|
So the obvious question is to be: ‘Does a man of apperception fall under
the yoke of causation or not?’ To be fair on that my guess is ‘Yes’ ... but then again the risk is high.
|
|
|
Could one still effectively engage in the process to eliminate
the ‘self’ and still disagree with certain things Richard says along the way? None other than the phrase ‘the proof is in the pudding’.
|
|
|
I see your point. Your journey to enlightenment required that you
as ‘ego’ disappeared leaving you as ‘Soul’ to live in ultimate bliss for 11 years. I understand that ego is the result of
‘me’ as soul – ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being and that therefore me as ‘ego’ can not exist without ‘me’ as soul.
I was interpreting ‘soul’ with a religious understanding as in a ‘soul’ that leaves the body after
death and moves to some mystical plane were it is reunited with the souls of others who have since passed away. A sort of spirit
that lives within the physical body but that is separate from it. This ‘religious’ connotation of the soul is in my opinion
palpable nonsense. I have no awareness of this ‘soul’ within me.
What I am having difficulty with is forming a distinction between
‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul and indeed whether that distinction is necessary in order to
rid oneself of the basic rudimentary instinctual ‘self’?
|
|
|
Any action may be corrupted by various factors and I wonder if the fault lies in
the ideas one receives or in the doer. Is there a 100% success rate or warranty and no deviation or misinterpreting from
all those who practice actualism? And if there are deviations, where do they lead?
|
|
|
... when I wrote the above questions I was aware of the fact that
you did not write the actualist entry for ‘spiritual.’ I was, and still am interested in your response to the above questions
if you care to reply. OK, I see that you are saying that Peter was using ‘spiritual’
in a different, broader sense of the word than when you were referring to Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. So even though most everyone
on the planet is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of being under the illusion of being an identity – thus metaphysical, not everyone
is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of believing in somebody or something supernatural. Correct?
|
|
|
My observation is that if Richard (who claims to live in Actual
Freedom) and Devika/ Irene (who claimed to have lived in Virtual Freedom) could not really make a go of it, than there are no
observable facts to show that two people of the opposite gender who practice/ live actualism can indeed live in peace, harmony and
equity. You have stated your experience clearly. What I am observing at
(www.actualfreedom.com.au/richard/listafcorrespondence/listafirene.htm) is that Irene/ Devika claims that she was
not happy as evidenced by her comments e.g.
|
|
|
As I understand these things, in the PCE there is the danger of an incipient ‘I’
stepping in and claiming the credit for the experience. ‘I’ want the experience to last, ‘I’ am sad to see it dimmer and fade away, hence,
‘I’ take centre stage and send the experience packing. Then this is the danger of the PCE turning into the Altered State of Consciousness? This
‘aggrandizing the experience’ must be extremely subtle then?
|
|
|
Turning to the PCE, you wrote: ... This seems to contradict what Richard wrote to
me:
|
|
|
Is ego dissolution a necessary precursor to ‘soul death’ or would ego dissolution be an
automatic consequence of dissolving the affective self first? In other words, is ‘spiritual enlightenment’ a necessary
consequence of ego death (sans soul death) or is ‘enlightenment’ simply a risk of same?
|
|
|
In my case, this me, this ‘I’ is very skilful of somehow sneaking in through ‘a back
door’.
|
|
|
Perhaps you should arrange a meeting with a psychiatrist because if your condition is indeed
linked to (Right) Temporal Lobe damage, the + 4 million words on the website might prove to be more harmful than harmless.
|
|
|
Was this not enough? Was it not better to enjoy this life as ‘Alan’, the
personality, than risk all on an unknown future? Am ‘I’ going to continue, in the knowledge that the end result is ‘my’ demise.
Or, am ‘I’ going to give up and settle for ‘second best’. Perhaps this is where ‘pure intent’ comes in. It is not a phrase I have been
entirely comfortable with or, rather, completely understood.
|
|
|
Neither one can see any place to jump into, anyway. We’re getting nowhere first.
You’re going to have to send more information or draw a clearer map to paradise.
|
|
|
Richards says here – ‘who would be doing the eliminating of instinctual passions?’ – Isn’t it
apperceptiveness doing so? The third I? What is the difference between investigating instinctual passions and eliminating them?
What is the difference between 1. de-activating the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activating the
felicitous/ innocuous feelings, 2. eliminating instinctual passion (the action that is impossible and advised to be avoided), and
3. investigating emotions and instinctual passions?
|
|
|
In light of a post today (R: Case <name deleted>) does this method throw up such
risks? And that’s why I asked the query about risks of mental health, just as you have no intention or wish to go enlightened way! I
have no intention or wish to go crazy.
|
