It seems like I am surrounded by a sea of beliefs, especially this time of year although I am not connected. I have no such beliefs and no familial ties. However, I am a feeling being and I won’t actually leave humanity until that is eliminated entirely.
1 Like
Hey James, I’ve noticed you mentioned that you have a feeler before and I wonder why you phrase it that way? Because it seems key to see that I am that feeler, and eliminating it is eliminating me. I’ve contemplated about leaving humanity before and it seems like that would be like removing the last peg that keeps me in place, because without humanity the feeler aka me will not exist, I am humanity and humanity is me.
So I guess my point is that any genuine leaving of humanity is also leaving myself behind, not just the feeler/it but specifically myself.
1 Like
@Kub933 I first picked up that term ‘feeler’ from Vineeto. I use it as another name for the ‘me’. The ‘feeler’ and the ‘me’ are one and the same. I like calling it the ‘feeler’ because that seems more descriptive to me than calling it the ‘me’.
cub: "So I guess my point is that any genuine leaving of humanity is also leaving myself behind, not just the feeler/it but specifically myself."
jj: As I see it the ‘feeler’/‘me’ is specifically what is at the root of self/myself once we have eliminated the identity and that is what must be immolated in order to leave humanity.
@Kub933 I’m not sure I explained that very well. The ‘feeler/me’ is the core that exists in the old brain. That is what we want to self immolate.
@jamesjjoo you said “However, I do still have a feeler […]”
@Kub933 's question is - shouldn’t you instead say “However, I still am a feeler […]”
@claudiu Actually I meant that I do still have a ‘feeler’. Here is a quote from 'A Precis Of Actual Freedom that might help to clarify what I meant:
2. All sentient beings are born with instinctual passions like fear and aggression and nurture and desire genetically bestowed by blind nature which give rise to a rudimentary animal ‘self’ – which is ‘being’ itself – that human beings with their ability to think and reflect upon their mortality have transformed into a ‘me’ as soul (a ‘feeler’ in the heart) and an ‘I’ as ego (a ‘thinker’ in the head).
1 Like
You use the word “have”. You say you “have” a feeler. The word “have” is what we are asking about, not the word “feeler”.
Compare these two sentences:
- I have a feeler.
- I am a feeler.
You will notice the only difference is the word “have” in one and “am” in the other.
Why do you say #1 - that you have a feeler - instead of #2 - that you are a feeler?
1 Like
If I was af I wouldn’t still have a ‘feeler’. Since I am not af I do still have a ‘feeler’.
1 Like
Yes.
Can you describe what you see the difference between them being?
The feeler is something I have that is removable. It is not something I am that is permanent.
I was talking about the feeler itself and not the experience of I am the feeler and the feeler is me.
Oh, I was confused too…
Could it be then that by “I” you are referring to your physical body, and is why you -the body- say that you -the body- HAVE a feeler?
Otherwise I’m still confused 
Yes Miguel, I was referring to the physical body has a feeler.
Sorry for all the confusion.
The physical body is nothing but another projection of ‘me’ aka the feeler. This flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware is another thing altogether but this will only be experienced in a PCE or when actually free.
The physical body trying to get rid of the feeler is just another way the identity splits itself, it’s another way to dissociate me from another part of me in this case the physical body is splitting itself from the feeler. In actuality neither of them have any existence outside of the psyche.
When ‘I’ go into abeyance as in a PCE, this can be experientially ascertained. That the physical is as false as the real, it is all part of the bubble that ‘I’ exist in.
I admit that I wrote “the physical body” thinking about the flesh and blood body (I was about to write it, but it was longer ) and, of course, I notice differences experiencing this body in a PCE, but I believe this is the first time I have encountered this distinction… (or maybe I have forgotten it, despite being in one of Richard’s writings?)
It seems this distinction is key to make when talking about statements such as I want to get rid of my feeler, as this points to a degree of dissociation by me from the feeler. To then call it the physical body wanting to get rid of the feeler is to muddle the situation further and means that the identity gets to hide behind another concept. I need to see that me in my totality is what needs to go. The very act of calling a part of myself a feeler and another part the physical body is an act of dissociation and this is essentially the crux of what I am getting at.
2 Likes
Oh, in this case I understand. You want to remark in another way the difference @claudiu make between “I have a feeler” vs “I am a feeler” (well, you make it also at the beginning of the topic)
I think we are on the same page now, but just to be sure…
These are indeed contradictory:
- I have a feeler.
- I am the feeler and the feeler is me.
As a feeling being , ‘I’ am indeed ‘me’. To then say “I have a feeler” is to imply there is a part of ‘me’ that is not a feeling-being and will survive self-immolation once the “feeler” is gone.
But it’s not the case. All of ‘me’ will disappear. From ‘my’ perspective I do indeed seem to be permanent. But all of ‘me’ and ‘my’ reality will be no more. ‘I’ really am the feeler - and I can’t get rid of it. I can only self immolate and then all of me goes.
3 Likes