It’s been tremendously rewarding to sus this out for myself. When it registered that Richard arrived at the same conclusion it was validating and vindicating. Nonetheless, had he never explicitly said that emotions exist in time and space as form, my discernments would remain intact (until or if evidence revealed otherwise). There is of course the thorny issue of him going on to say the complete opposite, which you allude to:
To be clear, this is the statement you are asking me to reconcile with that preceding statement:
Richard (2001): I am speaking of a physical absolute … all suffering happens in time and space as form …
Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 33
The two statements cannot be reconciled. They are diametrically opposed, the exact opposite, in total conflict. Suffering cannot happen in time and space as form while having no existence in actuality. To reconcile the two, one would need to assert that Richard does not mean what he says and does not say what he means.
If you think it best to go back to that then okay.
Sure, it may well be the case that it is so. And if indeed ‘I’ am an illusion, then until ‘I’ cease to exist, then ‘I’ perforce exist. To say ‘I’ don’t exist when ‘I’ do exist is to deny what is undeniable. If ‘I’ am this fear, and this fear exists, then ‘I’ exist. Illusions are not nonexistent.
As I demonstrated, illusions occur in the actual world.
There is no line that can be drawn between ‘me’ (whatever it is ‘I’ ultimately am) and what truly, physically, factually, and actually exists. The limitless, borderless, boundless aspects of the absolute draw no lines and make no distinction between illusion and non-illusion, between hallucination (perception sans external stimulus) and non-hallucination (perception with external stimulus). There is no inner and outer domain for a boundless universe.