|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 4
RESPONDENT: I write this mail only to share my thoughts and am not looking for anybody’s answers. Nice sharing thoughts anyway. RICHARD: If I may point out? This is bosh ... a load of sannyas bunkum. This is not sharing ... sharing is interacting with, taking part in, joining in with, engaging in, playing a part in, contributing to, being associated with, being involved in, having a hand in, having something to do with, partaking in and so on and so on. What you present is a one-way monologue ... you say your piece and then stifle any response whatsoever with your last line. Speaking personally, when I write I unreservedly invite response from my fellow human beings. However, I will have a go at doing it your way: I wrote this mail only to share my thoughts and am not looking for your answers because it was nice sharing thoughts anyway. Hmm ... nope ... it does not do anything for me at all ... it is sort of like ... um ... masturbating.
RESPONDENT: When I said ‘(I) am not looking for anybody’s answer’, it doesn’t mean that I am stifling or discouraging anybody to answer. It is just that I would not depend upon anybody else to give answers to my problems. I will try to sort it out myself. However if somebody’s reply to my mail or any writing for that matter, helps me to understand some concept, it is a bonus. RICHARD: Ahh ... good. There are several items in your last post that I wished to respond to. Viz.:
It is this simple: the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’. ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing and which leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Thus ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ , Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this practice ‘Vipassana Meditation’. Consequently, when a person who ‘doesn’t care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ blindly practices ‘Vipassana’ it is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here at this place in space – now at this moment in time – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. They put immense effort into bringing ‘samsara’ (the Hindu and/or Buddhist belief in the endless round of birth and death and rebirth) to an end ... if they liked being here now they would welcome their rebirth and delight in being able to be here now again and again as a human being. They just don’t wanna be here (not only not being here now but never, ever again). Is it not so blatantly obvious that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just did not like being here? Does one wonder why one never saw his anti-life stance before? How on earth can someone who dislikes being here so much ever be interested in bringing about peace-on-earth? In this respect he was just like all the Gurus and God-Men down through the ages ... the whole lot of them were/are anti-life to the core. For example:
It can be seen that he clearly and unambiguously states that he (Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) is ‘the eternally abiding, unchanging, fine and mysterious essential body’ even to the point of repeating it twice (‘the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change’) and (‘the Tathagata eternally abides without any change’) so as to emphasise that ‘someone who is able to know that the Tathagata is eternally abiding without any change ... shall be born into the Heavens above’. And to drive the point home as to just what he means he emphasises that ‘the body that eats is not the essential body’ ... which ‘essential body’ can only be a dissociated state by any description and by any definition. Which all brings me to your next point. Viz.:
If you did ‘care about what is the exact philosophy behind it’ you would find that you do indeed have to believe in ‘Vipassana’ ... but do not take my word for it; instead, shall we see what Mr. Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’s accredited Master) had to say in 1981? Viz.:
This is what Mr. Eric Lerner had to say about Mr. Ba Khin:
Just in case this précis of Mr. Ba Khin’s teaching was too much for you to take in, may I leave you with just one sentence of his (copied from above) to leave you with? Viz.: [Mr. Ba Khin]: ‘On the termination of their lives the perfected saints, i.e., the Buddhas and arahants, pass into parinibbāna, reaching the end of suffering’ [dukkha]. [endquote]. And just in case you miss the point, he is clearly saying that the end of suffering lies in ‘parinirvana’ (an after-death state) and is the sole goal of ‘Vipassana Bhavana’. So, can you now start to ‘differentiate between spiritualism versus actualism’?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I am not replying to your mail separately, because I think
I answered (in a post to Vineeto) RICHARD: I read your post to Vineeto
Would you care to examine this belief? Because, whilst I would concur that there may very well be some accuracy in a statement like ‘all paths lead to the truth’, as actualism is all about facts and actuality (rather than fiction and fantasy) then the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition does not lead ‘to the same goal’ as that espoused by ‘a liberal Hindu culture’ ... it is 180 degrees in the opposite direction. May I suggest, as a starting point of an examination into your deeply held belief, reading again what I
demonstrated (with accredited quotes) in my last post to you? That is: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘freedom’ is only attainable
after physical death? Is this not why there is no peace on earth?
RESPONDENT No. 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT No. 19: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this: ‘Whether this flesh and blood body likes it or not this flesh and blood body is here on this planet anyway; whether this flesh and blood body approves of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether this flesh and blood body accepts it or rejects it this flesh and blood body is going to die one day anyhow’. RESPONDENT: I got a bit confused here. What I understood was that ‘this flesh and blood body’ can never like or dislike or approve or disapprove. It is only ‘I’ the entity which does all these things. But now you say the contrary? Or am I missing something? RICHARD: Possibly ... or it may even be that the whole point of why I wrote what I wrote has been missed: a fact just sits there making likes and dislikes; approvals and disapprovals; acceptances and rejections (or all attributed/ascribed meanings) simply look silly. ‘Tis impossible to argue with a fact.
RESPONDENT No 24: Acceptance and Rejection. They are binaries aren’t they of many things we do. Are they emotionally motivated? RICHARD: Whether I like it or not I am here on this planet anyway; whether I approve of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether I accept it or reject it I am going to die one day anyhow. Do you still have a question? RESPONDENT No. 19: Yes please. Who is that like it or dislike it? Approve or disapprove? And who is it that is here ON this planet anyway ...’? (emphasis added). These question are applicable to the discussion initiated to determine the nature of ‘actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: It is simply a case of using the first person pronoun so as to not always be writing like this: ‘Whether this flesh and blood body likes it or not this flesh and blood body is here on this planet anyway; whether this flesh and blood body approves of it or not this universe is happening in either case; whether this flesh and blood body accepts it or rejects it this flesh and blood body is going to die one day anyhow’. RESPONDENT: I got a bit confused here. What I understood was that ‘this flesh and blood body’ can never like or dislike or approve or disapprove. It is only ‘I’ the entity which does all these things. But now you say the contrary? Or am I missing something? RICHARD: Possibly ... or it may even be that the whole point of why I wrote what I wrote has been missed: a fact just sits there making likes and dislikes; approvals and disapprovals; acceptances and rejections (or all attributed/ascribed meanings) simply look silly. ‘Tis impossible to argue with a fact. RESPONDENT: Okay, I have no arguments with ‘a fact just sits there making likes and dislikes; approvals and disapprovals; acceptances and rejections (or all attributed/ascribed meanings) simply look silly’. But I am still curious to know that when No. 19 asked you ‘Who is that like it or dislike it?’ why did you answer ‘this flesh and blood body’ rather than saying ‘I’ the alien entity. RICHARD: Ahh ... I see that I misunderstood the direction of your query. To explain some of the
nonsense that passes for dialogue on this and other mailing lists
And:
And again:
Or even:
No. 19 is not the only person yet to graduate, of course, there are many who have asked the same-same thing again and again as if it were a deep and penetrating question and/or exposé. For just one example among the many:
But ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RICHARD: One needs to contact, or have a connection with, apperceptive RESPONDENT Richard, I have read this definition of naiveté earlier on AF site, but could never really understand it. You define it as ‘the closest approximation to innocence one can have whilst being a ‘self’’. But what is this ‘innocence’ one can have whilst being a ‘self’. RICHARD: It is the nearest a ‘self’ can have to innocence ... innocence is when the ‘self’ is no longer in existence. RESPONDENT Can you please describe it the way you describe your AF experience. RICHARD: In a nutshell it is where one is walking through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder ... simply marvelling at it all. Naiveté is that intimate aspect of oneself that one usually keeps hidden away for fear of seeming foolish ... it is like being a child again, but with adult sensibilities, which means that one can separate out the distinction between being naïve and being gullible. Some synonyms of naiveté are: guileless, artless, simple, ingenuous, innocuous, unsophisticated, artless, frank, open. What ensues when one walks through the world in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement – simply marvelling at the magnificence that this physical universe actually is – is a blitheness (being carefree, happy, merry, amiable and so on) and a gaiety (jollity, joviality, cheeriness, delight, fun, and so on) as the inevitable result ... cynicism can no longer get a look-in. One can easily enter into the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant and azure earth actually is. RESPONDENT You say that ‘self’ is present in such a state. Does it mean that apperception and ‘self’ can co-exist – for a short time at least? RICHARD: No, not even for a short time. RESPONDENT If yes, does it mean that I can experience apperception while also experiencing (feeling) self at the same moment of time? RICHARD: No, apperception is where the self is not. RESPONDENT How is it different in a peak experience? RICHARD: In a peak experience, of such purity and perfection as a pure consciousness experience (PCE), the self is absent and all is transparently clear of its own accord – such peerless clarity is called an apperceptive awareness – and when one falls back out of such an experience into being a self again one needs to enable a connection to be made with that apperceptive awareness so as not to be alone in the endeavour to end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition. Naiveté is the way of enabling such a connection with the PCE ... the connection I call pure intent.
RESPONDENT No. 49: Mass tells space to curve such that a time dilation results as does a gravitational field. Black holes produce ‘currents’ that change the course of light which of course is proof of the mass properties of what scientists call ‘photons’. If all things are relative including time, then does an instantaneous awareness only sense an instantaneous space and time? RICHARD: As time is not relative – except in the mathematical models theoretical physicists posit (in lieu of direct experience) – your query has no substance in actuality. RESPONDENT No. 49: In other words, would you see space and time as two unrelated characteristics? RICHARD: Time and space (and matter) are seamless. RESPONDENT: May be I am not getting your meaning of ‘seamless’, but to me your answer seems to indicate existence of time in actuality. RICHARD: Aye ... time is actual – as is space and matter (mass/ energy) – and I am using the word in its ‘without a seam or seams’ (Oxford Dictionary) meaning. Put simply: as there cannot be time without space (and matter), and vice versa, they are indeed related (if that is the right word to use to describe that which is inseparable in the first place). RESPONDENT: As I understand the answer to this question (of Respondent No. 49) should be ‘Time doesn’t exist in actuality’. RICHARD: As my answer to ‘this question’ Time is absolute (as is space and matter). RESPONDENT: This (that time doesn’t exist in actuality) occurred to me while reading another mail of yours to Respondent No. 25. RICHARD: What I am saying, in the e-mail you are referring to [Editorial note: time itself, as is readily apparent in the actual world, is the arena (so to speak) in which events occur/in which matter permutates]. I am aware that my words are being hijacked, as it were, by an identity – and thus turned into concepts – forever locked-out of time and accordingly draw a distinction between what the word ‘time’ refers to in the real world (a flow or a movement of the arena, so to speak, in which events occur) and what is actually happening (it is never not this moment) as a prompt for direct experience (there is a vast stillness here). Put succinctly: the moment (this moment) in which event ‘A’ happens is the exact same moment (this moment) in which event ‘B’ happens ... it is only the events which change/ move/ flow and not the moment itself (eternity). Have you never noticed it is never not this moment?
RICHARD: (...) relative time does not exist in actuality. Time is absolute (as is space and matter). RESPONDENT: I need to mull over it. I have difficulty distinguishing between duration and time. I am not able to comprehend the concept of absolute time. RICHARD: Oh? Yet you are able to comprehend the concept of relative time? Put as simply as possible: in physics the term ‘absolute time’ (or ‘the absolute character of time’) is another way of saying ‘universal time’ (or ‘the universality of time’) ... meaning that it is not dependent upon the relative motion of the observer and the observed. Viz.:
I have oft-times said that the relativity theory might be better named the subjectivity theory. * RICHARD: (...) the moment (this moment) in which event ‘A’ happens is the exact same moment (this moment) in which event ‘B’ happens ... it is only the events which change/ move/ flow and not the moment itself (eternity). Have you never noticed it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Yes I have noticed it, but ... RICHARD: If I might suggest (before you go on with your ‘but’)? Should the occasion arise that you were to again notice it then stay with that noticing so as to allow the marvelling, that it is never not this moment, to unfold in all its wonderment. RESPONDENT: ... [but] what I am not able to understand is what you wrote just before it. For me, the moment in which event ‘A’ happens is a different ‘this moment’ than the one in which event ‘B’ happens. RICHARD: Are you so sure, upon reflection, that both the event (event ‘A’) and the moment (this moment) are, in fact, different from both the event (event ‘B’) and the moment (this moment) in which that other event happens ... or is it only the events which are different? In other words what is it about this moment (the moment in which event ‘A’ happens) which makes it indeed different from this moment (the moment in which event ‘B’ happens) if it is not only the event which changes? RESPONDENT: In other words even though it is always ‘this moment’, each ‘this moment’ is different from the other. RICHARD: If, for you, this moment is indeed different from the other – from any other moment – then it is not ‘always’ this moment after all (for you) as what you are saying, in effect, is that it is always this (different) moment ... which is but another way of saying ‘this ever-changing moment’. Yet it is what happens in this moment which is always different (ever-changing) is it not?
RICHARD: (...) relative time does not exist in actuality. Time is absolute (as is space and matter). RESPONDENT: I need to mull over it. I have difficulty distinguishing between duration and time. I am not able to comprehend the concept of absolute time. RICHARD: Oh? Yet you are able to comprehend the concept of relative time? Put as simply as possible: in physics the term ‘absolute time’ (or ‘the absolute character of time’) is another way of saying ‘universal time’ (or ‘the universality of time’) ... meaning that it is not dependent upon the relative motion of the observer and the observed. Viz.: ‘relativity (physics): the dependence of observations on the relative motion of the observer and the observed object; the branch of physics that deals with the description of space and time allowing for this’. (Oxford Dictionary). I have oft-times said that the relativity theory might be better named the subjectivity theory. RESPONDENT: Well, I can understand absolute time as contrasted with relative time as described in physics/ relativity theory. What I am not able to comprehend is durationless time, which is what I thought you referred to as absolute time. RICHARD: I did point out to you, in my initial response, that I was answering a hypothetical question about an instantaneous awareness seeing instantaneous relative time and space as being two unrelated characteristics of a mathematical model – which is what ‘physics/relativity theory’ is – of the universe. Viz.:
* RICHARD: (...) the moment (this moment) in which event ‘A’ happens is the exact same moment (this moment) in which event ‘B’ happens ... it is only the events which change/ move/ flow and not the moment itself (eternity). Have you never noticed it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Yes I have noticed it, but ... RICHARD: If I might suggest (before you go on with your ‘but’)? Should the occasion arise that you were to again notice it then stay with that noticing so as to allow the marvelling, that it is never not this moment, to unfold in all its wonderment. RESPONDENT: Yes, I will try to do it, but I think it is important for me first to understand what is meant by ‘it is never not this moment’, and as you see below, my understanding is quite different than what you mean. RICHARD: Perhaps a simple demonstration will convey what a thousand words may not: presuming that you are seated at a computer screen situated against a wall in a room ... if you were to turn around, stand up, and look at the opposite wall whilst contemplating bodily moving to there and viewing the computer screen from that position such an event (standing with your back to the opposite wall) would be properly called a future event would it not? Now commence moving towards that (opposite) wall: at the first step ask yourself what time and what place it is ... and do so again at each subsequent step. On each occasion it will be seen that you are just here, at this location, right now, at this moment, all the while you are (supposedly) moving into your future (standing with your back to the opposite wall and viewing the computer screen from that position) ... and I have written about this before:
* RESPONDENT: ... [but] what I am not able to understand is what you wrote just before it. For me, the moment in which event ‘A’ happens is a different ‘this moment’ than the one in which event ‘B’ happens. RICHARD: Are you so sure, upon reflection, that both the event (event ‘A’) and the moment (this moment) are, in fact, different from both the event (event ‘B’) and the moment (this moment) in which that other event happens ... or is it only the events which are different? In other words what is it about this moment (the moment in which event ‘A’ happens) which makes it indeed different from this moment (the moment in which event ‘B’ happens) if it is not only the event which changes? RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that it is only the event which changes. But I can’t see the moment separate from the event. RICHARD: As you are, presumably, once again seated at your computer screen – after your brief foray into your future (at the opposite wall) – are you now able to see, experientially, that it is only the events which are different? RESPONDENT: And that is why my original impression of this thread was that the time itself doesn’t exist in actuality. RICHARD: Time itself (as in durationless time/ eternal time/ beginningless and endless time) does indeed exist in actuality: time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/ present/ future) is but a convention. Presumably some pre-historical person/ persons noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and then to water-clocks/ sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/ spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, energy-clocks (aka ‘atomic-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around its radiant star. Put succinctly: it is not time itself (eternity) which moves but objects in (infinite) space. * RESPONDENT: In other words even though it is always ‘this moment’, each ‘this moment’ is different from the other. RICHARD: If, for you, this moment is indeed different from the other – from any other moment – then it is not ‘always’ this moment after all (for you) as what you are saying, in effect, is that it is always this (different) moment ... which is but another way of saying ‘this ever-changing moment’. Yet it is what happens in this moment which is always different (ever-changing) is it not? RESPONDENT: As I have written above, I am not able to see ‘this moment’ separate from the event. For me each moment is different because of the events attached with it. RICHARD: And, as the events are always changing (nothing is ever exactly the same twice), then this moment is (erroneously) taken to be ever-changing right along with them, eh? Is it not cute that what certain peoples have been searching for over millennia – that which is permanent – has been just under their noses, as it were, all along?
RICHARD: Perhaps a simple demonstration will convey what a thousand words may not: presuming that you are seated at a computer screen situated against a wall in a room ... if you were to turn around, stand up, and look at the opposite wall whilst contemplating bodily moving to there, and viewing the computer screen from that position, such an event (standing with your back to the opposite wall) would be properly called a future event would it not? Now commence moving towards that (opposite) wall: at the first step ask yourself what time and what place it is ... and do so again at each subsequent step. On each occasion it will be seen that you are just here, at this location, right now, at this moment, all the while you are (supposedly) moving into your future (standing with your back to the opposite wall and viewing the computer screen from that position) ... RESPONDENT: The experiment you suggested shows that I was always ‘here’ at each ‘this moment’. But still each ‘here’ and each ‘this moment’ was different than the other. RICHARD: What is it about ‘each ‘this moment’’ which makes them indeed different from the other? * RESPONDENT: Yes, I can see that it is only the event which changes. But I can’t see the moment separate from the event. RICHARD: As you are, presumably, once again seated at your computer screen – after your brief foray into your future (at the opposite wall) – are you now able to see, experientially, that it is only the events which are different? RESPONDENT: There is no difference in the quality of the two ‘this’ moments. But they are still different as they are two different points in time. RICHARD: Again, just what is it about the ‘two different points in time’ which makes them indeed different? * RESPONDENT: And that is why my original impression of this thread was that the time itself doesn’t exist in actuality. RICHARD: Time itself (as in durationless time/ eternal time/ beginningless and endless time) does indeed exist in actuality: time as a measure of the sequence of events (as in past/present/future) is but a convention. Presumably some pre-historical person/persons noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and then to water-clocks/sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/electronic-clocks and, currently, energy-clocks (aka ‘atomic-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around its radiant star. Put succinctly: it is not time itself (eternity) which moves but objects in (infinite) space. RESPONDENT: Do you mean the eternal time is the same as this moment? RICHARD: This moment is eternal (it has no beginning, no duration, no ending. RESPONDENT: Or in other words there is only one single moment in the entire eternal time? RICHARD: In other words, this moment is eternity (time without a beginning, a duration, or an ending. * RESPONDENT: I am not able to see ‘this moment’ separate from the event. For me each moment is different because of the events attached with it. RICHARD: And, as the events are always changing (nothing is ever exactly the same twice), then this moment is (erroneously) taken to be ever-changing right along with them, eh? Is it not cute that what certain peoples have been searching for over millennia – that which is permanent – has been just under their noses, as it were, all along? RESPONDENT: I can understand this only if I take the entire eternal time as one single moment! RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try taking this moment as being the arena, as it were, in which the entire sequence of events have happened, are happening, and will happen.
RESPONDENT: The experiment you suggested shows that I was always ‘here’ at each ‘this moment’. But still each ‘here’ and each ‘this moment’ was different than the other. RICHARD: What is it about ‘each ‘this moment’’ which makes them indeed different from the other? RESPONDENT: The events associated with it. However now with my modified understanding (see further below) of this moment being the same as eternal time or eternity, I agree that the moment is the same always by the very definition. RICHARD: Rather than ‘by the very definition’ is it not by the very fact that it is only the events which are different? For example:
And I suggest this as an understanding born out of observation (empiricism) is streets ahead of an understanding based on definitions (rationalism). Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: There is no difference in the quality of the two ‘this’ moments. But they are still different as they are two different points in time. RICHARD: Again, just what is it about the ‘two different points in time’ which makes them indeed different? RESPONDENT: As explained above. The moment can not be a point in time as the time is durationless. So the moment is the same as time and there can’t be two moments. RICHARD: Because you have, twice now, linked both response what I would like to do is to put your (further above) explanation together with your (just above) reasoning:
Not to belabour the point but, rather, to clarify it: as your understanding in No. 2 – ‘the moment can not be a point in time’ – is justified by your ‘because’ statement (as in your ‘as the time is durationless’ phrasing) your ‘therefore’ conclusion in No. 3 (as in your ‘so the moment is the same as time’ phrasing) is primarily based upon the definition in No. 1, is it not, and not born out of the observation that the only thing different about the moment are the events? Otherwise, whence comes the justification (that time is without duration) ... direct experience? And the reason why I am drawing this to your attention is because of what you have to say (at the bottom of this page) about making ‘the time (or this moment) a concept’. * RESPONDENT: Do you mean the eternal time is the same as this moment? RICHARD: This moment is eternal (it has no beginning, no duration, no ending. RESPONDENT: Or in other words there is only one single moment in the entire eternal time? RICHARD: In other words, this moment is eternity (time without a beginning, a duration, or an ending). RESPONDENT: Okay. So I modify my understanding of this moment as the same as the eternal time or the eternity. RICHARD: This is why I have (possibly) belaboured the point further above: in order to comprehend how the physical world actually is it is imperative that such comprehension be born out of observation ... and not be based upon definitions. * RESPONDENT: I am not able to see ‘this moment’ separate from the event. For me each moment is different because of the events attached with it. RICHARD: And, as the events are always changing (nothing is ever exactly the same twice), then this moment is (erroneously) taken to be ever-changing right along with them, eh? Is it not cute that what certain peoples have been searching for over millennia – that which is permanent – has been just under their noses, as it were, all along? RESPONDENT: I can understand this only if I take the entire eternal time as one single moment! RICHARD: If I might suggest? Try taking this moment as being the arena, as it were, in which the entire sequence of events have happened, are happening, and will happen. RESPONDENT: Okay, but ... RICHARD: If I may interject (before you go on with your ‘but ...’)? Did you try taking it that way (rather than taking it the way you proposed)? RESPONDENT: ... [but] doesn’t this make the time (or this moment) a concept rather than an actuality? RICHARD: If you were to look again you will see that I deliberately mimicked your phrasing (as in your ‘if I take’ and my ‘try taking’). RESPONDENT: If there is only one single moment which is durationless, without beginning or an ending, then what is the point in saying that the events happen in an arena called this moment (or time)? RICHARD: If I may point out? I did not say there is only ‘one single moment’ ... that is what you exclaimed. Viz.:
This is what I wrote in my very first response to you in this thread:
Put simply: I use the word ‘arena’ deliberately because it is, typically, a space/place word (and not a time/moment word). RESPONDENT: Can’t we simply say that the events just happen? RICHARD: Hmm ... do objects ‘just exist’ as well, then, and not in (infinite) space?
CO-RESPONDENT: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief? RICHARD: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief. CO-RESPONDENT: What is the fact? RICHARD: What is the belief? CO-RESPONDENT: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’. RICHARD: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no
one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling
(the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that
triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of
being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? RESPONDENT: Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4? RICHARD: So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association). RESPONDENT: Can one not see the silliness of having the feeling immediately after 1? RICHARD: If one can see the silliness of having the feeling, period, then surely one can also see the sensibility of determining cause and effect (and succession) so as to pre-empt an otherwise endless arousal of same (and its succession) through ignorance for the remainder of one’s life? RESPONDENT: Speaking personally I am not able to find the answers to 2, 3 & 4 most of the time, yet I can see the silliness of having the feeling take away my enjoyment. RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you are saying that most of the time, even though you can see the silliness of having the feeling take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive), you are not able to find (a) what it was that triggered off that feeling ... and (b) what that feeling changed into ... and (c) what it was that triggered off that change? ‘Tis no wonder, then, that you report the actualism method not working for you
CO-RESPONDENT: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief? RICHARD: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief. CO-RESPONDENT: What is the fact? RICHARD: What is the belief? CO-RESPONDENT: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’. RICHARD: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no
one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling
(the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that
triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of
being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? RESPONDENT: Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4? RICHARD: So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association). RESPONDENT: Okay, then why is it important to ascertain causation and the succession? RICHARD: Because my co-respondent has a feeling of being collectively disliked/ unlikeable – a
feeling which changes inasmuch something (as yet unspecified) supplants that feeling/ belief – and, reporting that the feeling
and belief does not just disappear, asks for a panacea As there is no such universal cure-all (short of an immediate ‘self’-immolation in toto) then in order to facilitate the prospect of seeing the fact which will set them free, of both the feeling and the something which supplants the feeling/ belief, it is necessary for them to ascertain causality – what it was which triggered off that feeling which changed (such as to bring feeling felicitous/innocuous to an end) – and the mechanics of the successivity which followed (what the feeling changed into and the process whereby that supplantation occurred). As a feeling such as that, involving as it does at least some other human beings, does not usually arise in vacuo then some event (or even a thought about, or a memory of, some event) would have triggered both it and its succession off it behoves them to get off their backside and actually find out, experientially, for themselves just what it was which caused the loss of felicity/innocuity. Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel felicitous/ innocuous is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away their enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – they can be once more feeling felicitous/innocuous ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand – pre-empting an otherwise endless arousal of the feeling (and its succession) through ignorance of what triggers same, each occasion again, for the remainder of their life – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance they can soon get the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: Does it help to see the silliness? RICHARD: What is being pointed out, in the above exchange, is seeing the silliness of having such an event – whatever that event may be – take away one’s enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment one is ever alive) by having such incident as that trigger off the feeling. The name of the game is to habituate an affective imitation of the actual each moment/ each place again – to consistently feel as happy and harmless (free of both malice and sorrow and, thus, their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion) as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – so as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to be apparent sooner rather than later ... therefore whenever/wherever there is the slightest diminution of that felicity/ innocuity it speaks for itself that some event, which has been constantly granted the power such as to customarily render that peace and harmony short-lived, has been permitted, via a lifetime of continuous/routine ignoration, to wreak its havoc once again. RESPONDENT: If yes, then it is not required if one can see the silliness in the first place. Non? RICHARD: There is more to the actualism method than merely seeing the silliness of the feeling as it arises/when it has arisen ... much, much more. * RESPONDENT: Can one not see the silliness of having the feeling immediately after 1? RICHARD: If one can see the silliness of having the feeling, period, then surely one can also see the sensibility of determining cause and effect (and succession) so as to pre-empt an otherwise endless arousal of same (and its succession) through ignorance for the remainder of one’s life? RESPONDENT: Hmm ... in my experience, for the prominent feelings like anger, jealousy, hatred, malice etc, seeing the silliness itself can pre-empt it. RICHARD: Here is what a dictionary has to say about that word:
How can you prevent an occurrence of feelings like anger, jealousy, hatred, malice, etcetera, by anticipatory action when you remain ignorant of the events which trigger their arousal? RESPONDENT: Silliness can be seen just by realizing the fact that it is only in my head. RICHARD: But what occasioned feelings like anger, jealousy, hatred , malice, etcetera, to be in your head in the first place? RESPONDENT: Let me give an example. When anger arises in me and I can see it beginning to arise and see silliness in having it, I can drop it immediately irrespective of what caused it and at what precise point it started. RICHARD: Why wait for anger to arise? Why not become aware of the events which trigger its arousal and thus nip it in the bud by anticipatory action *before* it arises ... by seeing the silliness of having such an event as that – no matter what it is – take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? RESPONDENT: From my previous experience and also by observing others I know that being angry is not good. RICHARD: Can you not see you are better off, though, not to have it arise in the first place? * RESPONDENT: Speaking personally I am not able to find the answers to 2, 3 & 4 most of the time, yet I can see the silliness of having the feeling take away my enjoyment. RICHARD: Just so there is no misunderstanding: you are saying that most of the time, even though you can see the silliness of having the feeling take away your enjoyment and appreciation of being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive), you are not able to find (a) what it was that triggered off that feeling ... and (b) what that feeling changed into ... and (c) what it was that triggered off that change? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is right. Let me clarify though, the ‘most of the time’ part. I can find the answers (if I want to) to 2,3 & 4 above for more prominent feelings like anger, jealousy, malice – but these are rare for me. RICHARD: So what (if they are rare)? Why not have them never happen ever again (by ascertaining causation)? Why settle for less? RESPONDENT: Most of the time, when I am not happy, my feelings are that of boredom, light resentment, hope etc. In case of such feelings, even though I can see the silliness of having them, I can not find what causes them and when do they start. RICHARD: Put simplistically: they start when the happiness (and harmlessness) stops ... and the happiness (and harmlessness) stops because of an event. The moment you become aware of feeling bored (for instance) can you not recall when you last felt happy (and harmless)? What has happened, then, between the last time you felt happy (and harmless) and now? When did you feel happy (and harmless) last? Five minutes ago? Five hours ago? What happened to end that happiness (and harmlessness)? Was it something someone said? Or was it something someone did not do? Or was it something you wanted? Or was it something you did not do? And so on and so forth until the specific moment of ceasing to feel happy (and harmless) is pin-pointed by the event which triggered off that loss of felicity/innocuity. RESPONDENT: They seem to be ever present in the background. RICHARD: This is your only moment of being alive ... are they, or are they not, ever present in the background? RESPONDENT: They just become apparent when I have some time to think about them in my otherwise day-to-day busy life. RICHARD: In which case you cannot say [quote] ‘when I am not happy’ [endquote] ... you are always unhappy (and harmful). * RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder, then, that you report the actualism method not working for you RESPONDENT: Indeed it is no wonder. I make no secret of the fact that I do not understand the method. RICHARD: Nowhere in the exchange that quote came from did you say that the reason why the actualism method does not work for you was because you do not understand it – despite reporting being on this mailing list for around five years – and your co-respondent expressed their appreciation of your support for their beat-up of same by saying they were [quote] ‘grinning from ear to ear’ [endquote]. Viz.:
And that was the end of the matter (unless I have missed some e-mails) ... it was not until five months later that you wrote again (on Wednesday 18/05/2005 5:31 PM AEST) when your co-respondent mentioned your name in regards the actualism method not working for you either (as supporting evidence that it is the method which is at fault and not their misapplication of same) ... and nowhere did you explain then that it was because you did not understand the method (unless I have missed some e-mails). To reduce the actualism method to just seeing the silliness of having the prominent feelings which are rare for you (like anger, jealousy, malice) arise – and to then drop them immediately as they begin to do so irrespective of what caused them and at what precise point they started – is to render it indistinguishable from the socialised/acculturated technique of suppressing feelings as dutifully practised by billions of peoples world wide ... with the same lack of effect in regards bringing about peace and harmony. I cannot put it much more bluntly than that.
CO-RESPONDENT: When a feeling changes within a person, something supplants the feeling/ belief. Feelings and beliefs don’t just disappear. What is the thought, memory, or whatever that is able to permanently eliminate a feeling/belief? RICHARD: Seeing the fact will set you free of the belief. CO-RESPONDENT: What is the fact? RICHARD: What is the belief? CO-RESPONDENT: Let’s use the example ‘No one really likes me’. RICHARD: Okay ... here is the way the actualism method works in practice: 1. Was that – your ‘no
one really likes me’ example – the feeling which changed within you? 2. If so, what was it that triggered off that feeling
(the feeling which changed within you)? 3. What did that feeling which changed within you change into? 4. What was it that
triggered off that change? 5. Was it silly to have both event No. 2 and event No. 4 take away your enjoyment and appreciation of
being alive at this particular moment (the only moment you are ever alive)? RESPONDENT: Why is it important to ask question 2, 3 & 4? RICHARD: So as to ascertain causation – that feeling does not usually arise in vacuo – and the succession (often through nothing other than association). RESPONDENT: Okay, then why is it important to ascertain causation and the succession? RICHARD: Because my co-respondent has a feeling of being collectively disliked/ unlikeable – a feeling which changes inasmuch something (as yet unspecified) supplants that feeling/ belief – and, reporting that the feeling and belief does not just disappear, asks for a panacea. As there is no such universal cure-all (short of an immediate ‘self’-immolation in toto) then in order to facilitate the prospect of seeing the fact which will set them free, of both the feeling and the something which supplants the feeling/ belief, it is necessary for them to ascertain causality – what it was which triggered off that feeling which changed (such as to bring feeling felicitous/innocuous to an end) – and the mechanics of the successivity which followed (what the feeling changed into and the process whereby that supplantation occurred). As a feeling such as that, involving as it does at least some other human beings, does not usually arise in vacuo then some event (or even a thought about, or a memory of, some event) would have triggered both it and its succession off it behoves them to get off their backside and actually find out, experientially, for themselves just what it was which caused the loss of felicity/innocuity. Once the specific moment of ceasing to feel felicitous/innocuous is pin-pointed, and the silliness of having such an incident as that (no matter what it is) take away their enjoyment and appreciation of this only moment of being alive is seen for what it is – usually some habitual reactive response – they can be once more feeling felicitous/innocuous ... but with a pin-pointed cue to watch out for next time so as to not have that trigger off yet another bout of the same-old same-old. This is called nipping it in the bud before it gets out of hand – pre-empting an otherwise endless arousal of the feeling (and its succession) through ignorance of what triggers same, each occasion again, for the remainder of their life – and with application and diligence and patience and perseverance they can soon get the knack of this and more and more time is spent enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand how ascertaining the cause and pinpointing the starting of a feeling can set oneself free from that feeling. However rather than arguing about it, I would try my best to put it into practice and then come back to you. * [Addendum 9 days later]: I could not try this with the feeling of boredom as I have been quite busy and boredom didn’t really hit me. However I have tried this with a feeling of ‘worry’ and here is what I have to report. Yesterday evening I found myself worrying about something (pertaining to work). Here are the questions and answers which I tried as per your suggestion: Q: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? A: Not happy. I am worrying unnecessarily. Q: When did it start? When did I last felt happy? A: A few moments ago. Q: What event started it? A: A thought hit my mind out of nowhere and I started thinking more and more about it. Q: What is it converted into? A: Nothing. It is just plain thinking unnecessarily Q: Do I see the silliness of having this taking away my happiness in this moment? A: Yes, sure. Q: Does it go away by seeing the silliness? A: No. Now can you please tell me where I am I wrong in applying the method? RICHARD: A lack of interest, perchance?
RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand how ascertaining the cause and pinpointing the starting of a feeling can set oneself free from that feeling. However rather than arguing about it, I would try my best to put it into practice and then come back to you. [Addendum 9 days later]: I could not try this with the feeling of boredom as I have been quite busy and boredom didn’t really hit me. However I have tried this with a feeling of ‘worry’ and here is what I have to report. Yesterday evening I found myself worrying about something (pertaining to work). Here are the questions and answers which I tried as per your suggestion: Q: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? A: Not happy. I am worrying unnecessarily. Q: When did it start? When did I last felt happy? A: A few moments ago. Q: What event started it? A: A thought hit my mind out of nowhere and I started thinking more and more about it. Q: What is it converted into? A: Nothing. It is just plain thinking unnecessarily Q: Do I see the silliness of having this taking away my happiness in this moment? A: Yes, sure. Q: Does it go away by seeing the silliness? A: No. Now can you please tell me where I am I wrong in applying the method? RICHARD: A lack of interest, perchance? RESPONDENT: I think it is lack of understanding. RICHARD: Why do you think it is lack of understanding? RESPONDENT: Why do you say ‘lack of interest’? RICHARD: The following speaks for itself:
RESPONDENT: How would a person with more interest would go about the scenario I described? RICHARD: Just for starters ... each moment again (and not just once, eight days after saying they would try their best, and then reporting failure). Continued on Direct Route: No. 29
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S 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-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
