RICHARD: Yes. The second case (the thoughtless ‘feeling of beauty’ described further above) is the demonstration of this being factual (as is the instant instinctive feeling of fear, for another example, in an imminently dangerous situation). It has been exhaustively tested and scientifically (repeatable on demand) demonstrated that feelings come before thought in the perception-reaction process.
And the child, from birth onwards at least, develops an emotional memory of danger and safety in the ‘reptilian brain’, even before thought, thoughts and thinking commences, as an environmentally-learned supplement to the instinctual passions genetically endowed. There is some research indicating that this ‘environmental-learning’ begins in the womb (through the baby’s more positive response to the mother’s voice-tone, after birth, as contrasted a more negative response to a stranger’s voice-tone).
I did not know of any research when I started to actively discover all this 20 or more years ago: I was the biological progenitor of four children and I was able to intimately participate in the child’s world thanks to the deliberate activation of naiveté (despite the recognised risk of becoming a fool, a simpleton). And, as I was a single parent for a number of years, it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the entire affective faculty in fact – was the root cause of all the ills of humankind. One has to actually dare to care, of course, before it is transparently obvious ... which is a very dangerous thing to do
RESPONDENT: You think you have free will?
RESPONDENT: What determines your actions?
RICHARD: The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events.
RESPONDENT: Your thoughts – right?
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... mostly ‘automatic pilot’ operates via habituation. Something new to experience requires thought ... reflecting, comparing, evaluating, considering and then implementing. Altogether a rather delightful episodic event.
RESPONDENT: Do you control your thoughts?
RICHARD: This brain thinks thoughts perfectly without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ in there stuffing things up.
RESPONDENT: Where do they come from?
RICHARD: Are not thoughts neuronal activity betwixt the synapses? An electro-chemical process? As such they come from the calorific energy of foodstuffs plus oxygen from the air breathed.
RESPONDENT: Can you CREATE thoughts?
RICHARD: This brain thinks thoughts all of its own accord ... easily, simply and fluently. It is altogether a marvellous occurrence.
RESPONDENT: If so – HOW do you create them? Spontaneously? Or by choice? If spontaneously, then you are saying they just come – so you are not creating them. If by choice – then that means you must DECIDE to think of a thought. If that is the case, then you must have a thought which says – ‘let me think of ... ‘. This is you deciding to create a thought. But where does THAT thought come from? You need another thought to create that one.. and so on. So you need an INFINITE number of thoughts in order to create ONE thought. This is clearly impossible. That means you cannot think thoughts into existence. So you do not create thoughts – you just appear to because you identify with the thoughts as if you had created them, saying: this is MY thought. So if you are not creating your thoughts – who is?
RESPONDENT: Yes agreed we seem, at least to me to be speaking with different words of the same thing .
RICHARD: Not so ... words like ‘Oneness’, ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’, ‘Openness’ and so on play no place here. Nor what those words ‘point to’, as you are also fond of saying. Here all can be described cleanly and with clarity ... and with no ambiguity whatsoever. Here thought and thinking, knowledge and knowing, seeing and understanding all have their place because the ‘thinker’ has vanished ... not thought. Thus it is entirely possible, throughout the vast majority of one’s time, for there to be no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action and effortlessly does its thing. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur in the brain – other than when necessary – for it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here now. Consequently, one is always blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake and here on this verdant earth now.
RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are not, there is awareness that is a dimension or space not of thought and there are physical bodies. Is that what you mean?
RICHARD: Yes ... only thought does not have to stop for this – initially ‘other’ – dimension (or ‘space’ if you will) to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action. And if one does not become free, as this body in this life-time, one never will because physical death is the end. Finish.
RICHARD: There are three ‘worlds’ altogether ... but only one is actual. The ‘everyday reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Greater Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same kind of people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension. To put it bluntly: ‘you’ who are but an illusion, must die an illusory death commensurate to ‘your’ pernicious existence. The drama must be played out to the end ... there are no short-cuts here. The doorway to an actual freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. Thought does not have to stop for this actual world – which is what this initially ‘other’ dimension is – to be apparent. It is the ‘thinker’ that dies ... and the ‘feeler’ along with its feelings. Then thought – which is necessary to operate and function in this world of people, things and events – can think clearly and cleanly when appropriate ... uncorrupted by feelings. Such thought – apperceptive thought – is always pure ... this is innocence in action.
RESPONDENT: Yes. I would not call it apperceptive thought.
RICHARD: Why not? Thought sans ‘thinker’ is apperceptive thought.
RESPONDENT: There is thought that is brain activity and there is intelligence or pure perception that is not a result of brain activity.
RICHARD: You are confusing the ‘thinker’ with thought itself. Without the ‘thinker’ any brain activity is clear and clean and pure ... which includes thinking.
RESPONDENT: I agree that brain activity free of conditioning is clear. But perception is from silence, whereas thought is from memory.
RICHARD: Yes, perception when the ‘perceiver’ is momentarily silent creates the illusion that the ‘thinker’ is but a product of thought and memory. It is not. ‘I’ am an emotional-mental construct and when the ‘feeler’ and its feelings are not then the ‘thinker’ is not. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul am not then thought can operate from memory to its heart’s content without getting told off by some interfering ‘self’ posing as a bona fide spiritual seeker.
RESPONDENT: That silence is not in or of the body/brain.
RICHARD: Well, Eastern spiritual mysticism does posit this silence that you are talking of as being ‘That’ which is beyond time and space now, does it not? And as they say that when the body physically dies they will cast it of as a suit of old clothes ... so it cannot be ‘in or of the body/brain’ at all. This is why I have been saying to you for months now that you are hooked into Eastern Mysticism ... just like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.
RESPONDENT: It is a different dimension or space entirely.
RICHARD: Yea verily ... it is beyond both time and space. It is prior to the universe ... in fact it creates maintains and destroys time and space. The Indians identify this activity as being done by ‘Brahma’, ‘Vishnu’ and ‘Shiva’ ... and they are aspects of ‘Brahman’. And ‘Brahman’ is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘intelligence’.
RESPONDENT: The two can operate in harmony or in conflict.
RICHARD: No ... the ‘thinker’ can only die. Any ‘harmony’ is but a sleight of hand (or should I say sleight of mind) in order for the cunning identity to stay in existence. After all, it is charged by blind nature to survive.
RESPONDENT: Harmony means that thought operates and yet there is silence. They are in harmony when there is no centring in the self, no thinker.
RICHARD: Aye ... the ‘thinker’ has disappeared into the heart and is busily being as humble as all get-out in the hope that no one will notice that it is still in existence. The ‘feeler’ joins in on this act and both become ‘Pure Being’. They then tell other gullible wannabes that ‘True Love’ is not a feeling ... it is a state of being.
RESPONDENT: If it is biological programming, that implies it arises from unconscious past impressions that have been stored in matter and operate now in a mechanical way.
RICHARD: If I may point out? You are straying from the point? Psychological programming is stored in thoughts’ memory whereas the biological instincts are genetically imprinted as the affective faculty. You are blurring the distinction by using ‘unconscious past impressions’ to refer to both thought’s memory and biological imprinting.
RESPONDENT: The essential point is that insight is not from past impressions.
RICHARD: An insight is a sudden seeing ... a flash of understanding that by-passes the regular process of thinking through an issue by scrolling through thought’s memory; sorting data collected; evaluating the new idea against the known; weighing the pros and cons and so on until arriving at a satisfactory conclusion. As such it can save hours of painstaking review and assessment. Yet without past impressions there could be no insight – an amnesiac has no ability for insight – and even when the insight happens, one then needs must use thought to place it in context in order for it to make sense or be useful. This denial of memory is silly ... and is typical of the mystic’s chicanery.
RESPONDENT: How would what is beyond thought be put under the scrutiny of thought?
RICHARD: But it does not necessarily have to be ‘put under the scrutiny of thought’ does it? Can one not have an insight into it? Can one not realise it in the same way as you advocate ‘realizing the false as the false’? Then, after the insight, after the realisation, can thought not operate so as to contemplate, consider and reflect ... and put it into words so as to communicate with one’s fellow human beings? Speaking personally, I had such an insight, such a realisation, into the nature of both love and Love Agapé in 1987 ... and there was instant action. The following eight months or so were oft-times occupied with contemplating, considering and reflecting upon this very factual ‘seeing’ that precipitated such action.
RESPONDENT: When the false or identification with thought is not, the other is.
RICHARD: This ‘the false or identification with thought’ is otherwise known as the fragmented identity, is it not ... the ‘I’ as ego? Thus when the fragmented identity ceases becoming and is now being (a centreless whole being as in ‘the observer is the observed’) then this holistic identity is.
RESPONDENT: Whether this is so can only be verified in direct experience.
RICHARD: Indeed ... and when I report my verification of ‘what is’, you dismiss my ‘direct experience’ as being invalid (a belief, image, concept and so on) and uphold and endorse your ‘direct experience’ as being valid. Have we arrived at a sort of ’tis/’tisn’t situation here? Is there a way to negotiate our way through this ‘Mexican Stand-off’, as it were?
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.
RESPONDENT: Hello Richard, forgive me if this is known to everyone and an old subject here, but what exactly is thought?
RICHARD: Basically thought is covert symbolic responses to intrinsic (arising from within) or extrinsic (arising from the environment) stimuli. Thought, or thinking, is considered to mediate between inner activity and external stimuli. Depending on the relative intensity of intrinsic and extrinsic influences, thinking can be expressive (imaginative and full of fantasy) or rational (directed and disciplined). Other terms for the two aspects of thinking are, respectively, autistic (subjective, emotional) and realistic (objective, directed). Both types of thinking are involved in ‘normal’ adjustment.
Realistic thought includes convergent thought processes, which require the ability to assemble and organise information and direct it toward a particular goal; judgment, the discrimination between objects, items of information, or concepts; problem solving, a more complex form of realistic thinking; and creative thinking, the search for entirely new solutions to problems.
Autistic thought that is characterised by a high level of intrinsic influence and a low level of extrinsic influence includes free association, the giving of unconstrained verbal response to stimuli, found helpful in bringing repressed or forgotten experiences to consciousness; fantasy, characterised by imagery in which a person loses contact with the environment, and ranging from vague reveries to vivid images; marginal states of consciousness, such as those experienced just before falling asleep or those induced by drugs; dreaming and pathological thinking, which may be the result of antisocial behaviour disorders, neuroses or psychoses. The latter is characterised by major distortions in thinking and the lack of a realistic relation to the external environment.
RESPONDENT: What is the neuro-physiological process supporting awareness in the absence of thought?
RICHARD: There are scientific tests done which measure alpha, beta and theta waves – from memory – which show electrical activity in various stages of thought and no-thought, awake and asleep, aware and unaware. I do not have any material to hand so as to go into any detail, but these matter are now being widely discussed ... there has been a surge in interest in consciousness studies in the last ten to fifteen years. There has been a lot of research done in recent years with the advent of CAT scans NMR scans and PET scans which produce reasonably reliable data. The technology – and knowledge gained – is getting better every year.
You may like to access some of these URL’s if you are at all interested:
RESPONDENT: What is ‘consciousness’ without thought?
RICHARD: Apperception. Which is the mind’s ability to perceive itself. Thus I am the sense organs: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is. ‘I’ am condemned to live everlastingly in the land of sorrow and malice, forever lamenting ‘my’ fate. ‘I’ am eternally separate from the benignity of the actual, where the utter absence of any angst and anger at all is infinitely more rewarding than the deepest, the most profound, beauty there is in the real world.
RESPONDENT: What exactly is ‘self-less’ awareness, which apparently can exist without thought?
RICHARD: A total an utter absence – through extinction – of any ‘I’ or ‘me’ (a psychological or psychic entity) having a parasitical residence within this body results in a self-less awareness. Not ‘I’ being aware ... awareness happening of its own accord.
RESPONDENT: There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at.
RICHARD: Maybe there are simply these different ways of thinking thoughts ... and that is all there is to it. Maybe we need to look at what the factor is that inclines you to assume that there is something more.
RESPONDENT: Yes, that is my question as well.
RICHARD: Good ... so what is the factor that inclines you to assume that there is something more?
RESPONDENT: Let us first differentiate thought from perception and from feeling. There are, however, many mental events that combine these: emotions combine thought and feeling, and may be triggered by perception. There is also some interpenetration of our categories: perception does involve some mental processing, and this too can be called thought, but we will simplify our discussion, by allowing this to fall under the heading of perception.
RICHARD: Can you actually separate the perceptive function and the affective function out from thought just like that? I would say that the entire range of a normal, average person’s thinking could be summed up as being dictated by the relative intensity of intrinsic and extrinsic influences. When intrinsic processes dominate, and are virtually free of environmental concerns, a person thinks expressively: they imagine, fantasise, dream, hallucinate, or have delusions, for example. When one’s thinking is activated by external stimuli, one tends to think rationally: one appraises, conceptualises, ruminates and solves problems in a reasonable, directed and disciplined way.
Generally speaking, this is mostly what people tend to do with their mind.
RESPONDENT: When we look at the varieties of thought we can posit at least six basic forms:
Would you like to add any before we begin our discussion on whether there is a common structure to all?
RICHARD: Is it actually possible to make an exhaustive list of all the varieties of thought? And if it was ... is it going to explicate anything substantive? Can we therefore simplify your list? Because it is the distinction between the expressive and rational functions that is what contrasts primary and secondary process thinking, is it not? One’s impulses and wishes arise from affective sources and determine primary process thinking, while the pursuit of exterior objects and goals determines secondary process thinking (planning, rational control, and continuous organisation). As I understand it, these two aspects of thinking are conventionally called autistic (subjective emotionally-motivated activities) and realistic (objective environmentally-motivated activities). The terms are not mutually exclusive, of course, but rather correspond to relative degrees of the influence of different conditions that enter into thinking.
In a broad sense then, the activity called thinking is adaptive responses to intrinsic and extrinsic stimuli; not only does it express inner impulses but it also serves to generate environmentally effective, goal-seeking behaviour.
But, let us not become bogged down by a scholarly debate. Remember that your original question was: ‘There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at’.
It would seem that the ‘something more’ that you were getting at lies in the autistic field, as extrinsic influences are rather straight-forward and obvious.
RICHARD: The pursuit of exterior objects and goals determines secondary process thinking (planning, rational control, and continuous organisation).
RESPONDENT: Are you saying then that rationality is only an exterior pursuit? What about No. 3, No. 4, No. 5, No. 6?
RICHARD: In a way, yes. To illustrate what I am getting at, I would make the analogy to the man/woman ‘battle of the sexes’. That is, intuitive thought versus logical thought. Neither man nor woman has got it right. Male logic is as useless as female intuition. Loosely speaking, No. 3, No. 4, No. 5 and No. 6 fit more into the category of the third alternative: Reflection. Reflection needs to be neither logical nor intuitive in order to be reflective.
RICHARD: Remember that your original question was: ‘There are many sorts of thinking and they are not the same. But we need also to look at the underlying features that makes them all thought. What are these? Is it just the name that is tying them together or is it something more? It is that something more that I was getting at’. It would seem that the ‘something more’ that you were getting at lies in the autistic field, as extrinsic influences are rather straight-forward and obvious.
RESPONDENT: No. I think we cannot dismiss the extrinsic. The reason that I say this is because the extrinsic seems to be closely tied to what we can call practical thinking or problem solving. And we tend to believe that this sort of thinking is not effected by the same sorts of issues that are inherent in the autistic. In other words, our problems are generated not only inside us, but in our relationship to the world.
RICHARD: Are you suggesting that the ‘something more’ might lie in the external world? Can that not be seen at a glance? Then one puts all that to one side immediately.
RICHARD: Does this clarify the something?
RESPONDENT: Well, we are unfortunately not yet agreeing on what we are going to count as thought for the purpose of our discussion. This sort of pre-discussion discussion, is very helpful. However, it is going to require some more input from both of us to be comfortable with it.
RICHARD: The only time there is perception without thought or feeling is in apperception.
RESPONDENT: We have yet to come to define apperception. It can mean the mind being conscious of its own consciousness. Which can involve thought or feeling. I take it that you want to define apperception for the purpose of our discussion to be perception of consciousness without thought or feeling as a content. Is that correct?
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... it is more that there is no ‘thinker’ or a ‘feeler’ with their feelings. I will explain more later in this post.
RICHARD: The only time there is thought without feeling is when one is without instincts.
RESPONDENT: I do not much like the intuition-intellect-instinct distinctions, but I guess one can say that thought is without feeling when it is without both instinct and intuition. I probably share your doubts that such a thought context is an actual event.
RICHARD: Okay, let us leave that for now and come back to it another day. All I want to do is lay my cards on the table from the beginning. Speaking personally, my thinking is without both instinct and intuition.
(I am hereby declaring my interest so that there is no hidden agenda to this discussion).
RICHARD: By all means let us introduce a third category: Reflection. Which is rational thought and the reflective capacity to look at it and expressive thought and the reflective capacity to look at it. In fact, I consider that this would be the optimum way to approach this whole question: via reflective thought. Otherwise we will get bogged down in the quagmire of the affective versus cognitive debate that has been raging for centuries.
RESPONDENT: Would you not agree that this debate is confused, for the affective and cognitive are two aspects of the same event? That there is no thought without an attitude towards that thought, and no attitude without a thought.
RICHARD: I take it that by ‘attitude’ you are indicating a feeling about that thought (as in ‘that thought feels right’)? Then, conversely, a thought about a feeling (as in ‘that is the appropriate feeling’)? It is a way of thought checking on feeling and feeling checking on thought. A balance of power, as it were, to produce the optimum decision for the desired result. If this is so, then to be able to ‘think about thinking’, we definitely need the third party. To wit: reflection.
RICHARD: Yes, reflection ... after all, that is what we are doing now, thinking about thinking. Which is: we are reflecting upon expressive and rational thought.
RESPONDENT: Yes, we are thinking about thinking, rather than seeing or perceiving thinking .
RICHARD: Ah, yes ... ‘seeing’ . By ‘seeing’ , do we mean as in an insight? Which is an understanding in a flash? Which is to short-cut the thinking process? If so, then, no ... that is not reflection.
RICHARD: If I may point out? That is not ‘listening’ ... that is misunderstanding a very clear exposition by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti on how to listen to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. He explains this many, many times throughout the millions of words. Vis.:
Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RESPONDENT: I will try to keep it simple. Listening, as I understand it to mean is something similar to an intuitive grasping of truth of what is being said. For example, if I hear someone say: ‘ego causes trouble’ and I understand the truth of that statement, I have listened to the person. No Guru or God-man is needed; I can listen to anyone and learn.
RICHARD: Of course you can ‘listen to anyone and learn’ – everyone I meet knows things that I do not know – but that ordinary way of listening to an ordinary person not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is ‘listening’ as described by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in reference to listening to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Vis.:
You have indicated before that you certainly thought that by being in his presence something could happen (as compared with being in anybody else’s presence) thus he certainly set up that expectation for you ... as well as many, many other people. Vis.:
Presumably ‘shaking his hand’ did not do the trick but, then again, he never advocated that method ... he said to ‘listen’ to him.
RESPONDENT: Are the normal cognitive faculties of the brain active in listening? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter either (at least to me). For me listening is synonymous with learning. I really don’t care which faculties of my brain get involved. This is how I learn everything.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also lays special emphasis upon the word ‘learn’ and talks of a ‘learning’ that differs from the normal way of learning (which is the accumulation of knowledge over time) and this ‘learning’ occurs when ‘I’ am not.
RESPONDENT: I see some similarities between what the gestaltists call the ‘aha’ experience and Krishnamurti’s ‘learning’. Somewhere in the learning process there is a click and an ‘aha!’.
RICHARD: The ‘aha! experience’ is when one ‘gets’ something one has not properly understood before ... it is a ‘seeing’ of something important to understanding, somewhat akin to an insight. Once again, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘learning’ is not this ‘gestalt learning’.
RESPONDENT: From my personal experience, this is how learning occurs: 1. Interest in the matter that is being communicated is a pre-requisite; without interest, I doubt if there will be any learning.
RICHARD: There is something much, much more involved than ‘interest in the matter’ ... it is an interest that is of a ‘life or death’ importance, to use that term, as in it is a once-in-a-lifetime type of ‘listening’. When one is ‘listening’ one only ‘listens’ that once ... then it is all over and the ‘learning’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talks of comes into being.
RESPONDENT: 2. The listener has to be active, i.e., the listener must pay attention to what is being said, be attentive to the words, the tones, the nuances, the subtleties in communication.
RICHARD: No ... the ‘listener’ is in a state of suspension, dormancy, latency (otherwise it is not ‘listening’).
RESPONDENT: 3. Listener can possibly not pay attention to what s/he is listening to if her mind is wandering and distracted. Hence a relaxed mental attitude, where one is free from anxieties and pressing immediate matters is necessary.
RICHARD: As every single brain cell – and every single one of the trillions of synapses – are quivering and shivering and shaking themselves loose with the alert vitality of the import of this once-in-a-lifetime ‘listening’ I would be hard-pressed to describe it as ‘a relaxed mental attitude’ .
RESPONDENT: 4. Most importantly, the listener needs to see that s/he is listening to the /other/ and not to his own mentation. For example, while reading your posts, I try to find out what you are saying, and not what I think about what you say. That thinking/judging etc. needs to be suspended, at least for a while.
RICHARD: Ahh ... when it comes to reading what I have to say I advocate making full use of one’s ability for remembrance, appraisal and decision (which is to compare, evaluate and judge) whilst being fully aware of the activity of cognitive dissonance. I do not request a suspension of disbelief ... I encourage anyone to examine the supporting evidence that is presented with the purport so as to determine whether what is being said is substantiated, thus making a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about do the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written because the PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age.
However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an altered state of consciousness (ASC). Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (that which is ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’) otherwise known as an embodiment of the ‘supreme intelligence’ ... and insist that you ‘listen’ to them in a thoughtless state with a total lack of knowledge.
RESPONDENT: 5. Once I have understood what the other person is saying, then I judge it. Now, in true listening, this judging happens at a depth and is mostly autonomous. I don’t have to consciously reject what you are saying, if it is not true, but such rejection happens automatically. Vice-versa, I don’t need to accept the truth of your statements consciously; such acceptance comes from a depth.
RICHARD: Oh dear ... feelings are notoriously unreliable when it comes to establishing the veracity of something. A feeling is not a fact. Feelings have led humankind awry for aeons, without ever being queried as to whether they are the legitimate mechanism for deciding the authenticity of the matter. Feelings are held to be hallowed; they are given a trustworthiness they do not merit and are seen to be the ultimate adjudicator in any disputatious topic.
RESPONDENT: 6. Hence, listening involves processes that are deeper than thinking. There is a silence in which real listening and learning takes place.
RICHARD: Again, a feeling is not a fact. Again, feelings have led humankind astray for millennia, without ever being questioned as to whether they are the correct tools for determining the correctness of a matter. Again, feelings are held to be sacrosanct; they are given a credibility they do not deserve. They are seen to be the final arbiter in a contentious issue: ‘It’s a gut-feeling’, or ‘My intuition is never wrong’, or ‘It feels right’, and so on. Thought, shackled by emotion and/or passion and/or calenture, cannot operate with the clarity it is capable of. At the centre of feelings lies a calentural entity known as the soul (by any name). The soul, which has no substance whatsoever, is revered as being the seat of ‘me’; it is ‘my’ essential ‘being’. The feeling of ‘being’ is the impression of being present; it is the perception of a ‘presence’ that transcends time and space and form as a vast silence ... giving rise to the improper assumption that ‘I am that Silence’ (or ‘There is only That’ if one is really cunning). It must be stressed again that all this is derived from calenture; nothing in this has any facticity. This is because ‘I’ generate unfortunate misinformation on account of ‘being’. ‘I’ may be real ... but ‘I’ am not actual. Any ‘Ultimate Reality’ is never actuality ... everyday reality is a world-view created and sustained by emotive thought born out of the instinctual passions. This affective vision is a blinkered version of what is actual. Time is actual, space is actual, form is actual ... and any personal interpretation of the actual is an emotional transubstantiation of it into an illusion called reality. To then transcend this reality is to take a mystical leap into an other-worldly realm ... a supernatural ‘Ultimate Reality’ where silence speaks louder than words.
RESPONDENT: It seems there are many subtle misconceptions concerning a ‘me’ or the dualism between those that see versus those that don’t that can be exposed and dropped without adding a new sense of ‘me’ or any other image to replace it.
RICHARD: Could you write more on: ‘the dualism between those that see versus those that don’t’? It is a subject that I, for one, would be interested in pursuing.
RESPONDENT: The dualism of those who see versus those who don’t seems to rely on the same discriminating activity of thought as that of the division between ‘me’ and not ‘me’.
RICHARD: Okay, I think I get the picture now. One has, at various moments throughout one’s life, experiences wherein ‘I’ temporarily cease to be. We can call this experience being: not ‘me’. Then the moment is over and one reverts to being ‘me’ again, only now with a memory of being not ‘me’. Thus there is a division (separation?) between ‘me’ (which is how one is now) and not ‘me’ (which is how one was then). Is this correct so far? You then say there is the same division (separation?) between those who see and those who do not see. Then you say that this dualism seems to rely upon the same discriminating activity of thought as operates between ‘me’ and the memory of the experience of not ‘me’. If I have misunderstood you, then what follows is probably not applicable.
Is it actually the discriminating activity of thought that is at fault ... or is it the judgemental and condemning nature of the ‘thinker’, which is ‘me’? I ask this question sincerely, because the activity of thought itself is getting such a bad press. Thought is necessary – one can not operate and function in the world of people, things and events without thinking. And to think is to appraise – which is to discriminate, distinguish and differentiate. This is simply a fact, and anyone who proposes otherwise is believing a myth that has somehow been propagated down through the centuries about enlightened persons.
For sure one can stop thought – through meditation techniques; through profound contemplation; through pondering a koan; through fervent worship of a revered object; through following a thought right through to its end or even, spontaneously, at the viewing of a vista of great beauty. Without thought, one is in a state of wordless wonder ... and there is no discrimination. However, the object of stopping thought is not to produce a permanent thoughtless state of wordless wonder – it is aimed at stopping the ‘thinker’, at dissolving ‘me’. (The logic being: If thought stops then the ‘thinker’ also stops). Any such stoppage of thought is temporary, for thought invariably recommences ... as it must. Thus, when one reverts back to being ‘me’, thought cops the blame for being discriminating. This condemnation is based upon the above misunderstanding.
In a permanent condition of being able to live life without ‘me’, the ‘thinker’, there is no on-going state of wordless wonder (that is but a side-effect of thought stopping). One lives in a condition of perfection and purity wherein thought operates of its own accord ... and without ‘me’ to do the thinking, there is no judgemental condemning. Then, is there a division between the one who sees and the one who does not see? There is not ... there is no dualism and there can never be, for there is no ‘me’ in the one who does see to be dualistic. For sure, there is a division, a dualism, between the one who does not see and the one who does ... but that is the same as the division between ‘me’ and the memory of not ‘me’. In the temporary experience of not ‘me’, there was no dualism, no division, between not ‘me’ and ‘me’ ... for the same reason: ‘me’ did not exist then.
Is it not obvious that it is the ‘thinker’ that is the spanner in the works ... and not thought? Matter-of-fact thought (seeing the obvious) is an essential precursor to being able to be free enough to activate any realisation.
RESPONDENT: We can glimpse or think about how the ‘me’ is but a dualistic notion, but still see a distinction between a ‘me’ that knows this as opposed to a ‘me’ that doesn’t. This is a manifestation of the very misconception that was supposedly realised.
RICHARD: ‘Supposedly’ ? I think not. Let us try this for size: The ‘me’ that knows that ‘me’ is but a dualistic notion (as opposed to a ‘me’ that does not) is still a ‘me’, nevertheless. Maybe a knowledgeable ‘me’ but still a ‘me’. When ‘I’ think about ‘me’ being a dualistic notion, ‘I’ am the ‘me’ that is doing this thinking about ‘me’ being a dualistic notion. It is like trying to imagine not being ... it is impossible. ‘I’ can never know the condition of not ‘me’ ... and ‘I’ am well advised to give up on trying to know it and start living it! One can glimpse it as an actuality in an insight, but to think about it (conceptualise) in a non-conceptualising way is doomed from the start, for the ‘thinker’, the ‘me’, is in there doing the thinking. So, although it is ‘a manifestation of the very misconception that was [deleted] realised’ , it is inevitable. Please, do not give yourself stick for conceptualising the realisation by saying ‘supposedly’ . Such conceptualising is unavoidable, given the nature of ‘me’.
Instead, one can thank the lucky stars for having had a glimpse of (an insight into) the condition of not ‘me’, and get on with the business of unravelling one’s ‘self’ by applying matter-of-fact thought to the challenge of not ‘being’. For one has a definite goal, born out of one’s own experiential seeing of it, to aim for. It is not a theoretical goal; it is not something one has read about in a book; it is not something someone else has told one about. It is the goal of one’s own insight.
The insight is a benefaction.
It seems that you are saying that thought, imputing a ‘me’, creates division, duality. So, what is the nature of this thought? You say it is the discriminating activity of thought, yet to discriminate – which is to appraise, distinguish and differentiate – is to think correctly. How else would one operate and function in the world of people, things and events without discrimination? Therefore, it can not be by discriminating thought that the ‘thinker’ or a ‘me’ is created.
Is it the believing activity of thought that creates the ‘me’? The action of believing is to emotionally imagine something to be real that is not actual. A belief is an emotion-backed thought, which would explain why there is not only a ‘thinker’, but a ‘feeler’ as well, in this ‘me’.
RESPONDENT: If a ‘thinker’ or a ‘me’ is not a product of thought, then what is it?
RICHARD: Is it the believing activity of thought that creates the ‘me’? The action of believing is to emotionally imagine something to be real that is not actual. A belief is an emotion-backed thought, which would explain why there is not only a ‘thinker’, but a ‘feeler’ as well, in this ‘me’.
RESPONDENT: Thought creates the notion of a ‘me’ and a ‘not’ me. A ‘me’, a watcher, a detached something could never see this since it is what thought creates. The existence of a ‘me’ or an idea of some detached position is merely imputed by thought, so it can never see or observe anything. That is the meaning of ‘the observer is the observed’.
RICHARD: Is that, in fact, the meaning of ‘the observer is the observed’ ? This was a very popular topic for many years and became quite a catch phrase during the middle of this century ... and it appears to still carry some weight today. ‘The observer is the observed’ doesn’t actually refer to anything sensible whatsoever, although it is an apparently recondite statement. It can perhaps be taken as a ‘Koan’ to bring one to the limit of dualistic thought, but other than that metaphysical mediation it is of no practical use, as it has no basis in actuality.
It does, however, particularly point to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s propensity for the popular Eastern esoteric delusion that ‘I am everything and everything is Me’ ... no matter how much he endeavoured to distance himself from it. I would assume – and this is merely an opinion for I am privy to only one person’s every private thought – that this was in order to gain credibility as being somewhere betwixt this Eastern esoteric delusion and the accepted Western exoteric illusion that ‘I am a random, chance event in a mindless universe’.
It may seem that thought, creating the notion of a ‘me’ and a ‘not’ me, has divided itself into two parts. The thoughts that are the ‘observer’ or ‘me’ and all the other thoughts which are the ‘observed’ or ‘not me’. This is called being ‘fragmented’ or being ‘divided.
Although it seems that way, thought hasn’t actually divided itself into two parts. The physical body is encumbered with an instinctual entity called ‘I’ which assumes that it is the feeler of feelings and the thinker of thoughts. It is possible to have a ‘pure consciousness experience’ (PCE) in which ‘I’ am not present, temporarily at least. In such an experience it is easily seen that ‘I’ have been standing in the way of a perfect freedom from ‘self’ happening for this bodily organism all along. During the PCE it is a case that thinking happens of its own accord ... and much, much better than when ‘I’ am present. This clear thinking – called apperception – has no problem in discerning the physical distinction between this body and that body or a tree. All the while there is a keen awareness that there is no instinctual ‘I’ as an observer inside the head ... or the heart or anywhere else either inside the body or out of it. This apperceptive awareness happens of itself, effortlessly. Feelings disappear entirely as the absence of the instinctual ‘I’ makes them and their ‘feeler’ redundant. Thus, although there are people, things and events happening, there is no ‘observer’. There is simply an utter freedom to be participating in all that is magically occurring ... and a delightful and sensual participation at that.
So, is there a ‘me’ that thinks or is at the centre of thought, or is there just thought imputing a ‘me’? Is the ‘me’ just an illusion created by the thinking process?
(This is a seminal question and could be at the core of a breakthrough into apperceptive awareness.)
In a normal person in the real world there is indeed a ‘me’ that arrogates the thinking process ... but it arises from the feelings because ‘me’ is, in fact, not an illusion created by the thinking process. It is an illusion created – at root – by the instincts that one is born with. In all sentient beings these instincts have created a sense of ‘self’ and ‘other’. These instincts manifest themselves as emotions, and all the myriad feelings stem from approximately four basic passions, situated in the ‘reptilian brain’, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire.
So, first there are the passionate instincts that ‘blind nature’ endows us with as a start to life ... and a rather clumsy start at that. These express themselves as emotions inside the heart which give rise to the feeling that there is a ‘feeler’ in there. This feeling creates the illusion that there is a ‘thinker’ inside the brain. The ‘thinker’ then attempts the impossible: To eliminate the ‘I’ by stopping thought, permanently. Of course, thinking recommences as it must. When practiced assiduously, and a rare success ensues, the ‘thinker’ disappears from the head. ‘I’ then identify solely as the ‘feeler’ in the heart. The resultant oceanic feeling of ‘Oneness’ and ‘Unity’ gives rise to the misconception that the separate self has been eliminated.
It has not. ‘I’ still survive, self-satisfied. Now that ‘I’ have made a connection with the ‘other’ via love, ‘I’ feel that there is nothing further to be done – yet it is only that the separation has been bridged. Having made a quantum leap from the head to the heart, there is nothing to stop egomania turning into megalomania. The ‘self’ now manifests itself as ‘The Deathless Self’ existing for all ‘Eternity’. ‘I’ am ‘Unborn and Undying’; ‘Spaceless and Timeless’; ‘Never Beginning and Never Ending’ ... and so on.
It is not thought that imputes a thinker.
RESPONDENT: The thinker compensates for the gross limitations in consciousness by revelling in fanciful theories, speculations, judgments, and interpretations of its own parochially conditioned, memory-based images. In doing so, it thinks itself a god of its own relative world.
RICHARD: Equally, the Seer compensates for the subtle limitations in Consciousness by revelling in fanciful visions, phantasms, chimeras and hallucinations of its own divinely conditioned, calenture-based images. In doing so, it feels itself to be a God of its own absolute world.
RESPONDENT: The thinker is a Thought Projection of the dead mechanical instrument of intellect and operates at the vibratory level of duality based in time-bound images. These images are reflections of a timeless, unbounded, unknowable energy quite beyond the ken of the limited thinker.
RICHARD: Then again, the Seer is an Affective Projection of the fervently automated instrument of pathos and operates at the resonating level of Non-Duality based in Time-less images. These images are but the polar opposites of the time-bound, constricted, knowable personality quite within the ken of the unrestricted feeler.
RESPONDENT: The thinker knows only its own dualistic thought and therefore cannot go beyond itself.
RICHARD: But the Seer knows only its own Non-Dualistic passion and therefore cannot go beyond itself, either.
However, it is never to late to wake up from the divine delusion that one has gotten oneself into. It was an understandable attempt to escape from the secular illusion of being but an ego-bound entity by ‘realising’ oneself to be ‘God’ in disguise ... that ‘timeless, unbounded, unknowable energy quite beyond the ken of the limited thinker’. One can effectively ‘go beyond’ non-duality just as one went beyond duality ... but this time vanishing in ‘my’ entirety. Just as the ego can dissolve, so too can the soul disappear (the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame). ‘I’ cease to be, period. Then what I am (what, not ‘who’) is this flesh and blood body as an actuality. No sense of identity, no feeling of being whatsoever ... no psychological or psychic entity anywhere at all within or without the body to wreak its havoc.
RICHARD: A world ‘conceived (by thought)’ can never be actual.
RESPONDENT: Well it (the thought conceived world) is actual in the sense that it is superimposed onto the actual world and thus actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world.
RICHARD: Given that a conceptual world is not the actual world (being a fantasy) to then superimpose a conceptual world onto the actual world cannot be actual in the sense that it ‘actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world’ because the superimposition renders the actual world invisible. Thus you are being divided (conceptually) from a conceptualised actual world and not from the actual world itself. Therefore, it is not actually a separation from the actual world at all but a conception of being actually divided (conceptually) from the conceptually imposed superimposition.
RESPONDENT: Wait, I am not that fast. The conceptual world is divided conceptually from the actual world.
RICHARD: No ... the ‘conceptual world’ is ‘divided conceptually’ from a conceptualised actual world.
RESPONDENT: If one sees only one’s image of the world, that image divides them from the actual world (outside of images).
RICHARD: No ... if one sees ‘only one’s image of the world’ then all one sees is one’s image of a conceptualised world. Therefore, that image divides them from a conceptualised actual world (a conceptualised ‘actual world’ that they fondly imagine as being ‘outside of images’ when it is not).
RESPONDENT: But, the image/conceptual world is a subset of the actual world, as is everything.
RICHARD: What ‘actual world’ are you talking of so knowledgeably here? All you know is a conceptualised actual world and are therefore speculating that your ‘image/conceptual world’ is indeed a ‘subset of the actual world’. It is a conceptualised ‘subset’ of a conceptualised actual world ... the actual world simply does not exist as an actuality. All you know is conceptualising and images.
RESPONDENT: I see false stuff, yes, but a false ‘me’ that is not just made up by thought I do not see.
RICHARD: A false ‘me’ – and a true ‘me’ for that matter – that are not only ‘made up by thought’ can only be seen in a PCE.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps if I look at what is behind the making up of the false thoughts in the first place.
RICHARD: Aye ... ask yourself this question each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive’? This way your looking is an ‘as-it-is-happening’ looking rather than an intellectual analysis during a ‘time-out’ period. Any examination that is not an on-the-job – a hands-on investigation – is academic posturing ... abstract thinking. To spend time ‘doing philosophy’ gets one nowhere.
RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do!
RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is.
RESPONDENT: No truth can be demonstrated you either see it or not, Richard.
RICHARD: Okay ... I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’. What do you see?
RESPONDENT: I ‘see’ that you are thinking your way through and failing!
RICHARD: Okay ... so there are two ‘truths’ (your truth and my truth). Seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection ... which ‘truth’ is correct?
RESPONDENT: Thought cannot find the other side, for all thought is blind/dead, just as you are.
RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I am is ‘blind/dead’ ... is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘truth’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is.
RESPONDENT: Damn I have forgotten my ‘temperedness’. Hum Richard when a person looks, the mind must be free to see!
RICHARD: This mind is free to see; this free-seeing mind is looking; this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’ and this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what I am is not ‘blind/dead’.
RESPONDENT: It is quite obvious that you take great delight in knowledge and your knowledge of words and are quite a showman with the English language.
RICHARD: Yes ... words are vital; knowledge is vital; knowledge of words is vital. As for ‘showman’ ... I freely acknowledge that my writing is flowery – which is a polite way of saying ‘convoluted and over-ornamental’ as an editor once explained to me – but that is an idiosyncrasy which brings me great delight. I make no apologies for an extravagant exuberance with words ... I am conveying the lavish exhilaration of life itself.
RESPONDENT: Are there ever times when there are absolutely no words, no movement of this knowledge inside the flesh and blood body that is you.
RICHARD: Yes, large parts of my daily life are comprised of ‘absolutely no words, no movement of this knowledge’ ... thinking is an episodic event that occurs of its own accord as the situation and circumstances require. All the while however, thought or no thoughts, there is an apperceptive awareness, of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time, which is full, complete and utter ... neither thoughts nor no-thoughts, neither knowledge nor no-knowledge, neither showmanship nor non-showmanship can ever disturb this on-going experiencing of infinitude. Being just here right now is so fulfilling, so utterly satisfying in itself that to be doing something (including thinking) is but a bonus on top of this completeness.
RESPONDENT: In other words, is there a freedom from knowledge that is as much a part of the human condition as the genetic makeup of instinctual passions?
RICHARD: Yes ... most of what I write is a story or a description (an accurate story/description mind you) of why it is the pits to be in the ‘normal-world’ reality (where 6.0 billion people live) and why it sucks to be in the ‘abnormal-world’ Greater Reality (where 0.0000001 of the population live) ... and how one wound up being there in the first place. When there is nobody around none of this happens. And, despite my millions of words, I essentially have only one thing to say. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Does a dog have a ‘who’ it feels it is or does it just feel?
RICHARD: Dogs just feel ... there is some evidence that chimpanzees are ‘self’-conscious (but not monkeys) and, possibly, dolphins.
RESPONDENT: I thought so. So the ability to feel emotion is possible without it morphing into a feeler is that correct?
RICHARD: Animals in general have, just as a human baby has, a feeling of ‘being’ – an intuitive feeling of being an amorphous affective presence/ an inchoate feeler-intuiter – but only humans, probably chimpanzees, and possibly dolphins, are ‘self’-conscious (conscious of being that rudimentary feeling/ intuitive presence).
Basically, when placed in front of a mirror a chimpanzee is soon aware it is looking at itself (whereas for a canary it is always another canary) and acts accordingly.
RESPONDENT: If thought continues to operate even more sensibly without a thinker then why not emotions?
RICHARD: Thought can only operate sensibly without both the thinker (the ego-self) and the feeler (the soul-self/ spirit-self) – as evidenced by the nonsensical thought spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment generates by the bucket-load – and, as ‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’, then the extirpation of the one is, simultaneously, the ending of the other. Incidentally, as all babies are born feeling (but not thinking), the thinker essentially arises out of the feeler (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) and is not just a product of thought.
RESPONDENT: So would a dog have a sense of being that never morphs into a ‘my’ being and rudimentary thoughts that arise from ‘me-less’ feelings but never morph into a ‘my’ thoughts?
RICHARD: A dog would have a feeling of ‘being’ (an amorphous affective presence/ an inchoate feeler-intuiter) which never becomes ‘self’-conscious and intuitive cognitions that arise from unselfconscious feelings but which never become ‘self’-possessive cognitive intuitions (let alone thoughts).
RESPONDENT: I ask because I have an arthritic dog and if he has no ‘poor me’ suffering then unlike a human being it is simply a matter of keeping him pain free with medications right?
RICHARD: Animals in general experience both physical pain and emotional distress – and keeping an animal as pain-free and emotionally-content as possible (watered, fed, sheltered, medicated) is what is known as humane treatment – and although a dog has a range of social feelings (such as, for instance, pining) associated with being a pack animal they never develop into the ‘Alas poor Yorick’ variety.
RESPONDENT: Are there instinctual thoughts just as there are instinctual emotions?
RICHARD: Not per se ... no (an instinctive reflex, such as the startle response, can trigger associated thought on occasion).
RESPONDENT: Very helpful, particularly this: [quote] ‘the thinker essentially arises out of the feeler (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) and is not just a product of thought’ [endquote].
In observing the processes of falling asleep I have discovered that first thinking become progressively more graphic, then the graphics become emotionally charged. When and only when they become emotionally meaningful do they become more vivid and therefore entertaining like a fascinating movie and with this combination of an emotional story loving mind and the body resting on the bed a smooth gear shift of attention takes place and before long one sleeps. Hypnotists most probably use the same diversion tactic, the winding back till images are loaded with feeling.
RICHARD: For what it is worth: that falling asleep state is called the hypnagogic (pre-dormient) state – as contrasted to hypnopompic (post-dormient) state – and Mr. Emanuel Swedenborg, for example, as evidenced in his ‘Journal of Dreams’ (1743-44) was an exemplar of the hypnagogic state.
RESPONDENT: Suffice to say that I am now fully aware that in sleep all images are emotionally conducted, and when they stop being so the brain re-awakens. But because of the prominence of conscious thought in the waking state is combined with bodily sensations, seeing the primary impact of emotions is more difficult. It is still easier to mistake thought and not emotions as the primary mover when awake.
RICHARD: It would appear that your (affective) memory of the ASC is blocking access to (cognitive) memory of a PCE ... experience with other people over the years has shown that ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being – which is ‘being’ itself – has, more often than not, both a vested interest in remembering an ASC and in being amnestic about a PCE.
RESPONDENT: I understand that it is a cognitive memory, but what type of memory is that?
RICHARD: A non-affective memory ... a memory sans feeling-tones.
RESPONDENT: What other memories are stored there?
RICHARD: The following may throw some light on the subject:
RESPONDENT: I can only relate ‘cognitive’ with the ability to know something, does a PCE allows you a different type of knowledge?
RICHARD: No (unless untainted knowledge can be classified as a different type of knowledge).
RESPONDENT: And there is the memory of the ASC, of course ... how could it not be?.... but I cannot detect emotionality when remembering it and it cannot be represented anyhow. Could you represent in your mind a PCE when living an ASC?
RICHARD: Not ‘represent’ ... it can be intellectually remembered (indeed such a memory of the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is what helped me escape from a lifetime of being stuck in the permanent altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment).
RESPONDENT: So one has to be tremendously aware of every movement of thought; to discover for oneself whether there can be complete and total freedom from all selfishness.
RICHARD: Now you come to the nub of the issue (all that you wrote above and before is peripheral): the main thrust of the actualism method, to couch it in your terms, is to be aware of every movement of the affective faculty and thus discover for oneself that, just like Richard reports, it is possible for there to be a complete and total freedom from the human condition (which includes ‘selfishness’ of course).
RESPONDENT: No, I have not experienced this for myself, as you queried. You are the one who experienced the emotionally fabricated nature of your identity that day out in the pasture planting trees.
RICHARD: As nowhere have I ever said that what happened in an abandoned cow-pasture had anything to with a psychic circuit which operates upon a particular frequency it is unreasonable to associate your speculation – let alone your speculative-based hypothesis – with my experience (which is why I have gone into the event in some detail further above).
Just to refresh your memory this it what you wrote:
You see, in this is implied, not only that thoughts/ realisations operate at frequencies, but that the psyche is a (frequency-based) circuit as well ... and, furthermore, that a cognitive frequency (if there be such a thing) can be calibrated to counteract an affective frequency (if there be such a thing).
Perhaps if I were to put it this way: the psychic facility is an epiphenomenon of the affective faculty (at root the instinctual passions) and thoughts/ realisations are what the cognitive faculty does ... and neither the cognitive faculty nor the affective faculty (let alone its epiphenomenal psychic facility) are the means by which actuality becomes apparent. Vis.:
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-. All Rights Reserved.