I find it hard to parse that sentence apart, but possibly Richard is referring to the experience of an Enlightened Self, where the experience is that of “non-separate experiencing”, e.g. non-duality. It is in fact separate from actuality, but it is experienced as not being separate - and in a sense it isn’t (in non-duality ‘me’ is not separate from ‘Me’, there is just ‘What Is’ - the only problem is that this “What Is” is a total delusion )
Fifth, the core is not the doer but the beer and, as such, is being a non-separate experiencing … and not a state of being a separate experiencer at all.
It’s hard to parse because you have beer & being, and “being a” on one hand vs" a state of being a" on the other, “experiencing” vs “experiencer”, and “being a non-separate” vs. “not […] being a separate”.
If I break it apart like this it’s easier to follow:
is not the doer
the beer, [ i.e. the core == the beer]
and, as such, is
being a non-separate experiencing, [i.e. the core == being a non-separate experiencing]
a state of being a separate experiencer [i.e. the core != a state of being a separate experiencer]
I guess I could re-write it like:
The core is not “the doer” but “the beer”, and, as such, it’s not that the core is “a state of being a separate experiencer”, but rather that the core is, in and of itself, being a non-separate experiencing.
That was my interpretation, but as soon as I tried to write something explaining it, I made an impossible linguistic salad (if you had difficulty parsing that sentence, imagine me parsing and writing about it… lucky to have you ).