I’m going to sleep on this.
1 Like
From ‘The man from Sydney’s’ report:
I had to ‘die’ so that this body and every other body could live peacefully. I would need to truly die. The enormity of this dawned on me suddenly like it never had before. The enormity of what I had to give up. It took my breath away. Suddenly I felt a twinge of sadness that emerged from me like a thin pungent streak. But it cut-off abruptly as if in mid-air, still-born.
Nothing else happened.
I would indeed gladly die right now, gladly give away all I am, all I ever was, all I’ve done and felt since I was born, for peace-on-earth to be apparent (not even for me but) for everybody.
…
‘I’ was willing to lose everything, but I have lost nothing, only my chains.
This is the ‘I’ you are talking about and not the ‘me’.
Yes, ‘I’ as in soul is really who is in charge, ‘me’ as in ego-identity is just the surface layer put there to control the soul.
1 Like
You have it backwards. The ‘I’ is the ego and the ‘me’ is the soul.
Ok…
The soul is the one who can feel/see: “yes, I will allow self-immolation to occur… it is worth it for all humanity.”
Once enough layers of ego have been stripped away / once enough experience has been generated to clearly demonstrate the facts of the situation.
edit:
and, crucially, once enough near-actual caring has been generated
1 Like
More on near-actual caring from Vineeto:
Peter and I compared notes about our respective processes of becoming free and, making sense about it in hindsight, have determined what makes the process replicable for everyone.
The key component for both of us had been caring, a caring as close to an actual caring as an identity can muster.
To put it in context of my own experiences: Over the years I increasingly allowed myself to dare to care for my fellow human beings, and gave up dissociating, rationalizing and turning away from the plight of humanity, something which I had practiced as a kind of ‘self’-defence during my spiritual years. I instead gave myself permission to become acutely aware of their pain and suffering, which was also ‘my’ pain and suffering. This in turn increased the urgency to do something about the human condition in myself in order to set others free from my suffering and animosity with the added intention that after becoming actually free I would be able to show by example how others who are interested could do it for themselves.
I had also entered a contract with Peter to look at everything that stood in the way of peace and harmony/ intimacy between us. I discovered that I needed to perceive him not as an extension of ‘me’ (as is usual in normal relationships), a projection of ‘my’ needs and preferences but as a fellow human being in his own right – and my caring for him meant whittling away my identity as much as possible in order to give him (and me) the intimacy we both yearned for.
2 Likes
Ok, I think I see what you’re saying although I see it somewhat differently. You seem to be saying that the ‘me’ is in alignment to immolate for the good of humanity.
I am tired now and will call it a night. I may have my own version tomorrow. I think it is the ‘I’ that makes the final decision to immolate.
1 Like
RESPONDENT: Isn’t it the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ investigating itself which brings one to the point of self-immolation and isn’t it the ‘I’/‘me’ that makes the decision to self-immolate?
RICHARD: Yes … only ‘I’ can do it as it is all in ‘my’ hands and nobody else’s hands (nor is it in the hands of any god or goddess either, of course, despite some popular postulations to the contrary).
RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble?
RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race … then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh?
RESPONDENT: By what?
RICHARD: Not ‘by what’ … by ‘who’: by the malicious and sorrowful and antidotally loving and compassionate ‘self’ and/or ‘Self’.
RESPONDENT: The illusion ends.
RICHARD: Yes … totally, completely, absolutely. End, finish, extinction.
It seems to me that when it comes to self-immolation, Richard is bundling the two (ego & soul) together under the umbrella ‘identity/self’ and saying that that is who ‘does it.’
But I am not free, so I’ll have to go find out for myself methinks.
1 Like
RICHARD: First, ‘self’-immolation implies that there is no denial of there being an identity which is capable of ‘self’-sacrifice (as contrasted to ‘self’-surrender) … which honesty ensures the integrity of the ensuing freedom.
Second, the desire for peace on earth to result from ‘self’-immolation is body-motivated (as in for the benefit of this body and that body and every body) and, as altruism is the very antithesis of selfism, it is in no way ‘self’-motivated … what is ‘self’-motivated is the concomitant desire for blessed oblivion (which makes it a win-win situation).
Third, it is choosing to cease being (as in ‘being’ choosing to become extinct) … it is rather a letting-go than a kind of grasping.
Fourth, it is not contradictory to say the rotten core can end by ‘self’-immolating … ‘self’-suicide is not only entirely credible it renders body-suicide obsolete into the bargain.
Fifth, the core is not the doer but the beer and, as such, is being a non-separate experiencing … and not a state of being a separate experiencer at all.
Sixth, it would be less traumatic to cease ‘being’ before ripening … plus, due to an enhanced narcissism, it was more difficult once fallen.
Seventh, it is an unnatural event, not a laissez-faire one.
Eighth, the similitude of various people’s pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) provides reason enough to assume a corresponsive actual freedom.
Lastly, and in summation, ‘self’-immolation means that, not only is there is an identity who has a vital interest in enabling peace on earth (else all the misery and mayhem will go on for ever and a day), it is the very desire to bring about an end to all the aguish and anger which provides the enormous energy necessary to impel the identity into making the supreme ‘self’-sacrifice.Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent.
also: “the identity (being the ‘beer’ as opposed to being the in-control ‘doer’)”
The doer is the ego, the beer is the soul
Yes, I agree with that: The doer is the ego ( ‘I’), the beer is the soul (‘me’). My takeaway is that the final choice (decision) at the moment of immolation is made by the ‘I’ and the ‘me’ goes along. This helps me to see what actually does it at that moment is a decision (choice). This is what I was looking for. I now know exactly what will happen.
1 Like
Questions being answered before I even read them! Ain’t this forum grand? 
@geoffrey Thanks for being there geoffrey. 
At the moment I am ready I make the decision (choice) to immolate. It is altruism that makes me ready. This doesn’t take time. I can decide right now to do it for this body and everybody.