“Richard: Fifth, the core is not the doer but the beer and, as such, is being a non-separate experiencing…”
(Re: "Selected Correspondence: Self-immolation)
^Richard stated beer is being a non-separate experiencing.
Isn’t “being” also experiencing a separate state(being is feelings, and my feelings are me), and only PCE and the actually free states are the non-separate experiences?
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 
)
Why? What difficulty do you find in it?
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:
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 
).
This helped clarify it for me, it seems that the word ‘experiencer’ as opposed to ‘experience’ is the one showing that the ‘beer’ is indeed… a being.
As opposed to the genuine lack of center as experienced in actual freedom.