This is a great description on what seems to be going on behind the scenes of interaction with other people. I’ve found that I don’t really care what others think about me until there is some kind of reaction. Either walking by them or being in physical vicinity and I sometimes get an uncomfortable feeling inside of me. Or if someone sends a message about something and I think about how to respond. And depending on how they respond/not respond that will determine how I feel. I quite often see this and think it’s an incredibly dumb thing to do, but still find it difficult to get that feeling to not disturb me.
I enjoyed reading this. Anger accepted by society is not mentally checked as anger by me. Instead most of the time I see it as standing up for what’s right / good etc. But you’re ofc right, that is anger aswell.
I used to have this as a non-stop theme running in the background. Thinking of how people who did “bad” things in the world should somehow be punished and that bad things would happen to them. How do you view action and non action towards creating the world around you into a version of reality that you want it to be. Whether there is want or not behind actual people also take actions that might lead to an outcome that I assume they want to happen or think is a good way for the world to turn out. Trying to write this without putting in feeling being words here, I just need to get more familiar with the vocabulary here.
I’ve been thinking a lot about this recently as well, how being happy and harmless leads us to be nicer people to be around and how most people resent the idea of enjoying life when bad things are happening in the world. It’s strange how we make it so difficult to allow ourselves to actually enjoy being alive.
I’ve noticed that this is more true the more intimate the relationship with the other person is, and or the intimacy of the situation. I usually find that others feeling bad is not a reason to have to feel bad with them since I can feel good on the inside. But I can adjust my way of interacting with them and not show giddiness of joy for being here. I’ve had people react to that in a similar way that you describe. I think most people want to have someone to talk to about their problems and help them feel good. Most of the time they don’t care or at least won’t change their beliefs or choices because of what we say so the best course seems to be to listen while feeling good and just be there for them. Not feeling the need to need to help them for me to feel good. But instead being ok with them not feeling good right now and simply being there as a fellow human being, a friend.
I enjoyed reading your journal and your way of writing helps me see these things in myself. Thank you.
Ah yes I can relate with that. Much of social interaction circles and hinges around the ‘need to belong’ or herd instinct. Generally I find that there is some ‘truth’ to why society operates the way it does. These types of social protocols and niceties have a reason that they exist. They are to control the instinctual passions within. I used to be much more on ‘alert’ during any social situation and find that much of that has now diminished (although still there in some situations). This ‘alertness’ is to make sure that I am not being ‘Bad’ and instead aligned with what is ‘Good’. With a genuine intent to be happy and harmless, you can readily decline to participate (on a psychological and/or psychic level) and just go along with the interaction (while being at ease) without having to participate in that. I’m finding that I just need to bring this genuine intent into every aspect of my life and most issues are resolved easily.
Ha the interesting thing is that throughout history there has never been any utopia in the world. Even while feeling that Righteous indignation, I have this understanding in the background that if whatever “solution” I am envisioning were to be implemented, it would devolve and fall apart like in Lord of the Flies. One thing is very clear, whatever is causing this lack of peace exists in every single person (including me). I find it would be pointless and rather hypocritical to attempt to “solve” these problems if I am harboring the root cause of those problems as well. The key seems to be in seeing that there is no solution that ‘I’ can ever envision. The solution has to be not of ‘me’. Also you’ll get more acquainted with the vocabulary the more you read the website. All the words have a precise meaning to them which makes for easier understanding.
Yes and there seems to be where this ‘put others before oneself’ seems to play out. It is reinforced by each and every person to others. Maybe because everyone has been taught that as a ‘Good’ virtue. But here is where I would be going against the ‘need to belong’. Here is the dare to commit to enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive. It feels like you need to wait for others or the whole world to start enjoying life and being here before you do it yourself, but then you would be waiting forever. The funny thing is, I think if everyone did start taking this matter of enjoying and appreciating by themself into their own hands, then that may generate a different kind of world.
And there is the nub of the issue I’ve come across as well now. Basically, to commit to feeling good come what may forever feels like the ending of relationship itself. The whole of Humanity and social interactions seems to be based upon shared commiseration. Perhaps you can intellectually see that feeling good is the sensible way, but can you emotionally accept it?
Thanks for sharing and I’m glad to hear that it helped you.
I have been coasting along with some occasional pulling back. But I have not fallen back into feeling bad like before at all. I know that I simply have to feel good and that has been an easy thing. Attentiveness is optimally active. Any issue is always solved by returning to feeling good. I find that I am also able to sleep much better consistently and I no longer have any worries around it. This is a huge thing as I had a lot of issues with sleeping with anxiety and fears always getting in the way. This way back to feeling good, I don’t think that I can ever forget it anymore.
These past few weeks though, I have been trying to explore sex and sexual desire. Trying to sort out the two. I’ve been wondering how I can be ‘closer’ during sex and what role does sexual desire play, if any? I find that the energy of this desire overtakes and diverts the experience into a fantasy realm. Peter’s writing was very helpful and this in particular I liked:
I recognised the behaviour and feelings in myself, saw the appalling consequences both to my happiness and that of others … and then they simply disappeared. The complete and total understanding of a belief and its accompanying emotions actually results in their elimination. It took a little time, a lot of diligence, introspection and plain ‘self’-obsession – and the will to keep going, to find out. It was often very fearful and I found myself not only dealing with my fears but also with the fear of all humans now and who ever have been. And then, as though by magic, one day I realised I was no longer driven. It had been a gradual process but it had come to an end – it worked. The sex drive, or instinctual passion, had virtually disappeared from my life.
The feeling gives the impression that I would not be able to have sex at all without it. That I must always fuel it so that it can happen. But is it true? This drive seems like it is lauded in being a ‘man’. Perhaps even central to being a ‘man’. So there’s some vested interest in maintaining it in some way. And what if I wasn’t a ‘man’ (or any such gender identity)? However, I do find over and over that it precludes intimacy. I read how sex is one of the easiest ‘gateway’ into the actual but I find it to be more difficult. Maybe there are some beliefs around it that are hindering the full experience.
On a related note, I was speaking with my partner earlier about something and I started thinking about relating and what it means to be ‘compassionate’ as she talked about some of her worries from her day. I was suddenly struck out of nowhere with a huge immense fear about what I am doing by trying to becoming free. I understood at the core what this end of ‘me’ is. It’s both the end of ‘me’ and ‘her’. The end of all humanity. The end of everything. The fear for a moment almost was going to become panic. I paused and had to backtrack and remember what feeling good is. I’ve been floundering a bit since and now have renewed vigor. It’s time to apply some more sensuosity.
Chrono: I have been coasting along with some occasional pulling back. But I have not fallen back into feeling bad like before at all. I know that I simply have to feel good and that has been an easy thing. Attentiveness is optimally active. Any issue is always solved by returning to feeling good. I find that I am also able to sleep much better consistently and I no longer have any worries around it. This is a huge thing as I had a lot of issues with sleeping with anxiety and fears always getting in the way. This way back to feeling good, I don’t think that I can ever forget it anymore.
Hi Chrono,
With “attentiveness [being] optimally active” you have an excellent basis for your next adventure to unravelling the mysteries of sex, desire and intimacy.
Chrono: These past few weeks though, I have been trying to explore sex and sexual desire. Trying to sort out the two. I’ve been wondering how I can be ‘closer’ during sex and what role does sexual desire play, if any? I find that the energy of this desire overtakes and diverts the experience into a fantasy realm. Peter’s writing was very helpful and this in particular I liked:
Peter: I recognised the behaviour and feelings in myself, saw the appalling consequences both to my happiness and that of others … and then they simply disappeared. The complete and total understanding of a belief and its accompanying emotions actually results in their elimination. It took a little time, a lot of diligence, introspection and plain ‘self’-obsession – and the will to keep going, to find out. It was often very fearful and I found myself not only dealing with my fears but also with the fear of all humans now and who ever have been. And then, as though by magic, one day I realised I was no longer driven. It had been a gradual process but it had come to an end – it worked. The sex drive, or instinctual passion, had virtually disappeared from my life. (Peter, Selected Writings, Sex)
Chrono: The feeling gives the impression that I would not be able to have sex at all without it. That I must always fuel it so that it can happen. But is it true?
This “impression” may be believed to be true but it is not a fact. The many questions Richard answered from his ongoing experience regarding delighting in sexual congress without any libido bear witness to the incredulity of his correspondents that sexual enjoyment required the presence of libido (link). It is my own intimate personal experience as well that libido is not at all required for optimum enjoyment of sexuality – on the contrary it had only been in the way of perfect ongoing intimacy.
Chrono: This drive seems like it is lauded in being a ‘man’. Perhaps even central to being a ‘man’. So there’s some vested interest in maintaining it in some way. And what if I wasn’t a ‘man’ (or any such gender identity)? However, I do find over and over that it precludes intimacy. I read how sex is one of the easiest ‘gateway’ into the actual but I find it to be more difficult. Maybe there are some beliefs around it that are hindering the full experience.
It seems you are ready to deliberate and explore the social conditioning of your gender identity of what you, and society, considers “being a ‘man’”. There are lots of beliefs and unspoken rules and all are unhelpful to both happiness/ harmlessness or delightful harmony and intimacy with a person of the other gender. It’s worth keeping in mind that what you see is a consequence of the tried and failed spiritual legacy of both Western and Eastern religions.
Sexual intimacy is indeed “one of the easiest ‘gateway’ into the actual” but this of course refers to the naïve sensuousness and intimacy in sexual play. For instance –
Richard: As for your query regarding how the intimacy experience (IE) differs from an excellence experience (EE): qualitatively they are much the same, or similar, insofar as with both experiences there is a near-absence of agency – the beer rather than the doer is the operant – whereupon naïveté has come to the fore, such as to effect the marked diminishment of separation, and the main distinction is that the IE is more people-oriented, while the EE tends to be environmental in its scope.
In other words, with an EE the ‘aesthetic experience’ feature, for instance, or its ‘nature experience’ aspect, for example, tends to be more prominent, whilst with an IE the ‘fellowship experience’ characteristic, for instance, or its ‘convivial experience’ quality, for example, comes to the fore. In either type of near-PCE – wherein the experiencing is of ‘my’ life living itself, with a surprising sumptuosity, rather than ‘me’ living ‘my’ life, quite frugally by comparison, and where this moment is living ‘me’ (instead of ‘me’ trying to live ‘in the moment’) – the diminishment of separation is so astonishing as to be as-if incomprehensible/ unbelievable yet it is the imminence of a fellow human’s immanence which, in and of itself, emphases the distinction the most. (Richard, List D, Claudiu4, 28 Jan 2016)
The more you allow yourself to be naïve = guileless, artless, ingenuous, unsophisticated, open, aboveboard, direct, frank, straightforward, child-like, simple, the more you can allow sensuous intimacy without the clutter of the social identity of what a man should be, or a woman should be, for example. The sheer appreciation, amazement, marvel and wonder of the physical closeness experienced in sexual play is astonishing, to say the least.
Chrono: On a related note, I was speaking with my partner earlier about something and I started thinking about relating and what it means to be ‘compassionate’ as she talked about some of her worries from her day. I was suddenly struck out of nowhere with a huge immense fear about what I am doing by trying to becoming free. I understood at the core what this end of ‘me’ is. It’s both the end of ‘me’ and ‘her’. The end of all humanity. The end of everything. The fear for a moment almost was going to become panic. I paused and had to backtrack and remember what feeling good is. I’ve been floundering a bit since and now have renewed vigour. It’s time to apply some more sensuosity. (link)
It’s interesting to note that contemplating “what it means to be ‘compassionate’” has triggered this “huge immense fear about what I am doing by trying to becoming free”. Compassion is one of the stalwarts to keep you trapped within humanity, and contemplating to do without appeared a dangerous and therefore impossible direction to proceed.
Respondent:Is not the sense of being a human being tied up with the belief in permanence, i.e. the belief that ‘I’ am at the root of everything (as a permanent entity)? Richard: As the (sensorial) ‘sense of being a human being’ is tied up with impermanence – as in mortality – you can only be referring to the intuitive ‘sense of being a human being’ (as in immortality) … the affective feeling of being a ‘presence’ inside the body (aka ‘being’ itself), in other words, as a psychological/ psychic entity (a metaphysical identity) rather than the sensitive feeling of being this body as a sensate/ material entity (a physical creature).
Hence spiritualism has it that, whilst the ego-self is impermanent, the soul-self is permanent and that ego-death, while the body is a living body, is essential to reveal who one really is – an immortal spirit-being – whereas actualism has that identity-death in toto (extinction) is essential to make apparent what one actually is (a mortal human being) … and therein lies the rub: as a spirit-being one is so very real, so very, very real at times, one is prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion so that what is actually permanent can become apparent. (Richard, AF List, No. 54, 7 Nov 2003).
And yet you know from your PCE(s) that there is a third alternative to practicing compassion or abandonment. But ultimately it does indeed mean “the end of ‘me’ and ‘her’. The end of all humanity” and this fact takes time to digest and get used to. I’m reminded of Geoffrey’s last line in his recent contribution –
Geoffrey: When one knows what it is one wants, and when one knows what it is one must sacrifice, then only the sensible action remains. (link)
Now with “renewed vigour” (renewed pure intent?) you can see your way forward.
It bodes well for wondrous experiences in “some more sensuosity”.
I find this topic very fascinating, it’s somewhat all back to front for ‘me’… I remember Richard wrote :
‘Being’ is the root-cause of the perceived tragedy of life. Life is seen to be tragic because it has death at the end; if it were not for death, according to the received ‘wisdom’, life would be good. In actuality, the concept of living forever, as a psychic entity, is the original cause of abject sorrow and malice … not extinction.
Me and Sonya have been watching the show Supernatural, it’s about 2 demon hunters essentially . Currently in the show one of the hunters made a deal with the devil, that in order to bring his brother back from the dead he would sell his soul, and that in precisely 1 year he would be sent to hell for eternity.
And actually this makes Richard’s point exactly, death as extinction does not have any of these kinds of problems associated with it. It is only because deep down ‘I’ feel and believe that ‘I’ am eternal that heavens and hells have to be invented to continue on ‘my’ story, for eternity.
But it is exactly that which is what ‘I’ find so terrifying about death, that since ‘I’ am (apparently) immortal then ‘I’ will simply discard this body, but then where do ‘I’ go? Is it into some abyss where ‘I’ will exist alone for eternity? etc. Essentially ‘I’ cannot conceive of not ‘being’ so ‘I’ imagine ‘myself’ ‘being’ even past this body’s physical death, which of course cannot happen.
So this is where the back to front thing comes in… In that accepting mortality would actually be a release for ‘me’, which is not how ‘I’ typically would experience it.
Respondent:Is not the sense of being a human being tied up with the belief in permanence, i.e. the belief that ‘I’ am at the root of everything (as a permanent entity)? Richard: As the (sensorial) ‘sense of being a human being’ is tied up with impermanence – as in mortality – you can only be referring to the intuitive ‘sense of being a human being’ (as in immortality) … the affective feeling of being a ‘presence’ inside the body (aka ‘being’ itself), in other words, as a psychological/ psychic entity (a metaphysical identity) rather than the sensitive feeling of being this body as a sensate/ material entity (a physical creature).
Hence spiritualism has it that, whilst the ego-self is impermanent, the soul-self is permanent and that ego-death, while the body is a living body, is essential to reveal who one really is – an immortal spirit-being – whereas actualism has that identity-death in toto (extinction) is essential to make apparent what one actually is (a mortal human being) … and therein lies the rub: as a spirit-being one is so very real, so very, very real at times, one is prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion so that what is actually permanent can become apparent. (Richard, AF List, No. 54, 7 Nov 2003).
Kuba: I find this topic very fascinating, it’s somewhat all back to front for ‘me’ … I remember Richard wrote:
Richard: ‘Being’ is the root-cause of the perceived tragedy of life. Life is seen to be tragic because it has death at the end; if it were not for death, according to the received ‘wisdom’, life would be good. In actuality, the concept of living forever, as a psychic entity, is the original cause of abject sorrow and malice … not extinction.
Hi Kuba,
I see you returned to the same topic that you started more than a year ago –
Kuba: I guess it is somewhat funny that ‘I’ can feel resentful towards this universe for the fact of mortality, for not ‘getting enough time’ and yet ‘I’ am busy wasting each moment anyways.
Furthermore it is this fact of mortality which makes life precious anyways, so what is it that ‘I’ am asking for? An eternity to suffer?
I find this whole thing quite fascinating, what is kind of hanging in front of me now is – is it that mortality is actually a gift and not a curse? (15 Jul 2024)
And again:
Kuba: And if ‘I’ was to get ‘my’ way and things were of a lasting importance, that is not a good outcome at all, life would be a serious business. And if ‘I’ was to live eternally, what about those other human beings that are yet to be born, they would never get to experience the joy of being alive. How weird that the thing which is felt/ believed to be at core what is ‘wrong’ with the universe – mortality – is what in the grand scheme of things ensures a happiness and harmlessness for all. (1 May 2025)
And yet you still say “it’s somewhat all back to front for ‘me’”, in other words ‘you’ still seem to look for a resolution in the real world, which perhaps is hidden in fantasy and supernatural fiction? Somewhere deep down ‘you’ want to live forever, else why be object to ‘my’ extinction?
Kuba: Me and Sonya have been watching the show Supernatural, it’s about 2 demon hunters essentially. Currently in the show one of the hunters made a deal with the devil, that in order to bring his brother back from the dead he would sell his soul, and that in precisely 1 year he would be sent to hell for eternity.
And actually this makes Richard’s point exactly, death as extinction does not have any of these kinds of problems associated with it. It is only because deep down ‘I’ feel and believe that ‘I’ am eternal that heavens and hells have to be invented to continue on ‘my’ story, for eternity.
But it is exactly that which is what ‘I’ find so terrifying about death, that since ‘I’ am (apparently) immortal then ‘I’ will simply discard this body, but then where do ‘I’ go? Is it into some abyss where ‘I’ will exist alone for eternity? etc. Essentially ‘I’ cannot conceive of not ‘being’ so ‘I’ imagine ‘myself’ ‘being’ even past this body’s physical death, which of course cannot happen.
Here is the reason –
Richard: …because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook … (Richard, AF List, No. 27h, 2 Apr 2004)
Kuba: So this is where the back to front thing comes in… In that accepting mortality would actually be a release for ‘me’, which is not how ‘I’ typically would experience it. (link)
Something far more is needed than “accepting mortality”, accepting that you will physically die one day. What is required is to inquire with utter sincerity into the spiritual dream of being an immortal soul. Upon such utterly genuine inquiry you might come to see, to apperceptively understand, that ‘you’ are standing in the way of perfection and innocence becoming apparent –
Richard: ‘(…) by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am defiled; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am corrupt through and through; by ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am perversity itself. No matter how sincerely and earnestly one tries to purify oneself, one can never succeed completely. The last little bit always eludes perfecting. By ‘my’ very nature ‘I’ am rotten at the innermost core’. (Richard, AF List, No. 7, 22 Aug 1999).
When you let this understanding penetrate the very core of your ‘being’ something amazing starts to happen.
Thank you, you hit the nail on the head here - I never thought to consider that side of it. ‘I’ have been busy looking at mortality as a physical phenomenon, which it probably had some benefits too. But I see your point loud and clear, in that ‘I’ am not physical/material/actual, ‘my’ existence as a ‘being’ is necessarily in some way metaphysical, even when by and large the various religious/spiritual beliefs have been eradicated.
In that sense one is only a genuine atheist upon actual freedom. I will see what I can find here
Kuba: Me and Sonya have been watching the show Supernatural, it’s about 2 demon hunters essentially. Currently in the show one of the hunters made a deal with the devil, that in order to bring his brother back from the dead he would sell his soul, and that in precisely 1 year he would be sent to hell for eternity.
And actually this makes Richard’s point exactly, death as extinction does not have any of these kinds of problems associated with it. It is only because deep down ‘I’ feel and believe that ‘I’ am eternal that heavens and hells have to be invented to continue on ‘my’ story, for eternity.
But it is exactly that which is what ‘I’ find so terrifying about death, that since ‘I’ am (apparently) immortal then ‘I’ will simply discard this body, but then where do ‘I’ go? Is it into some abyss where ‘I’ will exist alone for eternity? etc. Essentially ‘I’ cannot conceive of not ‘being’ so ‘I’ imagine ‘myself’ ‘being’ even past this body’s physical death, which of course cannot happen.
Vineeto: Here is the reason –
Richard: …because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook … (Richard, AF List, No. 27h, 2 Apr 2004)
Kuba: Hi Vineeto,
Thank you, you hit the nail on the head here – I never thought to consider that side of it. ‘I’ have been busy looking at mortality as a physical phenomenon, which it probably had some benefits too. But I see your point loud and clear, in that ‘I’ am not physical/ material/ actual, ‘my’ existence as a ‘being’ is necessarily in some way metaphysical, even when by and large the various religious/ spiritual beliefs have been eradicated.
Here is the quote from Richard more explicitly explained by Peter –
• [Peter]: ‘Spirit is the basis of the word spiritual and yet many spiritual people, when asked, somehow manage to deny that they believe in spirits or that a spirit lives within them that will be going ‘somewhere’ – after physical death.
As you know I was a full on-spiritualist for many years but when I started to disentangle myself from these beliefs I was surprised at the extent and the subtlety of the spiritual beliefs I had taken on in my life. And yet none of these beliefs were apparent to me as being beliefs before I started to investigate them – if that is what you mean by ‘no apparent spiritual beliefs’. (…)
I have already explained that I had no trouble at all associating ‘me’ as a spirit being with my spiritual beliefs – indeed it is because ‘I’ am a spirit being that the imaginary freedom to be had in the imaginary spiritual world was so seductive. (…)
I have already laid my cards on the table as to what I mean by the word spiritual – in short, although I have spent years ridding myself of all of my spiritual beliefs, ‘I’ am still a spirit-being until self-immolation happens’. (Actualism, Peter, AF List, No. 60d, 07.4.2004).
And another – because this topic caused quite an indignant stir on the mailing list at the time –
RICHARD: What Peter realised very early in the piece was that, as long as the flesh and blood body hosted an affective ‘being’, an intuitive ‘presence’ which is the instinctual passions in action, there was no way that anyone – and he means anyone – can actually be non-spiritual … even though they do not believe either in a god or truth (by whatever name) or a post-mortem soul or spirit (by whatever name).
This may be an apt moment to re-post something I wrote early last year:
• [Richard]: ‘… I am yet to meet an atheist who does not ponder, when questioned deeply, whether there may be something substantive post-mortem after all. For example, many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was material and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion … yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next Buddha we have all been waiting for’.
I kid you not …’ [Emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, No. 27e, 24 Jan 2003).
(Richard, AF List, No. 27h, 2 Apr 2004).
Kuba: In that sense one is only a genuine atheist upon actual freedom. I will see what I can find here. (link)
Perhaps some new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth, actual questions regarding your concept/ idea of ‘your’ perception of the universe can reveal some sensible replies –
Is it infinite?
Is it physical?
If so, where in infinite space do the immortal souls reside?
Where does the devil (from your Supernatural fiction movie) physically reside?
Where do the dead reside from where the brother of the protagonist is brought back from the dead?
Where is hell located?
Here is a little story from feeling being ‘Vineeto’ –
‘Vineeto’: Finally one evening, when talking and musing about the universe, I fully comprehended that this physical universe is actually infinite. The universe being without boundaries or an edge means that it is impossible, practically, for God to exist. In order to have created the universe or to be in control of it God would have to exist outside of it – and there is no outside! This insight hit me like a thunderbolt. My fear of God and of his representatives collapsed and lost its very substance by this obvious realisation. In fact, there can be no one outside of this infinite universe who is pulling the strings of punishment and reward, heaven and hell – or, according to Eastern tradition, granting enlightenment or leaving me with the eternal karma of endless lives in misery.
This insight presupposes, of course, that there is no place other than the physical universe, no celestial, mystical realm where gods and ghosts exist. It also implies that there is no life before or after death and that the body simply dies when it dies. I needed quite some courage to face and accept this simple fact – to give up all beliefs in an after-life or a ‘spirit-life’.
But I could easily observe that as soon as I gave up the idea of any imaginary existence other than the tangible, physical universe, everything, which had seemed so complicated and impossible to understand became graspable, evident, obvious and imminently clear.
When the enormous consequence and implication of slipping out of this insidious belief in any God or Higher Being dawned on me, I was at the same time free of anybody’s authority. (Actualism, Vineeto, A Bit of Vineeto).
It might also be informative to click on the small tool-tip on the Actual Freedom Homepage right after the word “Freedom” in the title (link) where those first significant four words – new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth, actual are parsed in detail.
This is so you understand a bit better what ‘imitating the actual’ means in practice and in detail – should you on occasion not be able to recall the flavour and atmosphere of your PCE – so that you are able to nip in the bud, or sensibly investigate, any seductive fantasy, imagination, fiction, wishful thinking, intuition or any other interfering feeling regarding the job ‘you’ set out to do.
The following quote is for a chuckle and a helpful reminder –
Respondent:Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! Richard: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ … or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? Respondent:LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? Richard: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does … else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? (Richard, List B, No. 12h, 5 Dec 2000).
By the way, the Selected Correspondence on Spiritual(2) has quite a few enlightening interactions.
So I have been looking at this the past few days and it seems to me that there are no spiritual beliefs or fantasies masquerading as the truth.
All that I am able to locate is that very “intuitive ‘presence’ which is the instinctual passions in action”, the impression of being present and existing over time as an ‘entity’.
I have had this phrase on my mind alot though - ‘my’ immortal soul… Because if ‘I’ did not somehow experience ‘myself’ to be immortal then why not allow ‘my’ extinction right now?
Running those questions which you suggested :
Perhaps some new, non-spiritual, down-to-earth, actual questions regarding your concept/ idea of ‘your’ perception of the universe can reveal some sensible replies –
Is it infinite?
Is it physical?
If so, where in infinite space do the immortal souls reside?
Where does the devil (from your Supernatural fiction movie) physically reside?
Where do the dead reside from where the brother of the protagonist is brought back from the dead?
Where is hell located?
All that comes up is that there is not even space for ‘my’ soul, that ‘my’ ‘being’ can only have an illusory/delusory existence.
Is it that because ‘I’ feel/believe ‘myself’ to be genuine that ‘I’ remain? That weight of ‘being’ it requires belief in order to sustain it. The ‘drama’ requires a ‘believer’, in fact they are one and the same thing.
This is all I can find here.
Just to add to the above, it is that impression of being present and existing over time as an ‘entity’ which is the source of ‘my’ belief in immortality. Belief doesn’t seem quite right here as ‘I’ don’t actually believe that ‘I’ will persist after this body dies, it’s more like a fundamental impression.
Aaand to add some more , I remember when I first read Richard’s writings years ago I thought “why on earth would ‘he’ have given up immortality for actual freedom”, immortality seemed precious. Whereas now this is the other way around, in that ‘I’ am happily searching for a way to become extinct, ‘my’ immortality has been exposed for what it is - suffering, and it is the possibility of ‘my’ extinction which is now precious.
I can readily see that it gets in the way of intimacy, but I have been contemplating how can this powerful drive be utilized. It’s been difficult to contemplate outside of the opposites in regards sexual desire. Initially there’s even a small sense of shame in wanting to completely indulge in it. I found your post with Richard’s expanded description of the way towards sexual congress happening of its own accord very illuminating. Part of me is actually in disbelief that sex can even be that good haha. What stood out to me the most though and perhaps may serve as a line of demarcation in my approach was this:
Now, the way to have intimacy unfold, in all its luscious wonder, is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible.
In other words one is always aware, with that second-level awareness, all the while primary consciousness is sexually engrossed, just how precious this opportunity is as – out of all 3.0 billion women/ out of all 3.0 billion men (dependent upon gender) – this fellow human being has chosen you, and only you, to be so intimately entwined with. In short: having sex/ being intimate with her/ with him (dependent upon gender) is very special – so special as to be precious – and this very preciosity readily enables giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress.
All this while the hands, fingers, lips, tongue and eyes can roam all about with much delicious kissing, nibbling, nuzzling, fondling, smelling, listening, tasting, touching, looking and all the rest which such a physical embrace, such physical proximity so exquisitely provides for; the neck below the ear-lobe, for instance, is an especial delight and to eventually indulge in never-ending open-mouthed kissing – at the heights of sexual arousal – is to be breathing each other’s breath in a most personal way of gradually depriving the brain of oxygen as to even further increase both arousal and intimate contact (togetherness, closeness, sweetness, richness, actuality).
It sounds weird to say, but it’s this appreciation of my partner in this way that I find to be a new direction. And he also uses the word ‘preciosity’, which exact word has come to my mind when I’ve experienced the sweetness of this moment before. The same preciosity that I want to experience again. Sexual desire on its own has a disregard about it that may be the reason why it needs to be kept in check. I’ll try all of this next time and see! I might need to work on my ability to ‘hover indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm’ . I’m wondering if that ability would also be of any use even if one was by oneself .
I am still reading over much of the correspondence so I will reflect on it as I finish.
Yes there was in the deepest part of the fear a complete and almost unbearable loneliness. Compassion perhaps keeps me connected to others and provides as an antidote for it in some way as well. Not that any of that will stop me haha. As you said, there may need to be a digestion period.
It’s very funny that this topic of everyone basically being spiritual should come up. Just a few days ago I was talking with my partner after viewing an incredible image of distant galaxies about how spirituality had infiltrated science (or always had?). The reason of course being the inherent bias in ‘being’ itself. The universe itself is being viewed self-centrically.
I would also add that the delusion of immortality itself is due to the dominant aspect of ‘being’ as selfism. That is, to survive at all costs. This is what ‘being’ has been charged with by Blind Nature. The once in a lifetime decision to begin the process to undo ‘me’ is altruism. Richard was only able to get out of the delusion of immortality due to having the ‘magic elixir’ by the bucket load (pure intent) and furthering that process by allowing it to take ‘him’ to ‘his’ destiny. I assume this informed him of the deception happening as well. So ‘being’ is beyond merely a passing belief (you can’t think your way out of it). It’s a complete arrogating and possession of this flesh and blood body. So the question is, are you experiencing this pure intent? What’s in the way of a complete allowing of it? To let it live your life. If not why not?
Wow thank you, you have described this so well - It is pure intent which informs ‘me’ that ‘I’ am not merely doing this for ‘myself’. Without pure intent ‘I’ can only chase ‘my’ own tail.
“What is in the way of a complete allowing of it” - this is a good question, and there is something there. When ‘I’ consider that ‘I’ could disappear so that there is only the pure intent left, there is something in ‘me’ that is opposed.
It’s weird it’s like ‘I’ don’t want to lay down ‘my’ weapons - that’s the best way I can describe the objection.
Actually to link in with the discussion on sex, it is as you wrote that “sexual desire on it’s own has a disregard about it that may be the reason why it needs to be kept in check”. Indeed those things which are ‘mine’ have like an ‘edge’ to them, in that they can never match the actual innocence of pure intent.
And it is that ‘I’ wish to retain ‘my’ edge for some reason, which in other words is that ‘I’ wish to continue to be able to ‘bite’.
This is rather ironic considering that ‘I’ stated ‘my’ deepest desire is to be innocence personified.
Kuba; Hi Vineeto,
So I have been looking at this the past few days and it seems to me that there are no spiritual beliefs or fantasies masquerading as the truth.
All that I am able to locate is that very “intuitive ‘presence’ which is the instinctual passions in action”, the impression of being present and existing over time as an ‘entity’.
I have had this phrase on my mind a lot though – ‘my’ immortal soul… Because if ‘I’ did not somehow experience ‘myself’ to be immortal then why not allow ‘my’ extinction right now?
Running those questions which you suggested : (snipped)
Kuba: All that comes up is that there is not even space for ‘my’ soul, that ‘my’ ‘being’ can only have an illusory/ delusory existence.
Is it that because ‘I’ feel/believe ‘myself’ to be genuine that ‘I’ remain? That weight of ‘being’ it requires belief in order to sustain it. The ‘drama’ requires a ‘believer’, in fact they are one and the same thing.
This is all I can find here.
Hi Kuba,
Thank you for informative reply.
It appears that despite your fascinated contemplation your thinking and probing remained in the confines (the paradigm) of ‘me’ – how far ‘I’ can go in ‘my’ most sincere exploration. You could indeed say that ‘being’ and the ‘drama’ requiring a ‘believer’ are one and the same.
This might give you a clue why –
RICHARD: I have generally found that, when the direct experience (actual intimacy) of being here now (pure consciousness experiencing) diminishes and one reverts to normal, the immediacy of being this flesh and blood body only in infinite space and eternal time as the universe’s experience of itself, vanishes completely … and one (strangely) starts to settle for second-best. Why? Alan:Good question. You are correct in saying that ‘it’ vanishes completely. The only reason can be that ‘I’ resume the controls. At this moment I have only a recollection of what a PCE is. ‘I’ do not believe that it actually exists – because ‘I’ cannot experience it. So for ‘me’ it is not ‘second best’ – it is the best there is. Richard: Yes, a virtual freedom is not to be sneezed at … the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom is a win/ win situation. Just like the spiritual path there is a glittering prize at the end … yet here the similarity ends. With actualism one gains measurably along the way … if actual freedom remains ever-elusive one winds up way ahead of normal human expectations. Alan:Just yesterday, I had the thought ‘Why do you want any more?’ – I no longer experience anger, frustration, jealousy or any of the other ‘bad’ emotions (and not many of the ‘good’ ones either). Richard: If one were to proceed no further, one would have already achieved what a ‘normal’ person deems improbable. It cannot be stressed too much how highly desirable virtual freedom is. Any society based on pure intent, with its citizens living in virtual freedom, would be so superior to the current communities, that are based upon morality and control, that a virtual peace on earth would be most likely to be the over-all state of affairs. Although actual sagacity lies only in the ultimate condition, the wide and wondrous wisdom is sufficient to ensure that the optimum relative peace and prosperity prevails … because virtual freedom, borne upon pure intent, does away with the need for control.
One is, in effect, free enough to live life in an abundantly successful way. Alan:Was this not enough? Was it not better to enjoy this life as ‘Alan’, the personality, than risk all on an unknown future? Richard: I can recall the ‘Richard’ that was considering this very question … yet ‘he’ just knew that ‘he’ would not be able to look in the mirror of a morning if ‘he’ did not proceed. Is it an admixture of pride and dignity, perhaps? (Richard, AF List, Alan-a, 16 Sep 1999)
You can read more of this excerpt if you want to discover what comes next.
Kuba: Just to add to the above, it is that impression of being present and existing over time as an ‘entity’ which is the source of ‘my’ belief in immortality. Belief doesn’t seem quite right here as ‘I’ don’t actually believe that ‘I’ will persist after this body dies, it’s more like a fundamental impression.
There is of course another approach. So far you have been contemplating from the perspective of ‘me’ and concluded that “there is not even space for ‘my’ soul, that ‘my’ ‘being’ can only have an illusory/ delusory existence”.
Now combine sensible reason and naiveté with commonsense about what is actual and be fascinatingly curious about the nature of actual time.
Respondent:What is time? Richard: Time cannot be described in isolation as time and space and form are seamless in that they do not and cannot operate as separate or disparate units. Time and space and form are material inasmuch that they are actually existing and form can be material in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). Therefore time can be portrayed as the measure of the movement of form in space and the periodicity of its rearrangement; space is an arena in which form can exist, move and rearrange itself endlessly; form is matter (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) occupying space (which is infinite) and taking time (which is eternal) to reconfigure itself (which is perpetual). The properties of eternal time and infinite space designate a vast and utter stillness and the properties of perpetual form designate liveliness; a scintillating, sparkling vitality. In a word: infinitude. When one directly ascertains (apperceptive awareness) the properties of infinitude (infinite and eternal and perpetual) the qualities of the property of infinitude become apparent (infinitude has no opposite): pristine and consummate and impeccable.
These non-dual qualities are the source of the values of infinitude (benevolent and benign and blithe). (Richard, List B, No. 33c, 5 July 2000)
Richard: Have you never noticed that it is never not this moment? Respondent:Okay, I notice that … and it’s fascinating. Richard: If I might suggest (before you go on with your ‘but’ immediately below)? Stay with that fascination and allow the marvelling, that it is never not this moment, to unfold in all its wonderment. Respondent:But I’m wondering whether time can be experienced in a different manner by different people/ animals. Bats, for example, see an action much slower then humans do. Also, in different emotional states time flows differently for me: when I’m annoyed waiting for someone time flows slower, when I’m excited/ happy time goes faster then normal. Richard: Time itself – this eternal moment – does not flow (move) … there is a vast stillness here in this actual world. Respondent:We can talk about altered states of time then. What/ who creates these altered states of time … Richard: The identity within, of course (who is always out of time). Respondent:… and why are you so sure that ‘this moment’ is part and parcel of the physical universe properties? Richard: Where there is no identity the physical properties of the universe are startlingly apparent.
And this is wonderful. Respondent:Why is it that it cannot be measured (as in duration) and only experientially (which can be another name for subjectivity) understood? Richard: This (beginningless and endless) moment cannot be measured as measurement requires a reference point – a beginning and/or an ending – to measure against.
Incidentally, where there is no identity (no subject) experiencing can never be subjective (as opposed to objective). (Richard, AF List, No. 25f, 12 Jun 2004)
There is heaps more to get lost in when reading one or both pages of the selected correspondence on time (2).
Note that naïve fascination, amazement, marvel and wonderment are essential for the exploration to catapult you into an experiential understanding of what is being said.
Infinitude, [infinite extent, amount, duration, a boundless expanse; an unlimited time] cannot be understood rationally from within the boundaries of ‘me’. For ‘me’ it is incredible, incomprehensible, unbelievable and unimaginable. One must come to one’s senses … both literally and metaphorically.
Once you do, you will instantly grasp that there is neither space nor time for an immortal, i.e. eternal ‘something’ – hence it can only be a product of an impassioned imagination – because in actuality there is only now, only this moment exists.
By the way, there is no fear, including no fear of physical death, once the identity self-immolated.
Kuba: Aaand to add some more, I remember when I first read Richard’s writings years ago I thought “why on earth would ‘he’ have given up immortality for actual freedom”, immortality seemed precious. Whereas now this is the other way around, in that ‘I’ am happily searching for a way to become extinct, ‘my’ immortality has been exposed for what it is – suffering, and it is the possibility of ‘my’ extinction which is now precious. (link)
That is excellent. Yet, it is not so much that “the possibility of ‘my’ extinction which is now precious” but what will become apparent by ‘your’ extinction –
Richard: When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful and rapturous ‘States Of Being’ … it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble.
It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent – as a physical actuality. The limpid and lucid purity and perfection of actually being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent bead of moisture with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified … and everyone I have spoken with at length has experienced this impeccable integrity and excellence in some way or another at varying stages in their life.
This preciosity is what one is as-one-is – me as I am in actuality as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ am in reality – for one is the universe’s experience of itself. Is it not impossible to conceive – and just too difficult to imagine – that this is one’s essential character? One has to be daring enough to live it – for it is both one’s audacious birth-right and one’s adventurous destiny – thus the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is but the harbinger of the potential made actual.
As I said earlier: there is an unimaginable purity which is born out of the stillness of the infinitude as manifest at this moment in time and this place in space … but one will not come upon it by thinking about or feeling out its character. It is most definitely not a matter to be pursued in the rarefied atmosphere of the most refined mind or the evocative milieu of the most impassioned heart.
One must come to one’s senses … both literally and metaphorically. (Richard, List B, No. 21g, 26 Oct 2001a).
As Chrono pointed out in his most recent message to you (link) – only altruism can do the trick because the instinct for individual survival is only exceeded by the instinct for group survival – the ‘group’ being “this body, that body and every body”. Once you are no longer concerned with ‘my’ survival, naiveté and an ever-diminishing ‘self’-centredness can flourish.
Vineeto: This “impression” may be believed to be true but it is not a fact. The many questions Richard answered from his ongoing experience regarding delighting in sexual congress without any libido bear witness to the incredulity of his correspondents that sexual enjoyment required the presence of libido (link). It is my own intimate personal experience as well that libido is not at all required for optimum enjoyment of sexuality – on the contrary it had only been in the way of perfect ongoing intimacy.
Chrono: Hi Vineeto,
I can readily see that it gets in the way of intimacy, but I have been contemplating how can this powerful drive be utilized. It’s been difficult to contemplate outside of the opposites in regards sexual desire. Initially there’s even a small sense of shame in wanting to completely indulge in it. I found your post with Richard’s expanded description of the way towards sexual congress happening of its own accord very illuminating. Part of me is actually in disbelief that sex can even be that good haha. What stood out to me the most though and perhaps may serve as a line of demarcation in my approach was this:
Richard: Now, the way to have intimacy unfold, in all its luscious wonder, is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible.
In other words one is always aware, with that second-level awareness, all the while primary consciousness is sexually engrossed, just how precious this opportunity is as – out of all 3.0 billion women/ out of all 3.0 billion men (dependent upon gender) – this fellow human being has chosen you, and only you, to be so intimately entwined with. In short: having sex/ being intimate with her/ with him (dependent upon gender) is very special – so special as to be precious – and this very preciosity readily enables giving oneself completely to one’s partner – totally and utterly – during sexual congress. (snipped). (Richard, List D, No. 20, 9 Dec 2009).
Hi Chrono,
Can you see that the post from Richard answers your question regarding *“*how can this powerful drive [of libido] be utilized” . It “is to be aware all the while (with that unique human ability to be conscious of being sentient) that your sexual partner likes being with you so much that they are willing to spend their most valuable asset – their time – not only being with you but having you inside them/ having them inside you (dependent upon gender) for this most physically intimate way of associating possible.” Being aware of being conscious almost automatically gives rise to appreciation and the wonder of it all happening – and this way the energy of “powerful [affective] drive” of libido is channelled into enjoyment and appreciation with marvellous results.
Chrono: It sounds weird to say, but it’s this appreciation of my partner in this way that I find to be a new direction. And he also uses the word ‘preciosity’, which exact word has come to my mind when I’ve experienced the sweetness of this moment before. The same preciosity that I want to experience again. Sexual desire on its own has a disregard about it that may be the reason why it needs to be kept in check. I’ll try all of this next time and see! I might need to work on my ability to ‘hover indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm’. I’m wondering if that ability would also be of any use even if one was by oneself.
Well, in terms of the actualism method, which is enjoying and appreciating this moment of being alive, it is not “weird” at all – in fact it is appreciation which exponentially multiplies one’s enjoyment and can catapult you into naïveté. Also the more you appreciate of your partner in this way increases the intimacy and appreciation thereof, and as Richard says, “be warned, the sky is not the limit.”
To extend the time hovering on that orgastic plateau certainly needs practice but who would object to that. Lots to discover!
Vineeto: It seems you are ready to deliberate and explore the social conditioning of your gender identity of what you, and society, considers “being a ‘man’”. There are lots of beliefs and unspoken rules and all are unhelpful to both happiness/ harmlessness or delightful harmony and intimacy with a person of the other gender. It’s worth keeping in mind that what you see is a consequence of the tried and failed spiritual legacy of both Western and Eastern religions.
Some information is collected in Basic to Full Freedom, #man-woman-identity and more in Richard’s Journal, Article Two as well as the Actual Freedom Library on those topics with their respective selected correspondence links.
Chrono: I am still reading over much of the correspondence so I will reflect on it as I finish.
It’s certainly beneficial to reflect, but then any realisation needs to be actualised in order to bear fruit. It’s amazing what you can uncover with naiveté and pure intent and how your attitude and behaviour will change towards more benevolent, amiable and friendly action toward your fellow male and female human beings including yourself.
Vineeto: It’s interesting to note that contemplating “what it means to be ‘compassionate’” has triggered this “huge immense fear about what I am doing by trying to becoming free”. Compassion is one of the stalwarts to keep you trapped within humanity, and contemplating to do without appeared a dangerous and therefore impossible direction to proceed.
Chrono: Yes there was in the deepest part of the fear a complete and almost unbearable loneliness. Compassion perhaps keeps me connected to others and provides as an antidote for it in some way as well. Not that any of that will stop me haha. As you said, there may need to be a digestion period.
That fear of “a complete and almost unbearable loneliness” is exactly the prison wall that is supposed to ensconce you within ‘humanity’s’ boundaries. When you stop fighting the fear, it will instantly diminish and then you can see if it has any substance in actuality. And yes, if it is a deep fear it might take some time to unravel and get to the thrilling aspect.
I remember some strong fears ‘Vineeto’ had, for instance the atavistic one of being burnt at the stake –
‘Vineeto’: When Peter and I started to throw out love it had a great impact on my sexual ‘identity’. It was an intense and scary time because right behind the nice, embellishing veil of love lingered all the monsters and demons of being an animal, a whore, a slut, not human and having sex with a ‘stranger’. Enjoying sex without ‘being in love’ is still considered one of the greatest sins of Christian morality. And Eastern spirituality regards any kind of sex as the biggest obstacle to enlightenment.
Not only had I to face my own personal conditioning about sex but I was also confronted with the fact of stepping out of the collective accepted behaviour and limits that every woman had been taught. Demons of atavistic fears would present me with their ferocious stories, as though I was still living in the Middle Ages, where women were burnt at the stake for leaving the fold or were expelled for not conforming. It took some effort to understand that both fears and beliefs around sex were simply inherited from other people, they don’t have any actual relevance for me. Digging deeper, stepping outside of the realm of sexual conditioning and beliefs I then discovered their underlying force – the sexual instincts. (A Bit of Vineeto)
Here is another example –
‘Vineeto’: This reminds me of a day when I was so badly in the grip of fear that I couldn’t think straight, didn’t know how to get myself out of this overwhelming feeling and could hardly talk for my cluttering teeth. I thought that I will never gather enough gumption to become free, I am just too much of a coward. Telling my story to Richard he said something to the effect of: ‘what else would you want to do with your life – be miserable like right now for the next 30 odd years? Seems pretty impossible to me. Of course, you will keep going.’ (Actualism, Vineeto, AF-List, James, 20.12.1999).
What ‘Vineeto’ forgot to mention that Richard’s interjection snapped ‘her’ out of the grip of fear instantly (because quite obviously intense fear cannot be maintained forever). It brought ‘Vineeto’ back down to earth.
Chrono: It’s very funny that this topic of everyone basically being spiritual should come up. Just a few days ago I was talking with my partner after viewing an incredible image of distant galaxies about how spirituality had infiltrated science (or always had?). The reason of course being the inherent bias in ‘being’ itself. The universe itself is being viewed self-centrically.
Ha, I read some of the comments and naturally everyone on that forum attempted to integrate the new information as quickly as possible into their existing paradigm!
Chrono: Just to add to the above, it is that impression of being present and existing over time as an ‘entity’ which is the source of ‘my’ belief in immortality. Belief doesn’t seem quite right here as ‘I’ don’t actually believe that ‘I’ will persist after this body dies, it’s more like a fundamental impression. (link)
Well said. It’s not a belief which can be excised, it’s part and parcel of being an ‘entity’ … until, as it was for ‘Vineeto’ for instance, enough of actuality had irrefutably penetrated via apperceptive insights for ‘her’ to know, and accept, that ‘self’-immolation was the only and viable solution to the mess of the human condition.
MARK:But I do feel instinct and its grip weakening as my personal reality is exposed for the mirage that it is. This adds a little to the notion that the whole thing (the self) is an integrated package and a reduction in one area is a reduction across the board. Hence as we chip away at our belief system (the seemingly ‘most visible’ layer of the ‘being’, the outer most layer so to speak) then there are repercussions in our emotional and instinctual arenas as well. RICHARD: Yes, well said. It (‘self’) is an integrated package because it arises out of the instinctual software package handed out by blind nature. At the core of ‘my’ being is the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that all sentient beings have. It is the price paid/ trade-off for consciousness being able to arise out of matter. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, AF List, Mark, 18 May 1999).
Thank you for your message, there is plenty to contemplate on here. I am not sure if this comes across much in my recent writings but things are actually going exceedingly well recently. In that those ‘turbulent waters’ are no more, what a relief! There is a lot of wonder all-round and perfection and purity seems just at the finger-tips. More and more days I am finding that life is near-perfect. Furthermore it seems like I am progressively zeroing in on the target, which is actual freedom.
So whatever these recent explorations are, they are not done from a desperate or dramatic place, or if this happens it is very brief and nowhere near as severe as it was in the past.
I went to a cafe by myself today and had a great time being out and about. The feelings of self-consciousness occurred while I was inside. They were about how ‘I’ appeared to ‘others’ and fueled a background disquietude. ‘Am I being weird by simply sitting here and enjoying my meal?’. ‘Do I seem out of place?’. They weren’t enough to take away the enjoyment entirely but still intermingled to muddy the experience. I started reading this:
I started wondering about time. Being these feelings, I am somewhere and somewhen else. All the while, this moment is happening. No matter what ‘I’ do or feel, it is this moment. There’s a distance there. But then a sort of ‘flicker’ occurred. This flesh and blood body has been here the whole time. This body does not experience this relating with others. I am (only as the body) effortlessly here and I have been here this whole time. No matter what ‘I’ do, this body is already always here. It is ‘me’ that is out of time. There’s an inherent enjoyment and security in being here right now. Not quite sure how to explain it except that no matter what I do, I am here and that’s just wonderful. Then it ‘flickered’ back. I note that there’s a desperation and frustration in ‘me’. ‘I’ want to be in time but no matter what ‘I’ do, ‘I’ cannot. But this seeing also gives me joy that it’s all so easy here.
Reading your post I had a similar experience this morning, that a place exists where everything is in its rightful place, which is amazing to say the least. But then how ‘I’ experience ‘myself’ is never like that, no matter how hard ‘I’ try ‘I’ can never be right. And I am wondering now is it precisely because ‘I’ am forever out of time. ‘I’ am all those things which are not actual, not happening now and so ‘I’ can never experience life in that manner - where everything is in its rightful place.
But the interesting thing is that the normal way to approach this feeling is to try to correct things, perhaps by pursuing a moral excellence, but when that “flicker” happens there is nothing at all that had to change, other than ‘me’ going into abeyance. So it is that everything is already in its rightful place now, the universe does not have to change 1 bit.
So it is like Richard wrote in that the last bit will always elude correcting, ‘I’ cannot be made right, ‘my’ very ‘being’ is forever out of time. Which I have previously seen this as a curse - in that ‘I’ can’t fix ‘myself’, not to the degree of what the PCE demonstrates. But actually it’s a blessing, in that what the PCE shows, of everything being correct, this is already always the case and it is ‘me’ that simply has to disappear.
It’s kind of funny actually when I consider the gymnastics that ‘humanity’ gets up to in order to try to prove that the universe is wrong, and actually it has been the other way around this whole time. It reminds me of what Richard wrote, that upon actual freedom he saw that he has been here this whole time having a ball, how weird.
The other thing is the difference between how a PCE happens (which I have experience of) and how self-immolation happens (which I don’t). In that a PCE is this spontaneous event, one second ‘I’ am here and then “whoosh” and all of a sudden everything is correct and has always been.
I think perhaps I thought that self-immolation could happen in that same manner, that one moment ‘I’ am here and then maybe a moment of fascinated thought and all of a sudden ‘I’ am no more. But it’s not like that at all it seems, in that it is a whole different series of events and motivations. Actually it seems like a different ball-game altogether, in that a PCE can happen spontaneously whereas self-immolation is set in motion consciously, knowing exactly that it entails ‘my’ demise.
Which it has to be to do with the irrevocability of it, in that a PCE is a temporary experience, it can be had safely for ‘me’ in that regard, ‘I’ will be there to go back to eventually. But the difference in proceedings when aiming for self-immolation it has to be because there will be no ‘me’ to ever go back to, and this is vastly different in what it means for ‘me’.
So essentially it is not possible to self-immolate by accident or to stumble into it by chance, whereas a PCE can very much happen like that.
Yes I think this is so. Richard also writes that the cause of sorrow itself is because ‘I’ am forever locked out of eternal time. I felt this in that ‘I’ am trying desperately to exist in this moment and that is why ‘I’ need all sorts of beliefs and acknowledging to hold up the illusion. I’m currently coming to terms with the fact that eternal time is not for ‘me’ but only for this body. Will ‘I’ get out of the way so that this body can be freed to be here (where it effortlessly already is)? There’s another inkling that deep down ‘I’ know that I am a fraud and require substantial mental and emotional acrobatics to stay in existence. Yes now it makes sense why naivete is the closest to the actual. Because there is no effort in being here and being naive imitates that ease the best.
After I wrote my previous post I started reflecting on the same experience and am experiencing a heightened enjoyment and appreciation. It has to do with the fact of how this body is already here without ‘me’. I am doing what I am already doing. I am both simultaneously afraid and thrilled. How wonderful that perhaps ‘I’ am not needed at all, yet also afraid of how this body can take care of itself. Was it even ‘me’ that has been taking care of this body this whole time? ‘I’ am projecting myself across all “time” to see how I can take care of everything for this body. How can ‘I’ be entirely sure that this body will be okay? I have been allowing myself to go back and forth with this. There is also heightened sensuousness and delight. From my head to toe it’s as if every fiber of muscle quivers in delight. And this with the seeing that me as this body exists irregardless of ‘me’. It is as if I am doing some sort of dance. Approaching, taking in the delight, and backing off. There’s some sense of astonishment and also disbelief. Throughout my whole life, was ‘I’ ever needed? Why would ‘I’ not be needed now? Even though it feels good, I wonder if it’ll be okay.
This has been a very helpful approach. Looking at if it’s an urge or a preference. I see now how chasing the ‘high’ that comes from allowing the libidinous drive is very much insanity. It’s a dead-end and goes in circles. It never ends and nothing ever gets solved. However, there is also the feeling accompanying the contemplation of abandoning it that I would “miss out” on something. There’s some inherent belief to libido that it’s needed for something very important in its expression. To keep following it. But it is at root, unintelligent. Now it’s a matter of weakening its stranglehold and drive by declining each time.
I’ve been trying to look at it as sincerely as possible. Even indulging in the libidinous urge to see what is exactly happening. There is a positive hedonic tone and I never found a reason to abandon it before. Seeing it now though the aspect that really stands out is the ‘drive’ of it. It’s simply a race to orgasm. The experience lacks autonomy and is not of a free enjoyment nor of an equitable intimacy. I can also relate to this well:
I must say I have quite a bit of undoing of some habitualistic patterns in this area so now I can fully approach this:
While also bearing in mind:
With all of that said, there are still some feelings of fear standing in the way of it at the moment. I find that this fear again goes with being a ‘man’. It has to do with how men are lauded for their ‘sexual prowess’ and I often feel that I must ‘perform’ to impress. The further fear of it is that my partner will leave me if I don’t follow this belief. I experience this as another dare. If my partner were to leave me because of this, then that is what it is. Although I do find these feelings rather amusing too since she expressed on a number of occasions of how she enjoys the physical proximity and closeness of sex the most.
It has been a number of years now since reading Article 2 of Richard’s Journal and I am able to appreciate and glean more meaning and insight from it. Some writings that stood out were:
Richard: I experienced it as
a bold step when I first started to strip away the layers of the mystique … the
feeling being that nothing would remain and sex would become insipid
coupling … a boring repetition of what is already known. One’s courage
stems from one’s pure intent … and one’s steadfast purpose of dispelling any
illusion, however seductive it might seem to be.
Richard: Whenever we trip over an issue of man-woman differences and find
ourselves falling back into our gender identities we notice, while looking at
each other over a gulf of separation, a marked lack of equity and mutual
intimacy between us. Then again, in our long periods of mutual intimacy, we
experience that neither Authority nor Love plays any role. Can we
contemplate a life together where intimacy and equity are paramount?
Wherein the power of Love and Authority become irrelevant? Any Authority
precludes equity … and therefore intimacy. Any Love precludes intimacy …
and therefore equity.
On a separate but related issue, I noticed at work this past week more clearly how I ‘hold back’ in my interactions with others. Just as in a similar manner as with my partner (with whom it still operates but on a level of lower intensity), I ‘hold back’ from them. I take a step back and basically scan out what’s the ‘right way’ to be with them. This scan of course is composed of anxiety/fear and exemplifies the societal conscience. I’m always on alert of what they are thinking of me and if ‘I’ am playing ‘my’ role properly. Seeing this, I then also allowed myself on the same day to meet them right where they are and I am always delighted at how easy interactions are. People enjoy associating with me when I am enjoying my own association. When this happens, there’s a background feeling of ‘this can’t be’ or ‘something will go wrong’. But I find that even when people may become upset, my remaining in this delighting has a rather conciliatory effect. This time the background feeling is that ‘I will be physically harmed and so I must take a step back again’. It’s a rather strange conditioning but feels very real.
On another separate day, I was reading something Richard writes in regards infinitude where he says that ‘I’ create a center in consciousness and block the experience of infinitude. I started thinking ‘what really is this infinitude?’. ‘It’s a physical infinitude’. ‘Oh it’s this infinite space and eternal time’. Then this thought occurred to me that perhaps that this physical universe is all that there is. There’s nothing other than this physical universe that actually exists. The experience of being ‘me’ is an experience of an ‘otherness’ which is blocking this immensity (which I experience as there on the periphery). I understood for a moment this:
The human eye is, rather, looking into infinity (when gazing deeply into that velvety darkness betwixt the stars) in the sense that there is no limit to its seeing ability other than its own physical capacity due to having evolved on a planet a short distance away, in astronomical terms, from its central star (aka the sun). [link]
Vineeto to Kuba: Via actualistic awareness and attentiveness you can choose, each moment, between pursuing the high, or enjoying and appreciating the sexual intimacy with the fellow human being you are closest to.
Chrono: With all of that said, there are still some feelings of fear standing in the way of it at the moment. I find that this fear again goes with being a ‘man’. It has to do with how men are lauded for their ‘sexual prowess’ and I often feel that I must ‘perform’ to impress. The further fear of it is that my partner will leave me if I don’t follow this belief. I experience this as another dare. If my partner were to leave me because of this, then that is what it is. Although I do find these feelings rather amusing too since she expressed on a number of occasions of how she enjoys the physical proximity and closeness of sex the most.
Hi Chrono,
What you really mean by “being a ‘man’” is what you consider the role of a man, the social identity aspects that you swallowed hook, line and sinker (like everyone else). And it is well worth looking at these expectations/ obligations enshrined in the human condition what put so much pressure on you.
While you are doing that you can also pop your head around the corner, so to speak, and recognize that in actuality you are already a man, a male human being, and in actuality this is already perfect. So when ‘I’, the identity, comes back in with all ‘my’ demands how ‘I’ should be, there is a salubrious actual perspective which allows you to look at those ‘problems’ in more naïve way and makes it all much less serious.
Chrono: It has been a number of years now since reading Article 2 of Richard’s Journal and I am able to appreciate and glean more meaning and insight from it. Some writings that stood out were:
Richard: I experienced it as a bold step when I first started to strip away the layers of the mystique … the feeling being that nothing would remain and sex would become insipid coupling … a boring repetition of what is already known. One’s courage stems from one’s pure intent … and one’s steadfast purpose of dispelling any illusion, however seductive it might seem to be.
Richard: Whenever we trip over an issue of man-woman differences and find ourselves falling back into our gender identities we notice, while looking at each other over a gulf of separation, a marked lack of equity and mutual intimacy between us. Then again, in our long periods of mutual intimacy, we experience that neither Authority nor Love plays any role. Can we contemplate a life together where intimacy and equity are paramount? Wherein the power of Love and Authority become irrelevant? Any Authority precludes equity … and therefore intimacy. Any Love precludes intimacy …
and therefore equity.
Indeed … you may even discover that behind the idea of a “being a man” needing “‘sexual prowess’” is hidden a yearning for intimacy. After all, a near-actual intimacy is something so new, it has to be lived to be discovered.
• [Richard to Respondent № 04]: “(…) it is pertinent to note that libido (Latin, meaning ‘desire’, ‘lust’, and referring to the instinctual sex drive, urge or impulse to procreate and perpetuate the species) is not, and never has been nor ever will be, the driver of the longing for intimacy, the yearning for an end to separation, the vital interest in loss of self … nor even the means whereby altruism trumps selfism”. (Richard, List D, No. 4a, 23 Jun 2013).
Chrono: On a separate but related issue, I noticed at work this past week more clearly how I ‘hold back’ in my interactions with others. Just as in a similar manner as with my partner (with whom it still operates but on a level of lower intensity), I ‘hold back’ from them. I take a step back and basically scan out what’s the ‘right way’ to be with them. This scan of course is composed of anxiety/ fear and exemplifies the societal conscience. I’m always on alert of what they are thinking of me and if ‘I’ am playing ‘my’ role properly. Seeing this, I then also allowed myself on the same day to meet them right where they are and I am always delighted at how easy interactions are. People enjoy associating with me when I am enjoying my own association. When this happens, there’s a background feeling of ‘this can’t be’ or ‘something will go wrong’. But I find that even when people may become upset, my remaining in this delighting has a rather conciliatory effect. This time the background feeling is that ‘I will be physically harmed and so I must take a step back again’. It’s a rather strange conditioning but feels very real.
This naïve approach is well worth keeping in mind. It helps you to overcome the initial apprehension of “holding back”, feeling foolish or ignorant or whatever, because you already know it has a beneficial outcome for all concerned.
Did you notice that when you have overcome the fear of being psychologically harmed you stepped up the danger to being “physically harmed”, just to keep yourself in line?
Chrono: On another separate day, I was reading something Richard writes in regards infinitude where he says that ‘I’ create a center in consciousness and block the experience of infinitude. I started thinking ‘what really is this infinitude?’. ‘It’s a physical infinitude’. ‘Oh it’s this infinite space and eternal time’. Then this thought occurred to me that perhaps that this physical universe is all that there is. There’s nothing other than this physical universe that actually exists. The experience of being ‘me’ is an experience of an ‘otherness’ which is blocking this immensity (which I experience as there on the periphery). I understood for a moment this:
Richard: The human eye is, rather, looking into infinity (when gazing deeply into that velvety darkness betwixt the stars) in the sense that there is no limit to its seeing ability other than its own physical capacity due to having evolved on a planet a short distance away, in astronomical terms, from its central star (aka the sun). [link]
This is marvellous. What happened in that moment was apperception –
Richard: In that brief scintillating instant of bare awareness, that twinkling sensorium-moment of consciousness being conscious of being consciousness, one apperceives a thing as a nothing-in-particular that is being naught but what-it-is coming from nowhen and going nowhere at all.
Apperception is very much like what one sees with one’s peripheral vision as opposed to the intent focus of normal or central vision. This moment of soft, ungathered sensuosity – apperception – contains a vast understanding, an utter cognisance, that is lost as soon as one adjusts one’s mind to accommodate the feeling-tone and subverts the crystal-clear objectivity into an ontological ‘being’ … a connotative ‘thing-in-itself’.
In the process of ordinary perception, the apperception step is so fleeting as to be usually unobservable. One has developed the habit of squandering one’s attention on all the remaining steps: feeling the percept; emotionally recognising the qualia; zealously adopting the perception and getting involved in a long string of representative feeling-notions about it. When the original moment of apperception is rapidly passed over it is the purpose of ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ to accustom one to prolong that moment of apperception – a sensuous awareness bereft of feeling content – so that uninterrupted apperception can eventuate.
Apperception is the clear and direct experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time – sans identity and its feeling-fed realities – and it is a wordless appreciation of being alive and awake on this verdant and azure planet.
Apperception is where one is living in the already always existing peace-on-earth and is where one is blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing: doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus on top of the never-ending perfection of the infinitude which this material universe is.
Apperception is where one is the universe being stunningly aware of its own infinitude. (Richard, AF List, No. 25, 31 Aug 01)
Yes I have seen these expectations/obligations featured in many aspects of my life. In relation to male friends (primarily), it could be that I must maintain some outward appearance of confidence, being nonplussed, being “skilled”, being of high status, etc. With my partner, it feels like that I must be a place of safety and comfort for her (backed by the feeling of responsibility and seriousness) and that if I don’t then I have failed or am a failure. At work, it feels like I must always be excelling and must always know the answer. It could all come under some guise of being an ‘authority’. If I had to go a little further, I could say that all of that is about projecting power.
When I think on this, I can understand it intellectually. But in society it doesn’t seem enough. I think it’s about showing ‘my’ usefulness to society. Otherwise I could be discarded. Which means being ostracized, lonely, punished in some way. Everything that I am being perhaps in this entire journal is being kept in place by this fear of retribution from society and humanity. Perhaps another dare.
Yes, this hidden yearning is what I’m currently trying to locate. Which perhaps may only come about if I abandon the sexual drive as well. I am wondering if that drive has any role to play at all in any of this. I sometimes struggle to see how it could not arise at all unless one is already actually free.
Thanks I actually did not notice that haha. Now that I am looking back at it, that seems to happen any time I get ‘close’. Some sort of fear of retribution, but proceed anyway.
As an aside, I have been wondering why it is said that actual freedom has no conditions to happen and that the actualism method is something that you do in the meanwhile. Yet at other times, I gain the impression that there technically are conditions for it to happen.
The following is from Henry’s Journal but I did not want to divert it into a different topic:
Yes it was only after I saw that I had to return to feeling good first that any sort of beneficial changes were noticed and maintained. Though overall there is still the addiction to being ‘me’. I have been re-reading the linked correspondence on addiction and some parts stood out to me (also appreciated James’ questions and pondering):
RICHARD: I was not referring to whatever suffering may be caused by losing in gambling … but to the suffering which ensues as the eventual result of the high evaporating (no matter what particular addiction it is). Therefore I presume that the ‘action’ you refer to is what provides the high … and if so then I further presume that when this action-induced high evaporates then suffering ensues. If this is the case then it is this suffering which is well worth investigating for its addictive properties.
RICHARD: Is not the reason why ‘I’ do not know if the unknown path delivers the goods – or why ‘I’ do not know what the unknown path is – none other than because ‘I’ will not abandon the known path, the familiar path, the path that does not deliver the goods?
JAMES:Ok, it might be possible by seeing that I am doing it for this body and everybody but I am really doing it for ‘I/me’ at least in the beginning. RICHARD: When ‘I’ see that ‘I’ am as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone else instinctually driven it is actually impossible to say that ‘I’ am doing it for ‘me’ alone … the repercussions of such an event are vast beyond belief.
JAMES:I hear what you are saying but I am not tuned in to the altruistic instinct. RICHARD: As it is instinctive it arises as the need arises … just as its concomitant courage does.
If I compared to my experience with suffering (deep feelings of complete desolation) as described above in experiences of limerence (where I feel anything very deeply), in the midst of the most intense suffering is where I also felt the most “alive”. Within it, there’s a simultaneous desire to end the suffering (because it is intense anguish) but also addicted to being it. This suffering also had a ‘good’ side where I felt fulfilled, but only if certain conditions were met. I’d go in circles no matter how much I noted it did not make sense. Deep down I felt this suffering as my soul itself and sometimes a ‘dream’ would present itself as being the only way out. This was the dream of ‘love’. Which dream is gone now. But I would naturally go back to this place of intense suffering if no attentiveness or anything was applied. I can see that as ‘my’ path. But I do have this desire within to also end the suffering, which I equate with:
JAMES:‘I’ am telling myself that ‘I’ don’t really want to do it because that will be the end of ‘me’. RICHARD: Ahh … now to the nub of the issue: have you ever desired oblivion?
My natural instinct then was to end it while being it, but I would go in circles. Maybe I wasn’t doing this:
JAMES:‘I’ am stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) now. ‘I’ can’t see how to get past that. RICHARD: As there has been a, perhaps predictable, retreat back into suffering (predictable as foreshadowed in ‘‘I’ want to hide from this inquiry’ and ‘‘I’ want to back out’ for example), then one starts with where one is presently at (where one is not yet at will emerge of its own accord as one proceeds): as you say ‘‘I’ am stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) now’ then for ‘me’ that is where ‘I’ am currently at.
Therefore, do ‘I’ feel the feeling of being stuck with ‘me’ (suffering) or not? If yes, then through staying with the feeling, by being the feeling (instead of trying to see how to get past that), one will find out, experientially, what it is really like to not have a path and/or not have a plan … other than the one of ‘looking for a way out’ so that one can stick with the known that is.
Also I am curious why Richard suggests in this correspondence not to return to feeling good first but to proceed with the contemplation despite James saying he experiences fear and the suchlike. In what context is this happening?
This drive seems like it is lauded in being a ‘man’. Perhaps even central to being a ‘man’. So there’s some vested interest in maintaining it in some way. And what if I wasn’t a ‘man’ (or any such gender identity)? However, I do find over and over that it precludes intimacy. I read how sex is one of the easiest ‘gateway’ into the actual but I find it to be more difficult. Maybe there are some beliefs around it that are hindering the full experience.
. Currently in the show one of the hunters made a deal with the devil, that in order to bring his brother back from the dead he would sell his soul, and that in precisely 1 year he would be sent to hell for eternity.
, I remember when I first read Richard’s writings years ago I thought “why on earth would ‘he’ have given up immortality for actual freedom”, immortality seemed precious. Whereas now this is the other way around, in that ‘I’ am happily searching for a way to become extinct, ‘my’ immortality has been exposed for what it is - suffering, and it is the possibility of ‘my’ extinction which is now precious.
. I’m wondering if that ability would also be of any use even if one was by oneself 