The thing which I can see is that I flipped things around, because as long as ‘I’ am an identity then indeed it is ‘dangerous’ to get close to other identities. This brings it back to what you wrote a while ago about feeling beings bemoaning the dearth of actually free people. So knowing that ‘I’ cannot get close to other identities ‘I’ settled for a distance. And yet all the while I have enjoyed and appreciated the safety that interacting with you offers, not necessarily a safety for ‘me’ as ‘I’ am being constantly challenged but rather the safety of knowing that whatever is happening is to everybody’s benefit.
But of course someone has to go first otherwise there would be no actually free Vineeto to offer this safety. Whereas it is as if ‘I’ decided that since other identities will not provide this safe ambience then ‘I’ have to simply distance ‘myself’ from ‘them’. It seems ‘I’ never wanted intimacy with other identities because ‘I’ know that it will inevitably leave all concerned bruised, metaphorically and literally lol. So ‘I’ have been afraid to get close to others as ‘I’ felt that it would have to be an emotional involvement. When I looked at that picture of me and Sonya I glimpsed that there is an actual person there, not an identity but a flesh and blood body, I saw that actual intimacy with her is utterly delicious and safe.
It seems I have answered my own question here - basically ‘I’ created an unnecessary boundary, using emotional intimacy as a trailer for what actual intimacy is like, ‘I’ then used this to fuel ‘my’ fears about getting close to others. Of course there is no danger at all to actual intimacy. In actual intimacy there are no identities, it is something that happens between flesh and blood bodies only.
It seems to me that accepting the fact of my physical death does benefit others as well as my self and perhaps clears the way for altruism. How can I be altruistic if I am worried about my own physical death?
I have never truly been altruistic possibly because I have been concerned mostly with me and my own survival.
I think with now accepting the fact of my physical death I have opened the door to psychological and psychic death.
It is a first step so to speak.
It is mind-boggling contemplating all this. I wrote a few days ago how I saw that ‘I’ am merely a feeling and therefore ‘my’ very ‘being’ has no substance at all. In the same way I saw just now that all those other identities that ‘I’ am so afraid of getting close to, ‘they’ have no substance at all either!
So before it was like ‘I’ was afraid of getting close to others because “what would those other identities feel/think”, but in order to be close, to be actually intimate - ‘I’ have to disappear, however with no ‘me’ there is no ‘others’ either… So whatever fears ‘I’ had about getting close, they have no basis whatsoever.
Those fears assume that ‘I’ and ‘others’ are genuine. That even after ‘I’ disappear there will be other ‘entities’ in existence, there won’t be.
Once the illusion ends there is not another ‘being’ in the universe, there never was in actuality.
So it must be utterly safe to go for actual intimacy!
Kuba: It seems ‘I’ never wanted intimacy with other identities because ‘I’ know that it will inevitably leave all concerned bruised, metaphorically and literally lol. So ‘I’ have been afraid to get close to others as ‘I’ felt that it would have to be an emotional involvement.
Hi Kuba,
An excellent choice and I am pleased you have taken up the challenge to even consider talking about intimacy.
(Whenever I have mentioned this topic so far there was dead silence – it is obviously very scary to discuss intimacy in public, even on this list dedicated to discuss becoming actually free. Fortunately Martin and Almog on List D have asked Richard specific topical questions and hence gave him the opportunity to share of his valuable experience regarding intimacy and sexuality).
As such you start by finding reasons to not even try, for instance – “because ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ would screw things up if ‘I’ tried to get close” and “it will inevitably leave all concerned bruised”, and therefore that intimacy can only be safely approached after you are actually free. In other words, your first natural reaction is to think/ philosophize about it in order to keep the other at arm’s length.
I wonder where is that enterprising youth “doing parkour” (link, link) who was not afraid of screwing “things up if ‘I’ tried”, who was not afraid of getting bruised, who naively and courageously tried and practiced until you got it right. And it was thrilling fun all the way. From that experience you also learnt that one does not master any art worth its name unless one practices tirelessly and diligently, and is not afraid to fail (or get potentially bruised) and try again until one gets it right. It makes all your excuses not to start becoming more intimate null and void in how to proceed – you just start where you are at, do it and learn as you go along.
Martin:Is the idea that if I’m sincere (as an guileless) that I have nothing to hide, and I can give up my hiding place? Richard: No … “the idea” (as you put it) about being sincere – and the root meaning of sincerity is to be in accord with the fact/ to be aligned with factuality/ to stay true to facticity (i.e., being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ ingenuous) – regarding aspirations for actuality is to be in accord with/ be aligned with the actual, per favour the PCE, as in, staying true to (a.k.a. remaining faithful to) actuality as experientially evidenced.
The realisation that you are, essentially, the same as all the other 7.0+ billion feeling-beings parasitically inhabiting their host bodies – inasmuch you were all born thataway per favour blind nature’s rough and ready survival passions – means there is nothing unique about you, at the core of your being, which necessitates having “to hide” anything.
Put differently, as your “hiding place” is the same-same “hiding place” as each and every other feeling-being’s “hiding place” (all 7.0+ billion of them) just who do you reckon you are really fooling, other than yourself, by remaining hidden not only from others but from yourself as well?
In other words, how will you get to know yourself, intimately, unless you reveal yourself as-you-are in reality? [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Martin, #2).
Kuba: When I looked at that picture of me and Sonya I glimpsed that there is an actual person there, not an identity but a flesh and blood body, I saw that actual intimacy with her is utterly delicious and safe.
It seems I have answered my own question here – basically ‘I’ created an unnecessary boundary, using emotional intimacy as a trailer for what actual intimacy is like, ‘I’ then used this to fuel ‘my’ fears about getting close to others. Of course there is no danger at all to actual intimacy. In actual intimacy there are no identities, it is something that happens between flesh and blood bodies only. (link)
Ha, this fear “about getting close to others” is still in situ and therefore you ‘solve’ your fears by jumping to imagine what will happen when you are actually free before trying out to be intimate as a feeling being. Besides, becoming actually free does not make you magically an expert in everything you have avoided before.
However, when you courageously start from where you are at with utmost sincerity, you can play, together with your fellow human being, the game of ‘how close can we get’. It is a wonderful game, inclusive, full of surprises and joy, fun and laughter, scary moments and tenderness, thrill and exquisite delight and wonder.
In this game of ‘how close can we get’ each can nevertheless proceed at their own pace, as reciprocity regarding giving more and more of yourself is not required. Via sincerity and naiveté each can then entice the other by being as intimate and open to share as they dare to be.
Respondent:You do not prescribe to fellow humans, but do you recommend the above sensible approach rather than ‘experimenting’ with fellow human beings to explore sexuality or actual intimacy? Richard: Oh, no … not at all (that above approach is only in regards to an actual freedom from the human condition). No, on the contrary, exploring sex and sexuality is enormously beneficial: there is no better way, in my experience, for a man and a woman to approach such intimacy than sexual congress. For instance, back when I was a normal man I came close to the loss of self already mentioned on several occasions (in my first marriage) only to instinctively pull-back, out of instantaneous fear at such imminence, as it intuitively seemed she would thus take over my mind and make me her slave for ever and a day.
It was not until after the four-hour PCE, which initiated the process resulting in an actual freedom, that it became obvious to me what such loss of self actually meant. Accordingly, I deliberately set out to induce a PCE via giving myself completely to her – totally and utterly – whilst hovering indefinitely on that orgastic plateau which precedes an orgasm (some thing which I had discovered whilst pubescent). And then … !Hey Presto! … no separation whatsoever. (Incidentally, rather than that intuitive fear of thus being her slave coming true it was quite instructive to have her then relate how she had been fantasising about a current heart-throb pop singer all the while I was giving myself to her totally). (Richard, List D, No. 6, 10 Nov 2009)
Exploration into intimacy also paves the way for man and woman living together in peace and harmony – considering that their sexuality and intimacy are the core of human civilisation itself.
Richard: … appreciate how truly epoch-changing a female replication of the ground-breaking male break-through into Terra Actualis actually is inasmuch that, for the first time in human history/ human experience, it is now possible, and demonstrably so, for man and woman to live together in peace and harmony with gladness and delight.
And here is why that replication is truly epoch-changing:
• [Richard]: “(…) man-woman sexuality and intimacy is the genesis of family and thus the very core of civilisation itself …”. [emphasis added]. (Richard, List D, Andrew, #coreofcivilisation). (Further information and links in the original)
In short, Kuba, you have a fun-filled exciting and highly beneficial adventure ahead of you.
Yes this is amazing! It is like I have opened up (for lack of a better word) a pandoras box, except inside are many wonderful and magical things to come
I am very excited by this and I actually wrote out a big post whilst I was working but I think it is best I explore this a little first.
So I thought I will write a bit about how this is progressing now rather than from memory later. Vineeto’s suggestion to play the “how close can we get” game has been brilliant and fun. It is a weird one because I am not sure why this fear of intimacy, of getting close. It kind of made sense in the past when I would want to hide the grotty ‘me’ from others.
Also in the past there was always the fear of going back into love but those things are no longer of any concern. I can indeed get close to others safely, this is one of the wonderful aspects of a virtual freedom.
The fact is that 99% of the interactions I have on the daily are amicable and fun for all concerned, this I take for granted now, it seems this fear of getting close was more habitual than anything.
This game of “how close can we get” I have been playing in all circumstances too, with the customers that ring at work, with my training partners, with the hen parties etc. Of course it is in my interactions with Sonya where it can flower fully.
It was a bit of a sad reflection of what has been going on up until now when Sonya remarked that I am being so affectionate and that she is so happy… The thing is that I have not been trying to be loving or anything like this, rather I have simply allowed myself to get close. The wonderful thing is that this intimacy is lasting, it is not taxing in any way, like love is. I am not trying to create any grand gestures or manufacture some kind of a feeling, rather I am just allowing myself to get close, what I wanted all along anyways!
And playing this game of “how close can we get” is like travelling up and down the gradations of intimacy that Grace suggested :
The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another); ‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other); ‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other); ‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian); and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself!
This is why the game is fun! Every moment is an opportunity to slide along this scale with no expectations on the other or oneself. What I noticed very quickly is that any sorrow or malice immediately obstructs one’s ability to get close. Of course I cannot get close if I resent or fear the other, only felicity and innocuity offers the safety to get close like so. Which means there is an immediate feedback loop - “I am not able to get close to the other, why?” and immediately I get an answer - because there is some sorrow and malice in the way. Then it is impossible to hold onto it, no matter how small, because it is patently clear that it is standing in the way between me and others. This makes utterly clear one point - that one must be both happy and harmless. Also when another is involved it is easier to put aside any of ‘my’ self-centred agendas and simply proceed towards felicity and innocuity - where intimacy is possible. Because now it is not just for ‘me’ but for everybody.
So the past couple of days it’s like I have been thawing out those remnant bits of ice that were covering ‘my’ being. I realise that all those fears I had about “what would others think when I am actually free” etc These are so silly, shouldn’t I rather be excited about finally getting actually close to my fellow human beings? (what I have always wanted). And so there was a distance that I was trying to somehow jump across, but to no avail. Instead I can virtually remove this distance whilst still remaining an identity, and when I am so close there is no fear. How could I possibly fear my fellow human beings? Daring to get close means that I begin to experience this person in front of me as they are, there is nothing to fear there. And what I also found is that when I dare to get close, to actually pay attention to this person in front of me, then it is impossible to dislike them, or to get sour about this or that, for I see that they are a fellow human being just like me, so intimately involved in this business called being alive.
The other thing that became clear this morning is that this intimacy (with one’s partner) seamlessly flows into sexuality. Before there was the ‘normal’ which was this “comfortable distance” and from that place we would jump towards sex. But the distance that needed to be jumped across was uncomfortable, it would be like a task. This morning I allowed the intimacy to simply slide up the scales and boom, sexuality begins to flower effortlessly. Then it is a lot of fun, no hard work at all
Kuba: So I thought I will write a bit about how this is progressing now rather than from memory later. Vineeto’s suggestion to play the “how close can we get” game has been brilliant and fun. It is a weird one because I am not sure why this fear of intimacy, of getting close. It kind of made sense in the past when I would want to hide the grotty ‘me’ from others.
Also in the past there was always the fear of going back into love but those things are no longer of any concern. I can indeed get close to others safely, this is one of the wonderful aspects of a virtual freedom.
The fact is that 99% of the interactions I have on the daily are amicable and fun for all concerned, this I take for granted now, it seems this fear of getting close was more habitual than anything.
This game of “how close can we get” I have been playing in all circumstances too, with the customers that ring at work, with my training partners, with the hen parties etc.
Of course it is in my interactions with Sonya where it can flower fully.
It was a bit of a sad reflection of what has been going on up until now when Sonya remarked that I am being so affectionate and that she is so happy… The thing is that I have not been trying to be loving or anything like this, rather I have simply allowed myself to get close. The wonderful thing is that this intimacy is lasting, it is not taxing in any way, like love is. I am not trying to create any grand gestures or manufacture some kind of a feeling, rather I am just allowing myself to get close, what I wanted all along anyways!
Hi Kuba,
What a marvellous report and I can relate intimately – especially when you said “what I wanted all along anyways!” It is what everyone wants deep down, but never dares to do or even ask.
It brings back delightful memories when Richard suggested this game to me after I became actually free and more so after he came back from India – all I can tell you that the sky is not the limit.
Kuba: And playing this game of “how close can we get” is like travelling up and down the gradations of intimacy that Grace suggested:
Richard: The gradations of ‘her’ scale were, basically, good, very good, great, excellent, and perfect – whereby, in regards to intimacy, ‘good’ related to togetherness (which pertains to being and acting in concert with another); ‘very good’ related to closeness (where personal boundaries expand to include the other); ‘great’ related to sweetness (delighting in the pervasive proximity, or immanence, of the other); ‘excellent’ related to richness (a near-absence of agency; with the doer abeyant, and the beer ascendant, being the experiencing is inherently cornucopian); and ‘perfect’ related to magicality (neither beer nor doer extant; pristine purity abounds and immaculate perfection prevails) – all of which correlate to the range of naïveness from being sincere to becoming naïve and all the way through being naïveté itself! (Richard, Abditorium, Intimacy, #intimacyexperience).
Isn’t it great Grace spelt out her gradations so we now have the words to precisely communicate as well as experience it. So much to enjoy, discover, explore and marvel and getting closer and closer.
Kuba: This is why the game is fun! Every moment is an opportunity to slide along this scale with no expectations on the other or oneself. What I noticed very quickly is that any sorrow or malice immediately obstructs one’s ability to get close. Of course I cannot get close if I resent or fear the other, only felicity and innocuity offers the safety to get close like so. Which means there is an immediate feedback loop – “I am not able to get close to the other, why?” and immediately I get an answer – because there is some sorrow and malice in the way. Then it is impossible to hold onto it, no matter how small, because it is patently clear that it is standing in the way between me and others. This makes utterly clear one point – that one must be both happy and harmless. Also when another is involved it is easier to put aside any of ‘my’ self-centred agendas and simply proceed towards felicity and innocuity – where intimacy is possible. Because now it is not just for ‘me’ but for everybody.
Ah, now you know, intimately, what it means “for this body, that body and everybody”. Now you also know, experientially, what Richard meant when he said: “all the way through being naïveté itself” –
Richard: To be naïveté itself (i.e., naïveté embodied as ‘me’), which is to be the closest one can to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’ (innocence is where ‘self’ is not), one is both likeable and liking for herewith lies tenderness, sweetness and togetherness, closeness whereupon moment-to-moment experiencing is of traipsing through the world about in a state of wide-eyed wonder and amazement as if a child again (guileless, artless, ingenuous, innocuous) – yet with adult sensibilities whereby the distinction betwixt being naïve and being gullible is readily separable – simply marvelling at the sheer magnificence of this oh-so-material universe’s absoluteness and unabashedly delighting in its boundless beneficence, its limitless largesse, with a blitheness and a gaiety such that the likelihood of the magical fairy-tale-like nature of this paradisaical terraqueous globe becoming ever-so-sweetly apparent, as an experiential actuality, is almost always imminent*. [imminent [of an event, (…) impending, soon to happen]. (Oxford Dictionary) [Emphasis added].
(Richard, A Quaint Clay-Pit Tale)
Kuba: So the past couple of days it’s like I have been thawing out those remnant bits of ice that were covering ‘my’ being. I realise that all those fears I had about “what would others think when I am actually free” etc These are so silly, shouldn’t I rather be excited about finally getting actually close to my fellow human beings? (what I have always wanted). And so there was a distance that I was trying to somehow jump across, but to no avail. Instead I can virtually remove this distance whilst still remaining an identity, and when I am so close there is no fear. How could I possibly fear my fellow human beings? Daring to get close means that I begin to experience this person in front of me as they are, there is nothing to fear there. And what I also found is that when I dare to get close, to actually pay attention to this person in front of me, then it is impossible to dislike them, or to get sour about this or that, for I see that they are a fellow human being just like me, so intimately involved in this business called being alive.
Having nothing to hide means exactly that – nothing to fear, and even better, when you are near innocent and “actually pay attention to this person in front of me, then it is impossible to dislike them”. It is not only the natural world, the mountains and streams, the sky and the stars which is magnificent and perfect, the intimate interaction with fellow human beings is also delightful, easy and benevolent.
Kuba: The other thing that became clear this morning is that this intimacy (with one’s partner) seamlessly flows into sexuality. Before there was the ‘normal’ which was this “comfortable distance” and from that place we would jump towards sex. But the distance that needed to be jumped across was uncomfortable, it would be like a task. This morning I allowed the intimacy to simply slide up the scales and boom, sexuality begins to flower effortlessly. Then it is a lot of fun, no hard work at all (link)
Thank you, Kuba, for your eloquent report of fun and delight, every word is a joy to read.
I had some very extraordinary experiences today… They were glimpses of what life is like after ‘my’ extinction. It’s very hard to put this into words, Richard described the actual world in such meticulous detail and yet the words alone do not do it justice, the actual experience of it is a different thing altogether.
In fact I wasn’t going to write about it because it seems that I can’t (not very well anyways) Yet those experiences happened, it was a world where no ‘being’ ever existed, where the past, present and future never existed either, a different world altogether. And this world is all that actually exists, all of ‘my’ life amounts to a feverish dream, but even this dream… Did it ever happen? Where did it happen? Because only the actual world genuinely exists. To land in the actual world (with nowhere else to possibly go to) is an unimaginable relief, it is truly inconceivable, it has to be lived to be known.
Just before those experiences happened ‘I’ was seen to never have been genuine in the first place, this is what precipitated them. One second ‘I’ existed across the past, present and the future, where apparently ‘I’ ran the show, then next second ‘I’ was fascinated by the fact that none of ‘my’ life ever took place. Indeed that ‘I’ am an errant and vainglorious brain pattern, ‘I’ never did anything of substance because ‘I’ was never genuine. But with ‘me’ having never been genuine there was an entire new world that opened up, except that I saw that eventually there will be no ‘me’ and no reality to revert back to. That once the door back to reality closes behind me, that it would have never existed in the first place, how bizarre! But this is exactly what guarantees such incredible safety, again the words don’t seem to do it any justice…
What Richard referred to in one of his correspondences as the “utter fullness” which is ‘calling one’ each moment again, this utter fullness is infinitude itself, the fact that only the actual world exists. The direct experience of this is just beyond words, hence I wasn’t going to write about it initially as I figured that I just have to go ahead and live it.
There was also this fascinated thought that although ‘I’ never did anything of substance ‘I’ am nevertheless the only one to make the decision to allow ‘my’ self-immolation, again utterly bizarre. A passionate illusion agreeing to ‘his’ own demise.
Kuba: I had some very extraordinary experiences today… They were glimpses of what life is like after ‘my’ extinction. It’s very hard to put this into words, Richard described the actual world in such meticulous detail and yet the words alone do not do it justice, the actual experience of it is a different thing altogether.
In fact I wasn’t going to write about it because it seems that I can’t (not very well anyways) Yet those experiences happened, it was a world where no ‘being’ ever existed, where the past, present and future never existed either, a different world altogether. And this world is all that actually exists, all of ‘my’ life amounts to a feverish dream, but even this dream… Did it ever happen? Where did it happen? Because only the actual world genuinely exists. To land in the actual world (with nowhere else to possibly go to) is an unimaginable relief, it is truly inconceivable, it has to be lived to be known.
Just before those experiences happened ‘I’ was seen to never have been genuine in the first place, this is what precipitated them. One second ‘I’ existed across the past, present and the future, where apparently ‘I’ ran the show, then next second ‘I’ was fascinated by the fact that none of ‘my’ life ever took place. Indeed that ‘I’ am an errant and vainglorious brain pattern, ‘I’ never did anything of substance because ‘I’ was never genuine. But with ‘me’ having never been genuine there was an entire new world that opened up, except that I saw that eventually there will be no ‘me’ and no reality to revert back to. That once the door back to reality closes behind me, that it would have never existed in the first place, how bizarre! But this is exactly what guarantees such incredible safety, again the words don’t seem to do it any justice…
Hi Kuba,
This is a most extraordinary description of experiences. I can’t make out if you temporarily entered the actual world or are perhaps stuck in the door which should disappear as soon as you fully enter or … or is this possibly a mirage created by a still hesitating but nevertheless cunning identity?
What does prevent you from fully walking through that door, if it is the actual door to an actual freedom, something you wanted to do (so you say) for a long time?
And you say “those experiences” (plural). I can’t make sense of it … except perhaps that to experience “exactly what guarantees such incredible safety” is more important than taking the finalizing action?
Kuba: What Richard referred to in one of his correspondences as the “utter fullness” which is ‘calling one’ each moment again, this utter fullness is infinitude itself, the fact that only the actual world exists. The direct experience of this is just beyond words, hence I wasn’t going to write about it initially as I figured that I just have to go ahead and live it.
Here is how this correspondence about “utter fullness” started –
RESPONDENT:Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen?
Just curious. (Richard, List B, No. 25e, 15 June 2000)
Unfortunately this correspondent managed to fritter away each and every opportunity to be fully “taken away” by “the utter fullness of it” with continuing to think about the experience in, what Richard called, “one-dimensional thought” –
RICHARD: Ahh … then reflecting and being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate is of no use whatsoever, eh? Is this because ‘thought is simply too one-dimensional’ to produce anything other than a one-dimensional stunning of the thinker would you say?
What does it take to produce a 3-D stunning of the thinker? (Richard, List B, No. 25e, 16 June 2000)
Kuba: There was also this fascinated thought that although ‘I’ never did anything of substance ‘I’ am nevertheless the only one to make the decision to allow ‘my’ self-immolation, again utterly bizarre. A passionate illusion agreeing to ‘his’ own demise. (link)
RESPONDENT:Seeing how we seldom let the fullness be, and instead stay stuck in the rut of thought, is what is ‘stunning’ thought. Facing that absurdity is perhaps worthwhile, don’t you think? RICHARD: Goodness me no … why procrastinate by busying yourself with ‘facing that absurdity’ (which is to keep on busying yourself with that stunning thought) when it is total attention that is the trigger for the utter fullness being made apparent? The only thing that is worthwhile is when ‘I stop and allow awareness to operate’ … period. [Emphasis added]. (Richard, List B, No. 25f, 17 June 2000)
Are you perhaps making the same mistake?
Have you made ‘yourself’ so ephemeral, so illusionary, that you are no longer able to make the most important decision of your life to allow yourself to be taken away?
Perhaps another question can clarify something – has this “utter fullness” the same flavour as pure intent, “a palpable life-force; an actually occurring stream of benevolence and benignity that originates in the vast and utter stillness that is the essential character of the universe itself”?
Thank you for your reply Vineeto, I noticed a pattern in myself recently where I seek to work things out ahead of me (move the finger along the map) rather than lead with experience. So I will see how this all plays out experientially and I will report back!
The other thing which has changed here since is that the need to “be right” has fallen by the wayside. And it is related to the very same thing that I described in the above quote. Daring to get close, to “actually pay attention to this person in front of me” changes the very fabric of the interaction.
When interacting as 2 social identities it is almost as if ‘we’ are both standing in court in front of god (or whatever dominant authority) and ‘we’ are making our case… It is a peculiar feature but I notice this is essentially how people interact. It is as if the eyes of the ‘group’ are watching at all times, and ‘I’ must therefore appear as moral, right etc.
What I find is that when I dare to get close those “watchful eyes” (be it God or the ‘group’) disappear. Then I am here with the other as fellow human beings, there is no ‘group’ or god and so no need to score points in front of ‘them’. Then we are both freed from having to battle each other, there is no need to prove something in order to guarantee safety for ‘me’.
Then it is possible to look at this situation in front of me right now, to take in everything about it and to act in a way that is beneficial. No need for a blue-print, no need for a “good performance”, just who are we performing for anyways?
It is astounding to consider the conflict that human beings wage on each other because of this deeply entrenched worldview where life is merely a performance in front of some ‘ultimate authority’. I am finding that this is simply no longer needed, it can be consigned to the waste-bin of the past. Then beneficence can flow freely, and it can be fun to boot!
I am still getting the hang of all this and at times I forget just why I am here doing this business called being alive, it is certainly not about any of the above lol. But as Vineeto wrote this intimacy, this ability to get close can be practiced just like anything else.
Also once it is realised that life is not a performance in front of some ‘ultimate authority’ then I can finally be unique and original. Then life can be fun and thoroughly enjoyable each step of the way, then the immediate becomes the ultimate… Life on earth is no longer seen as some prepping ground for an after life, which means that being here now where this moment is happening is where it is at!
Wow human-kind really did get screwed over by those holy men, what have they done!? It’s weird because a modern person could read my above posts and conclude that they “don’t believe in any of that religious/spiritual stuff” (and therefore it does not affect them) and yet they are not aware of just how deeply and stubbornly this worldview is buried within them. And just what it takes to unearth it, it requires an actualism.
I was initially intrigued when I read the below quote from Richard :
I was therefore commenting that (in this specific instance) India’s paramount contribution to the retardation of evolution over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years (in that after maybe the millions of years of evolution necessary to evolve thought, thoughts and thinking (intelligence) in one animal species alone, the Masters and the Gurus and the Avatars and all the God-Men would have us value being thoughtless and mindless as if that is the highest virtue one can aspire to) is part of the mosaic of the evolutionary process and would soon become superseded when a mutation more fitted for survival takes precedence over such fantasy.
I have often wondered in the past about this, what would have happened if the spiritual/religious belief systems did not come to dominate, because those feeling beings would still exist to begin with, it is the instinctual ‘self’ that is the original cause of the problems.
But it is those god men that peddled their snake-oil, they offered a promise of eternity for the ‘self’. Those feeling beings could have long ago gladly allowed their self-immolation, but instead the god men locked ‘humanity’ into endless cycles of suffering for a promise of an afterlife.
And what a perverse worldview spawned from this, where life is merely a testing ground for all those identities to distinguish themselves in front of a god. Where there is an intrinsic distaste for oneself, the other and the world around. Where the various ‘group members’ sell out their originality and gladly enter the rat race, all in a desperate bid to avoid damnation.
This has me viewing self-immolation in a completely different light, it is nothing weird, in fact it is something way overdue. Something that if not for the “retardation of evolution over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years” would have likely been the all-round state of affairs.
Another possibility is that humankind would have long-ago fought itself into extinction if it weren’t for the religions.
Because, although of course religious wars have been and still are a salient feature of ‘humanity’ – religions nevertheless managed to bind billions of people together into giant tribes, within which there is broadly-speaking cooperation (nevertheless still marred by internal conflicts of course). But the point is the co-operative group size was much bigger. Whereas without it, instead of several major tribes you might have millions of thousands-strong tribes with constant conflicts etc.
In other words perhaps religion was just a necessary evolutionary step to be later sloughed off, just as ‘identity’ itself too.
There is no way to know, but it is fun to speculate! Whatever it is it doesn’t particularly matter now as it doesn’t change the next step that we can take
Yes this is the kind of explanation that I would have been leaning towards in the past, it seems to be quite a popular flavour of theory these days - that the ability to believe is what allowed humanity to strive toward common goals etc. But I am not so sure anymore, belief is not required in order to strive towards a common goal, delusion/illusion is not required for co-operation.
Also it is interesting that Richard wrote specifically - “India’s paramount contribution to the retardation of evolution over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years”
Retardation - the action of delaying or slowing the progress or development of something.
And this is easy to test for oneself, if I am lost in a forest and I come across another person equally lost, or even 10 people, we do not require god or belief at all in order to cooperate towards the common goal of getting unlost. It seems to me that this theory of delusion being a necessity for human flourishing is only part of that very same perverse worldview.
In terms of “giant tribes” being possible only because of the belief in spirituality/religion (and somehow being of benefit) this is also part of that same worldview. Acting in concert (even at large numbers) never required “common belief”, how else would the world operate once actual freedom (or even virtual freedom) spreads worldwide. Of course it would no longer be a “giant tribe” (like ‘humanity’ is) but there are such complex links that allow the modern world to be what it is, of course all this would not all of a sudden collapse without some ‘ultimate authority’ to hang it together.
Actually isn’t it more that religion/spirituality usurped the human ability/tendency to act in concert with one another and perverted it towards it’s own agendas? Like wars between “giant tribes”, building cathedrals to please the gods etc. God has been using this natural tendency to co-operate in order to play out ‘his’ dramas and those faithful identities have been waiting in line to savour some of ‘his’ grace. Essentially human kind has been hoodwinked to “co-operate” towards shared delusion.
Hmm maybe if I put it like this – morality is acknowledged and understood to be absolutely essential without pure intent in place:
Warning: It is an utterly fundamental proviso that pure intent be dedicatorily in place – as an overriding/ overarching life-devotional goal which takes absolute precedence over all else – before any such whittling away of the *otherwise essential* societal/ cultural conditioning be undertaken. [link, emphasis added]
Religion is the source of morality of course! At least in the modern age.
This does not mean that morality/religion are essential in an actually-freed world, of course not. But, they have perhaps been essential for civilization to progress to the level it has, given the violent and unreasoning instinctual passions we feeling-beings nurse to our very bosoms
So my point is without the big-tribe religion over-riding the instinctual passions and small-tribe warfare, perhaps we would not be where we are today.
If the two are well-adjusted well-acculturated members of society, then sure – but what of two, say, aboriginals in pre-colonial eras from differing tribes? Would violence not be a likely outcome? Or what of a modern-day unarmed woman and a violent male career criminal, far from any civilization and thus any police forces, what might happen then?
Well we can look at our near cousins, the chimpanzees. In what is perhaps hyperbolically termed the “Gombe Chipmanzee War”, you had a large community of chimps, the Kasakela community. 6 males, 3 females, and their young, splintered off into another community, the new Kahama community. They entered into a conflict wherein all the males of the Kahama were murdered over a period of 4 years. The Kasakela tribe expanded into more territory then were repelled by other chimp communities.
No God caused this, it is just small-scale tribalism, which is much how the ancient human hunter-gatherers used to be, as I understand.
Now if on top of this you layer a morality where it’s wrong to murder not only your near-tribe members but also further-tribe members, even when they speak a different language and look different than you, then you can start to see how this actually increased cooperation rather than lessening it. The same passions in place, but held back by a morality allowing to work in concert for a large purpose despite them.
Of course it is like morality in general, or any ‘solution’ within the human condition – it doesn’t really work. It causes other problems (like religious holy wars and persecutions). But perhaps better than the alternative? How far would humans have got if every tribe of ~100-1000 humans was always in danger of being murdered by the tribes nearest it?
Another way to put it is the evolutionary argument applied to culture – the culture of the humans you see today are the ones that survived because they had aspects that led to that culture being successful in propagating more humans. The religious ones were more successful at surviving and spreading, and so they did. If humans were so good at acting in concert with one another sans such a debilitating thing such as religion, why have these humans not survived and flourished and instead the religious ones did?
Of course the answer is: these humans are us, we are the ones pioneering and paving the way for this new way to go about things. And there is no downside whatsoever. It’s not even pacifism – a territory populated by actually free would certainly be able to defend itself from warmongering neighbors, because it is sensible to do so – and it would be done sensibly and harmlessly (as in no malice) but with physical violence applied as necessary of course.
Could this have happened 3000-5000 years ago instead of just now? Maybe, this we can only speculate. Whatever the case may be it is certainly past its use by date!
Again this is not to defend religion or giant tribes per say and to say they are necessary. They are not necessary with actual freedom or even virtual freedom being the case (with pure intent dedicatorily in place). But it appears morality is essential until that is indeed in place
Yes so essentially as you describe it - spirituality/religion was necessary in order to control the instinctually driven human beings enough such that some semblance of co-operation could eventuate. This allowed human kind to reach the current stage where freedom from both the instinctual passions as well as any belief in spirituality/religion can be considered.
What I am considering is whether spirituality/religion (and the worldview that it spawned) was ever necessary in the first place or whether it was actually a detour, or as Richard wrote “a retardation”.
Those humans 3000-5000 years ago were capable of considered thought like we are now. Of course there was a challenge to be faced, which is as you wrote the fact that they were instinctually driven (just like we are now). But the question is - did spirituality/religion actually assist in facing this challenge? Or did it merely perpetuate it?
Those holy men proceeded into the unknown but stopped short of the unknowable, instead of actual peace on earth they chose eternity for the ‘self’. Now here we are 3000-5000 years and much bloodshed later with the same challenge still to be faced.
There is no reason why those holy men could not have gone all the way, instead they became enlightened and brought insanity back with them. This insanity is the song that ‘humanity’ has been dancing to since, with sanity being merely a luke-warm version of the insanity of enlightenment.
