Based on the text provided, the phrase “the believer is the believed” encapsulates the core dilemma of the human condition as described by Richard: the “self” (or identity) is not a separate entity that possesses beliefs; rather, the “self” is composed entirely of beliefs and the feelings that fuel them.
Here is an elaboration on why one cannot simply drop beliefs while maintaining a self-identity, based on the provided correspondence.
1. The Identity Is the Belief
Richard argues that the sense of "I" (the ego or soul) is not an actual, tangible entity but a construct arising from the act of believing itself.
- No Separation: You cannot separate the “believer” from the “belief.” Richard states clearly, “You are not separate from that belief… That belief is you”.
- Emotion-Backed Thought: A belief is defined as an “emotion-backed thought” or “passionate imagination”. Since the identity is inextricably linked to feelings (the principle that “‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’”), the identity itself is essentially a calcified belief.
- The Origin: The “I” arises out of the very action of believing—emotionally imagining something to be real that is not actual.
2. The Paradox of “Dropping” Beliefs
The text highlights a logical impossibility in trying to “drop” beliefs while the “self” remains intact. If the “self” tries to eliminate a belief, it is essentially the disease trying to cure itself.
- The “Dropper” is the Obstacle: Richard explains that “‘I’ cannot drop the belief that ‘I’ exist because ‘I’, the would-be ‘dropper’, am what is to be dropped”.
- The Loop of Exposure: Similarly, the “I” cannot truly expose a misconception, because the “I” is what needs to be exposed.
- Preservation of Identity: As long as there is a “who” doing the exposing or dropping, the structure of the “believer” remains, merely shifting focus to a new belief or concept.
3. The Failure of Intellectual Realization
Simply understanding intellectually that “the self is a belief” is insufficient because that understanding itself can become just another belief held by the identity.
- Intellectual Masturbation: Richard warns that unless emotions and passions (like anger, sorrow, or malice) have vanished entirely from one’s life, knowing that the self is a belief is merely "intellectual masturbation".
- Belief Replacement: Replacing a negative belief (e.g., “I am a loser”) with a positive cognition (e.g., “I am a winner”) is futile because it replaces one belief with another, keeping the “believer” (the identity) alive and trapped in the same system.
- Vigilance vs. Freedom: Trying to constantly “clarify” concepts or drop beliefs one by one requires laborious, eternal vigilance. In contrast, actual freedom involves the complete disappearance of the entity that necessitates such vigilance.
4. The Solution: Dissolution, Not Modification
Since the believer is the believed, the only resolution offered in the text is the complete cessation of the believer (the identity).
- Vanishing Ability: For Richard, the ability to believe—“believing in itself”—has vanished entirely. He cannot believe because the entity that performs the act of believing (the identity/affective faculty) has “self-immolated”.
- Apperception: The alternative to belief is apperception—a state of pure awareness where the “I” is absent, allowing the universe to be experienced as it actually is: distinct, immediate, and factually true without the filter of emotional imagination
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I cannot believe anything. The ability to believe – believing in itself – has vanished out of me. Which brings this discussion back to the believing activity of thought and feelings. You are asking, in effect: Is there some real ‘me’ to experience? Am ‘I’ real?
When one observes oneself in action, ‘I’ seem to be real – very real at times – but am ‘I’ actual? No? Then why do ‘I’ appear to be real? Is it the activity of believing? The action of believing is to emotionally imagine something to be real that is not actual.
RICHARD: Unfortunately it is not such a simple matter as merely exposing and dropping beliefs and misconceptions. I would suggest asking who is doing the exposing and dropping. I would enquire into just who is holding the beliefs and misconceptions concerning an on-going self. ‘I’ cannot drop the belief that ‘I’ exist because ‘I’, the would-be ‘dropper’, am what is to be dropped. Like-wise, ‘I’ the would-be ‘exposer’, am what is to be exposed. Only apperceptive awareness will do the trick.