|
Peter’s Correspondence on Mailing List C Correspondent No 16
PETER: Hi, just a note to your comments the other day, RESPONDENT: What Peter and Vineeto are saying, their willingness to look at facts no matter about what or how painful for the ego, should be the first step for anybody on the road to freedom. The first step and the last, as good old J. Krishnamurti would say. PETER: Of course good old J. Krishnamurti was talking of God and spiritual freedom in what was merely another adaptation of the Eastern message – realize that you are God. Richard is at present on the Krishnamurti mailing list and as such is an expert on his teachings if you are interested. Krishnamurti and other like-minded teachers all question merely to the point of finding God and none bar Richard have ever bothered, or dared, to look further. RESPONDENT: Whenever there is pain, there’s the ego; hurt defines the boundaries of the ego, the attachments. Hence hurt is an opportunity to know these boundaries, to get to know oneself. ‘Know yourself’ has been said down the ages by many masters. PETER: ... ‘and then know that you are God’... is the bit you left out. The boundary of all teachings to date has been never to question the very existence of God. After all the point of the spiritual search is to find God, or become One with God, the Universe, or what ever else it is called. RESPONDENT: So Peter and Vineeto are remembering us of a good thing, but at the same time they are proof of the saying that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. Their judging the failure or success of a master, guru or teacher by the lack of improvement in the condition of humanity as a whole is questionable. Questionable because it is not a fact. PETER:
RESPONDENT: Their statement that love is often a cover-up for malice, a thin layer of varnish embellishing personality, is true of course. But then to conclude that therefore no love at all exists is another matter. It is not a fact either. PETER: Many people admit to the fact of the failures of love only to then take on the belief in a Divine or unconditional love. RESPONDENT: In my view Peter and Vineeto say worthwhile things, but they present too many would-be facts. I wonder why they don’t just talk about their joyful experiencing of the body and nature, and leave it at that. PETER: Because of all the wars, rapes, murders, tortures, heart-breaks, misery and sorrow in the world, and because those who are ‘seeking’ freedom are in denial of the facts, and merely believing and parroting Ancient Wisdom and beliefs. RESPONDENT: As a bonus they could explain how to reach this state of happiness, by all means, but to call it the only true alternative in the same breath, the only true alternative that will work at last, as if it’s another washing powder with some new powerful enzymes, washing whiter than other powders... PETER: We live in 1998, not at the time of Christ, or Buddha, or The Other Long Dead People whose wisdom we revere. Their teachings have failed to bring peace to the planet, to allow men and women to live together in peace and harmony. To cease the very act of believing and look at the facts of what it is to be a human being, would seem to me to be worthwhile at least considering. RESPONDENT: ...give me a break. PETER: I think you need to exercise the ‘delete’ button if you need a break ... RESPONDENT: I doubt it that their ‘way’ will prove to be the final answer to the ‘human condition’, that it will accomplish what until now no other teaching has been able to achieve. PETER: There is a general acceptance that goes ‘you can’t change human nature’. It is at the root of Ancient Wisdom – hence the search for the Divine – another ‘realm’ to dwell in on earth or in heaven or the Cosmos somewhere. I turned my doubt around and asked ‘what if what Richard is saying is a fact’. And then I journeyed on and found it is so – you can change human nature – I did it in me. RESPONDENT: If it were truly the only answer, then surely Richard would actually, factually be the only real saviour, the only messiah, whether he likes it or not. He would be, if not the only son of god, very close to God’s image. PETER: People who believe in God have to see Richard as God. But what if he is a fellow human being who had rid himself of malice and sorrow? But of course, he couldn’t do that because then he would be God... Bit of a circular argument you have running there ... a conundrum, as is all philosophy and wisdom to date. RESPONDENT: By the by it’s very good that Vineeto and Peter challenge lazy, sleepy Sannyasins, their views, belief systems . PETER: It is good to be challenged, is it not? I found the last 2 years to have been the most challenging of my life, the most thrilling, the most alive ... RESPONDENT: For a while that is... Or I should rather say that it’s No10’s question that challenged me. Well, never mind... PETER: Good to chat and talk of these things, it gets me off the couch. It got a bit long again but you raised so many points.
PETER: To continue on with your objections – We did plan to put a book out called ‘Objections to being Happy and Harmless’ but there is too many to wade through and it wouldn’t be a popular book anyway. So, on with the game – RESPONDENT: It’s good to see that you can also be brief. As for your statement on Krishnamurti, I wouldn’t have used ‘of course’ for openers. I understand him to incite us not to jump to conclusions on spiritual, psychological or religious matters. He’s all for total denial of any concepts on these matters. Freedom as total denial. It’s impossible for me to see him as spiritual in the sense you mention and certainly not as an adaptor of the Eastern message as you call it. I heard him lecture by the by. PETER: So, I take it that you follow Krishnamurti’s advice and you never come to any conclusions about anything to do with what it is to be a human being. You deny everything, and therefore you will, on principle, deny the possibility that anything I say is factual. I usually don’t suggest to anyone what to do with their lives, but why don’t you try denying Krishnamurti’s concepts and try to make some sense out of spiritual, psychological and religious matters. After all, it is your life you are living here on earth, right now, and Krishnamurti has already scooted off to his after-life. * PETER: Krishnamurti’s and other like-minded teachers all question merely to the point of finding God and none bar Richard have ever bothered, or dared, to look further. RESPONDENT: Sweeping all teachers except Richard on one heap makes reasoning about them easy. As I said before you and Vineeto oversimplify enabling you to make sweeping statements. Finding God is not the issue with Krishnamurti or Osho or other masters. PETER: Maybe you can tell me what the issue was with Krishnamurti, Osho or other masters? RESPONDENT: Whenever there is pain, there’s the ego; hurt defines the boundaries of the ego, the attachments. Hence hurt is an opportunity to know these boundaries, to get to know oneself. ‘Know yourself’ has been said down the ages by many masters. PETER: ...‘and then know that you are God’... is the bit you left out. RESPONDENT: Not at all. Getting to know yourself is enough. No promises. God is irrelevant. I hereby didn’t say God doesn’t exist. PETER: I take it that you know yourself then. What is it that you found out about yourself then? Are you happy and harmless? Do you live with a woman in peace, harmony and equity? I know you can’t put your knowing into words, but how is everyday life? Do you get angry, upset, sad, melancholy? Do you like your fellow human beings? * PETER: The boundary of all teachings to date has been never to question the very existence of God. After all the point of the spiritual search is to find God, or become One with God, the Universe, or what ever else it is called. RESPONDENT: Not at all. Not as I see it. For me the gist of the matter is to get to know myself to the point that I’m lost for words, concepts, ideas and then see what happens, without having an idea of what that will be. PETER: So, in having no goals or ideas, and letting what happens happen, then whatever happens is okay and must have been meant to happen anyway. I think you have got denial and acceptance both working on your side very well. So, everything must be going very well in life as you don’t have to do anything and what is the point anyway. RESPONDENT: So Peter and Vineeto are remembering us of a good thing, but at the same time they are proof of the saying that ‘there is nothing new under the sun’. Their judging the failure or success of a master, guru or teacher by the lack of improvement in the condition of humanity as a whole is questionable. Questionable because it is not a fact. PETER:
RESPONDENT: Yes, but what’s not a fact is that a teaching is a failure because carnage has not been stopped. Understanding of a teaching can’t be pushed down peoples throats. They have to do it themselves. A master or teacher can’t force himself on people. He offers an opportunity to understand, but many people unable to console themselves with third rate concepts, after all it’s easier, with all trouble you mentioned as a result, yes. PETER: Okay, here is another idea you can deny or object to. I’ve got an endless supply, by the way. So let’s say there have been about 10 billion human beings who have walked the planet since cave-man times. Let’s say there have been about 1,000 masters or ‘good-quality teachers’ who have known and not merely pretended. My guess is that there have been at least 1 billion who have given the teachings a ‘fair go’ in their lives. They may not have realized the Truth but they have sincerely tried their best to live by the teachings. And yet, we humans still fight and kill each other. There is not even a semblance of hope that peace and harmony is possible on the planet. So what you are saying is that the 1,000 teachers are right and the 1 billion followers are wrong. This is only a suggestion, but maybe, just maybe, you might consider, if only for a second or two, that the ... teachings could be wrong? What twigged me was the possibility that ... everyone has got it 180 degrees wrong. RESPONDENT: Yes, but you do not stop at exposing the believing and the parroting but continue to attack the teaching and the teacher. This is a mistake. As I see it has happened with you in Sannyas, there is a teaching, the interpretation of it by you, the disappointment and the ensuing attack on the teacher and the teaching. Instead of shitting on the teaching and teacher, you’d better shit on your interpretation of it; instead of criticizing that you were misled, you’d better beat your chest, repeating ‘mea culpa’ a few times. You bite the finger because you think it was put in your eye while it was pointing to the moon all the time. PETER: I no longer suffer from shame nor guilt, pride nor humility, such are the benefits of actual freedom. * PETER: I think you need to exercise the ‘delete’ button if you need a break ... RESPONDENT: To need a break is just a manner of speech; in New York it means that there is some difficulty in accepting the validity of what you’re saying. It’s alright to doubt some of your statements, isn’t it. I do not doubt that you sincerely want to rid people of delusion, all of this based on your own experience and insight. In my view you make only two mistakes: firstly you generalize too much, which enables you to state too many would-be facts. Secondly you don’t take responsibility for what happened to you personally in Sannyas. PETER: I generalize too much, hey. Well ... you can’t even put into words what it is you know (or don’t-know or deny). Is the pot calling the kettle black? RESPONDENT: Another thing: this is a Sannyas-list and I don’t think there is concern here about long dead masters or about ‘Eastern Teaching’ in general. Teachings of long gone days may be obsolete for men and women living today. For myself the limit is that masters shouldn’t be dead for more than 50 years, but this is personal. So Osho, Ramana Maharshi, Gurdjieff, Krishnamurti. But then there are exceptions of course, such as Zen haiku’s which are ageless. Personally also I don’t need a living master, one in the body that is, as Osho is alive today. PETER: So, if Osho is alive today, he obviously even gets off the 50 year hit list of ‘not-so-long dead masters’. It is good to see you being specific in your facts. RESPONDENT: I doubt it that their ‘way’ will prove to be the final answer to the ‘human condition’, that it will accomplish what until now no other teaching has been able to achieve. PETER: There is a general acceptance that goes ‘you can’t change human nature’. It is at the root of Ancient Wisdom – hence the search for the Divine – another ‘realm’ to dwell in on earth or in heaven or the Cosmos somewhere. I turned my doubt around and asked what if what Richard is saying is a fact. And then I journeyed on and found it is so – you can change human nature – I did it in me. RESPONDENT: Good for you, but it will never be something for humanity as a whole in my view. Nothing ever is. In this sense Richard will prove to be a failure as well. PETER: So, nothing ever is... But what about you, will the teachings fail you or are you going to succeed in whatever it is you are looking for? Are you having success, are the teachings working for you? This is a sincere enquiry. I think I will have to watch this suggesting thing ... I just couldn’t resist it. But I do enjoy a good muse over things. I’ll put a little muse from my journal at the end. And now a reading from The Journal – ...page 92. In the beginning there was ... (just kidding)
PETER: I think I am definitely in the wrong market, trying to flog my book here. I had thought that Sannyasins might have been a market but it seems I was wrong. It’s a funny thing trying to sell a book on how to become happy and harmless, and be able to live with a woman/man in peace and harmony and equity. To not only find no takers, but a myriad of objections or nihilistic responses. There was one 20 year old who is enthusiastic though, so I might pursue that market. The trouble is they all have computers and my book is free on the Net. It’s a tough challenge set I’ve set myself here, but I am determined to be a successful author. I got a bit old to build any more – it’s a bit too physically tiring at my age. Besides I’d got to the stage that I was really good at it, so it was time for something new. I’ve got to do something with the next 30 years (maybe), and I do like writing, but it seems I have picked an unpopular subject. I didn’t follow that old marketing saying – find out what people want and give ‘em plenty of it. The gurus have got that market covered, selling immortality. Obviously no one wants to be happy and harmless. So I think I’ll look at the younger market. They may be ready to question the set ways of the Eastern spiritualism of the ‘older’ generation. So, in response to your comments, I thought I would lump them all together, for brevity – (you do write long posts)
In response to your not caring whether your source of thinking is chemical or Divine (?), I will post
this definition in case others care –
instinct Peter: All sentient beings are born pre-primed with certain distinguishing instincts, the main ones being fear, aggression, nurture and desire. They are blind Nature’s rather clumsy software package designed to give one a start in life and to ensure the survival of the species. While absolutely essential in the days of roaming man-eating animals, rampant disease, high infant mortality, these very same instinctual passions now threaten the survival of the species. The instincts only ‘care’ for the survival of the species – the strongest, most aggressive, the crudest. Further, blind nature gives not a fig for your happiness or well-being. We are relentlessly driven, despite our good intentions and moral codes, to act instinctually in each and every situation in our lives and this is the cause of all our angst and confusion. The instinctual program is located in the primitive ‘lizard’ brain and the almost instantaneous thoughtless automatic instinctual response is termed the ‘quick and dirty’ response. The primitive area of the brain makes an initial quick scan of all sensorial input and, if an instinctive reaction is required, almost instantaneously floods the body and neo-cortex with chemicals which then inevitably cause an automatic and unfettered emotional response – hence an instinctive thoughtless reaction becomes an instinctual passionate reaction. Thus one is ‘overcome’ by feelings of despair or sadness, ‘overwhelmed’ with rage or anger, ‘compelled’ to blindly defend one’s ‘own’ and relentlessly ‘driven’ by sexual urges – regardless of the sensibleness and appropriateness of the action. Fear hobbles us with a desperate need to huddle together, belong to a group, to seek solace in tradition and the past, to cling on to whatever possessions and beliefs we hold dear to ourselves, to frantically resist change and, as death approaches, desperately seek immortality. Aggression causes us to fight for our territory, our possessions, our ‘rights’, for those we consider our ‘own’ and for our treasured beliefs. We fight for power over others lest they have power over us, or throw our lot in to fight for someone who offers us their power and protection. We lash out at others for no apparent reason and when control breaks down the innate lust to kill, maim and torture readily surfaces as is evidenced by the fact that 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone and repression, torture, domestic violence, rape, sexual abuse, persecution, corruption, murder and suicide are endemic to the Human Condition. Nurture causes us to care for, comfort and protect those we consider our ‘own’ and leads to dependency, jealousy, empathy, duty, sacrifice and needless heroism. When nurture fails within the species, as it inevitably does, we turn to animals, pets, trees, ‘endangered’ species, ‘mother’ earth and other non-reciprocating, safe objects. Desire drives us to sexual avarice and a blind urge to impregnate, procreate and reproduce ourselves – come what may. The relentless desire to accumulate, amass, covert, dominate, control and obliterate is the direct cause of poverty, corruption, hunger and famine. The Holy pretence of rising above the animal-instinctual mortal into the good, Divine and immortal is but a delusion and has failed to curb the ongoing instinctual violence and suffering of sentient human beings. The belief that instincts are a constant fixed program ‘you can’t change human nature’ or we are feeling beings’ is forever dooming this planet to the human-made hell it really is, as directly experienced by the many or watched in comfort and comparative safety on TV reports by the few. Contrary to popular belief instinctual passions are not ‘hardware’ but ‘software’ and as such
they can be deleted – thereby paving the way for the possibility of actual peace on earth. The time is now ripe and most humans, given
sufficient will and intent, are now capable of weakening the chemical stranglehold that instinctual passions have on their thoughts and behaviour
to such an extent that they can become virtually free of their influence. Then, and only then, is it possible that their elimination will occur
through a mutation in the brain-stem causing a total and complete disconnection from their source in our primitive animal brain. RESPONDENT: You’re not interested in trying to prove the existence of life after death. It’s easier to deny it. You’re in for denying anything which doesn’t agree with your arbitrary standards. But really life after death is not my concern. It’s not believed by me. Not denied either. Your actual world is as illusory as the ‘real’ world. PETER: There is a simple test that can be undertaken to test the facticity of your statement. You take some strong tape, preferably surgical or ‘Gaffa’ tape, and stick it over your mouth such that you can’t breathe. Then pinch your nose and when you come up gasping for breath after 2-3 minutes you will know what is actual and what is illusory. This test has to be performed to get an experiential understanding and not merely a Zen one. RESPONDENT: I don’t think there’s a point in writing to me further. I guess I can’t let go of my fear (I say this to make it plausible to your mind). You can write me if you want to but then I would prefer you to be more brief. It takes too much of my time to answer. PETER: I only write to someone when they write to me or comment about, or distort on the list, something I have said. You stop, I stop. It is obviously all wasted on you anyway. It is hopeless to discuss anything with a fatalistic nihilist who actively espouses denial, total negation (via negativa), and who takes no standpoint at all. Sums up Eastern philosophy and wisdom pretty well. Still, you are nothing if versatile and flexible, and I bet you will take on a few words like ‘flesh and blood body’ or ‘actual’ and weave them in to your wisdom, merely distorting them to fit your philosophy. There is a Guru type in Europe who tacks a bit of Richard into his philosophy on the ‘Richard and I are best mates’ scenario. Thought I’d leave you a bit from an ‘actualist’, vitally interested in finding out what it is to be a human being, and in ‘full flight’ to find out –
That was a bit from the chapter called ‘Intelligence’ ... something definitely lacking in Ancient Wisdom. By the way, if you are interested, I have written a chapter on Fear ... but you probably regard fear as illusory as well... So, if you stop, I’ll stop. I answer all posts if possible, because I naively think that this conversation might be of interest to others. It certainly is of no interest to you. You have said repeatedly that you don’t care anyway, so it should be easy to stop and sit silently at your keyboard. Your keyboard is just an illusion to you anyway, as are these words apparently ... I guess you will only put illusory tape on your mouth so you can keep your experience of life purely cerebral, as all philosophers do.
PETER to No 29: You seem to have twisted what Ancient Wisdom says so much that you can make out of it what you want, which is what everybody does anyway. I certainly did in my spiritual days. RESPONDENT: And you still do, Peter, you still do... PETER: Just a note – No, the Ancient Wisdom of the East clearly points to a belief in God and an after-life, in other words, it is simply ‘Old Time Religion’. This is a fact, not the twisted version that I conveniently believed on the spiritual path. I took it at face value that the spiritual path was about a personal peace for me and peace on earth. In fact, it was an attempt by ‘me’ to turn away from the ‘real’ world and aim to become an Enlightened God-man. What I talk of has not one skerrick of God or immortality in it. What I talk of is physical and actual – not meta-physical and imaginary.
PETER: I like your new style of letters – the colour and different fonts look great. RESPONDENT: Hope it didn’t cause you too much trouble to be brief (I mean actual trouble, of course, such as muscle cramps because of restraining an urge to rave). PETER: Yes, I can rave on a bit – it’s a good thing I’m a two-fingered typist, it slows me down a bit. But I do like writing – it orders my thinking, trains the brain to function to its potential in terms of clarity (as opposed to IQ). * PETER: No, the Ancient Wisdom of the East clearly points to a belief in God and an after-life, in other words, it is simply ‘Old Time Religion’. RESPONDENT: Let’s call it Ancient Foolishness then. PETER: Couldn’t agree more. If it was merely foolishness it would be fine, but it is pertinent to remember that Ancient Wisdom – be it Eastern or Western, spiritual, philosophical, secular, male or female, profound or mundane – represents the book of how it is to be a human being on the planet. We are born into the world and told this is how it has always been, this is how it is now and this is how it will always be. If anyone says ‘Well, can’t we change the way it is? Does it really have to be this way?’ everybody else simply wheels out the dusty testaments of what a Mr. Socrates, Mr. Jesus, Mr. Shakyamuni, Mr. Moses, Mr. Bodhidharma and the like are ‘supposed’ to have said and says ‘These are the Rules – thus it was Spoken’. There is usually a clap of thunder and a flash of lightning and that’s that. End of discussion. So, Ancient Wisdom is the Wisdom of Humanity – the set of ‘rules’ how it is to be a human being on the planet. The mother of all Wisdom is ‘you can’t change Human Nature’. When I met Richard he said ‘Of course you can! ... Why not?’ I liked that ... Why not indeed! RESPONDENT: As for Sannyas, I’ve never been into believing in God; as a matter of fact, Osho repeatedly said God doesn’t exist. PETER: I know many discourses where he talks of God, Oneness, Divine, Sacred, Holy, Nirvana, Love, Being, Buddha Nature etc. The use of words with capital letters in all his writings and books is a clear indication of God or the Divine in whatever form or description. The Eastern spiritual tradition is not monotheist like most Western spiritualism and, as such, God is a slippery concept, and deliberately so. Whichever way you look at it, both Eastern and Western Spirituality clearly indicate a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe. To call a spade a spade – it’s all God ... be it by any other name ... a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe. RESPONDENT: As far as an after-life goes, He repeatedly stressed to be here and know. There may be an after-life but to believe in it is not the issue. PETER: The belief in an after-life is exactly what prevents human beings from being here on the
planet, now at this moment, as a flesh and blood only human being. Each human has a soul, or psychic entity that ‘feels’ separate and alien,
and wants to desperately believe in an after-life. This ‘me’, usually evidenced as fear, is aware that the flesh and blood body will
inevitably die and therefore ‘my’ only chance of surviving is to believe in an afterlife or seek Divinity and Immortality. It is ‘me’ –
this feeling self – that prevents me, this flesh and blood body being here, now. Osho was never really here – he * PETER: In fact, it was an attempt by ‘me’ to turn away from the ‘real’ world and aim to become an Enlightened God-man. RESPONDENT: To want to become an Enlightened God-man is too big an aim. No wonder you failed. PETER: I did start to get close to Enlightenment at one point, but by then it had already begun to lose its attraction as a lifestyle. There is all that celibacy business, keeping up the God image, fawning disciples, the isolation of being God, the impossibility of seeing others as fellow human beings, the whole Religion bit, etc. I am immensely happy to have failed. By everybody else’s terms I am a total failure in life. I am neither rich, famous, powerful, nor am I a healer, a channeller or Guru. An utter failure – a happy and harmless failure and I can’t recommend it highly enough. It beats Enlightenment by a country mile. It is to live beyond one’s wildest dreams – fully alive!
RESPONDENT: Let’s call it Ancient Foolishness then. PETER: Couldn’t agree more. If it was merely foolishness it would be fine, but it is pertinent to remember that Ancient Wisdom – be it Eastern or Western, spiritual, philosophical, secular, male or female, profound or mundane – represents the book of ‘how it is to be a human being on the planet’. We are born into the world and told ‘this is how it has always been, this is how it is now and this is how it will always be’. RESPONDENT: Contrary to you, I’m not an expert on traditional Eastern and Western Wisdom in general, and there is no need. Common sense tells me that any system will be too rigid to suit all human beings. Best is to see it as a set of guidelines, an indication, some kind of food one has to digest to make it into one’s own flesh and blood. I prefer to see the earth as ‘the lotus paradise’, not as ‘paradise’. A lotus needs mud to grow, in this sense ‘mud’ or, as you call it, the Human Condition, is useful. No mud, no lotus. Religious systems and philosophies are part of the mud. PETER: Your preferring to see the Human Condition as ‘useful mud’ which the lotus ‘needs to grow’ is a perfect example of the Ancient Wisdom which you yourself described as ‘Ancient Foolishness’. The poetic metaphor of the mud and the lotus means that we humans need to suffer in this life on earth in order for our souls to grow to become God and live in the ‘lotus paradise’. So you are suggesting the reason we need ‘religious systems’ is so that the chosen few can then imagine that the earth is their own particular ‘lotus paradise’. Hence the Ashrams, temples, monasteries, and churches become Oasis’ of Consciousness where the devout pray and meditate to reach a state of detachment such that the earth is seen as a ‘lotus paradise’. In other words, we need the ‘mud’ of the Human Condition and its religious systems purely in order that the religious people can rise above it. It’s the old ‘we need to suffer in order to feel God’ number. If you eliminate suffering you eliminate the need for God – it’s as simple as that. You can twist it anyway you want but suffering is essential for God’s very existence. * PETER: If anyone says ‘Well, can’t we change the way it is? Does it really have to be this way?’ everybody else simply wheels out the dusty testaments of what a Mr. Socrates, Mr. Jesus, Mr. Shakyamuni, Mr. Moses, Mr. Bodhidharma and the like are ‘supposed’ to have said and says ‘These are the Rules – thus it was Spoken’. RESPONDENT: It’s only the finger pointing to the moon. PETER: So we humans are to not only to turn away from the real world, conveniently ignore the inanities of Ancient Wisdom and its obvious failure to bring results, turn a blind eye to the corruption, persecutions, repressions and power abuses that happen in all religion and groups of followers of Gurus, Masters and teachers, and certainly never dare to question the Gurus and God-men’s personal conduct or motives. One indeed would not want to look at the ‘finger’ at all – it is essential to keep looking at the ‘moon’, for fear that one sees the spiritual world as an equally horrendous world as the real world. * PETER: There is usually a clap of thunder and a flash of lightning and that’s that. End of discussion. So, Ancient Wisdom is the Wisdom of Humanity – the set of ‘rules’ how it is to be a human being on the planet. The mother of all Wisdom is ‘you can’t change Human Nature’. When I met Richard he said ‘Of course you can! Why not?’ I liked that ... Why not indeed! RESPONDENT: That’s not my understanding. But if a human wants to change its nature a set of rules is fine. One has to start somewhere. Intelligence will find its way. PETER: No, the essential requirement of the ‘set of rules’ on the spiritual path is to leave one’s intelligence and further to surrender one’s will to God. One is doubly doomed. Intelligence is thwarted by the call to trust and unquestioning faith and the demand of surrender, devotion and loyalty enslave one for the term of one’s natural life. A high price to pay for the hope of a mythical after-life. The only benefits in this life is the feeling of being one of the chosen few – one gets to feel sorry for those not especially chosen or those who are backing the wrong horse in following a lesser or false God. For this insanity one sells one’s freedom, denies one’s intelligence and surrenders ‘lock, stock and barrel’. To surrender is to admit defeat to the possibility of living, on this earth, as a flesh and blood human being – and this act of surrender inherently requires an enormous faith in an after-life – one is trapped in a vicious circle. RESPONDENT: As for Sannyas, I’ve never been into believing in God; as a matter of fact, Osho repeatedly said God doesn’t exist. PETER: I know many discourses where he talks of God, Oneness, Divine, Sacred, Holy, Nirvana, Love, Being, Buddha Nature etc. The use of words with capital letters in all his writings and books is a clear indication of God or the Divine in whatever form or description. The Eastern spiritual tradition is not monotheist like most Western spiritualism and, as such, God is a slippery concept, and deliberately so. RESPONDENT: Yes, slippery, like a bar of soap one desperately tries to grasp when taking a shower. Don’t know why you insist on talking about God. There is no God, for Christ’s sake! PETER: I keep forgetting that for Sannyasins now Rajneesh is God, not merely the Master ‘who’s finger points to the moon’. He is the moon, hence the shift in Sannyas from seeking enlightenment and freedom to grateful prayer, worship and devotional servitude to Him. I wrote a bit in my journal of the time when it first became apparent to me that Rajneesh was God and Sannyas was a Religion –
Methinks you have your own God and happily dismiss anyone else’s God – a common form of slipperiness well used in the spiritual world. * PETER: Whichever way you look at it, both Eastern and Western Spirituality clearly indicate a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe RESPONDENT: Well to try to uphold that the universe is only physical leads to absurdities when one uses common sense. Sooner or later you will have to invent some or other God, a physical one of course. The concept of a universe as being only physical is as slippery as the concept of a God... PETER: Many people have already resorted to bestowing Godly qualities or energies on the physical universe – anthropomorphism abounds, hence the term Universe with a capital U. Anyone of spiritual conviction is so far from having the ability to apply common sense that for them to even use the term leaves me gasping in incredulity. Common sense or native intelligence only begin to come into play when the human brain is freed of the absurdities and restrictive covenants applied by believing Ancient Wisdom. Then, and only then, can one look at the bulk of the social identity, and only then one can explore the core instinctual emotions. By developing a firm and self-convincing spiritual identity on top of an already enveloping social conditioning one has gone even further away from both common sense and the senses of the physical body. The denial of the body and the mind evidenced by such Wisdoms as ‘you are not the body/mind’ confirm this non-sensical retreat. It is a long and rocky road back to the senses and to common sense – it is the greatest challenge facing Humanity at this time and it is the personal journey of a life-time to accept the challenge. That the physical universe is not a concept is easily demonstrated by putting gaffer tape over your mouth, holding your nose and waiting 10 minutes. As you rip the tape from your mouth, gulping air you may well begin to consider that the physical universe is a fact for you, not just a concept. As for the slippery concept of God, this conversation stands testimony to that fact. * PETER: To call a spade a spade – it’s all God ... be it by any other name ... a ‘something else’ or ‘somewhere else’ apart from this physical universe. RESPONDENT: Part of the human condition is this eternal duality: some say the universe is all physical, some say it is all God. I don’t take sides... To take sides is to get stuck in the mud... PETER: This is the ‘one foot in each world’-philosophy upheld by many. It equates to ‘I’ll get on as best I can in the real world and I’ll sprinkle a bit of religion to keep up my ‘brownie points’ for the after-life’. The eternal duality that you talk of is the battle between good and bad, God and the Devil, Sacred and profane. As such, anyone who leaves the en-trapment of the spirit-ual world of good, God and Sacred can only be seen as going towards the bad, the Devil and profane. But, of course, there are no Devils, there are no Demons in the actual world. They exist only in the heads of those who believe in them. The Actual world is benign, benevolent, abundant, opulent, ambrosial – a literal sensual paradise, both infinite and eternal. And all happening, here, now. As for ‘one foot in each world’ – step out of both worlds, leave your ‘self’ – and ‘Self’ – behind and step into the actual world. * PETER: The belief in an after-life is exactly what prevents human beings from being here on the planet, now at this moment, as a flesh and blood only human being. Each human has a soul, or psychic entity that ‘feels’ separate and alien, and wants to desperately believe in an after-life. This ‘me’, usually evidenced as fear, is aware that the flesh and blood body will inevitably die and therefore ‘my’ only chance of surviving is to believe in an afterlife or seek Divinity and Immortality. RESPONDENT: Each human has a soul or psychic entity? So you too then? If not aren’t you human then? It’s no use speaking in general terms is it? PETER: The soul or psychic entity is an illusion, but very real in its affective presence in the human body. The primitive self combined with the instinctual programming of fear, aggression, nurture and desire is overlaid with the beliefs that have been instilled as our social identity and forms a feeling of ‘me’ trapped inside this body, looking out on the world. The feeling of not quite fitting in, lost, lonely and frightened – an alien. In the past two years since meeting Richard, this illusionary alien entity within me has been reduced by sincere and honest effort and serendipitous events to the point of non-existence. I say ‘to the point of’ deliberately, as I have yet to experience what Richard experienced as an affective psychological death. Given that my affective capacities are virtually nil, it may well be a whimper rather than a bang. So yes, I am not ‘human’ in your terms in that I am virtually free of the Human Condition of malice and sorrow. See RESPONDENT: I for one don’t desperately believe in an after-life but don’t deny it either, it’s a no-issue. PETER: So you don’t care one way or the other. You are also on record as saying – RESPONDENT: ‘To care whether a soul exists or not is to be worried about this life on earth’. PETER: Methinks that if you are not worried about this life on earth and you are an active follower of a spiritual Master who taught the doctrine of another world, another dimension, another life after death, you do indeed have both feet in the spiritual world. * PETER: It is ‘me’ – this feeling self – that prevents me, this flesh and blood body being here, now. RESPONDENT: Of course. PETER: Of course what? If you really agreed with and understood what I said, your spiritual identity – who you ‘feel’ you are – would be feeling very shaky. * PETER: Osho was never really here – he ‘only visited the planet’. RESPONDENT: There’s no doubt he stressed the importance to be here. You won’t believe it, but he is still here. PETER: You are looking for a bet each way again. So when he was here as a flesh and blood body you say he was here and now that he is dead, he is still here? It does beg the question who is ‘here’ in both these cases. Was it not his spirit, Buddha nature, soul, essence, original face? Could it be that his feeling self became His feeling ‘Self’ (God), and that was the presence you felt when he was alive and that you feel now that he is dead. Your connection is a feeling connection to God exactly as a Christian has to Jesus and as a Jew has to Jehovah. Once I saw that I was trapped in a Religion it became evident that it was only loyalty, gratitude and pride that I had to look at in order to get out. And the essential spur on was the knowledge that there was something better on offer. * PETER: Just looking at him (Osho), or talking to him, it was obvious that he was somewhere other than here in the physical, actual world. After all, that is the whole point of becoming Enlightened – to transcend ‘the body’ and the physical world. RESPONDENT: I only speak for myself, and don’t want to generalize as actualists do. To me the whole point is not about becoming enlightened or to transcend anything, because this is only more mind-stuff. The issue is to get to know myself. To do this, awareness and living in the world is paramount. PETER: May I ask if this ‘getting to know yourself’ has any purpose? Is it in the current ilk of ‘Loving yourself’, ‘being kind to yourself’, ‘forgiving yourself’, ‘finding your real self’? Depends what you’re looking for. For most people the search is for the ‘real’ self, and ... ‘lo and behold’ ... they always find God and Immortality. Strange thing that, and even stranger that every one finds a different God or becomes a different God. For an actualist the search is to find the Human Condition that one is inflicted with by society and blind nature and eliminate its manifestation – the very ‘self that one thinks and feels one is’. ‘A psychic search and destroy mission’ is how I termed it at the time. RESPONDENT: Whatever comes out of this one’d better not predict it in terms of any philosophy. Jumping to conclusions is not advisable, because it only emphasizes the ‘psychic entity’ as you call it. A philosophy is at most a finger pointing to the moon. PETER: Richard was corresponding on the Krishnamurti mailing list for a while, and many were desperately looking for a ‘philosophy of actualism’ – some guidelines to follow, some concept to grasp within the framework of the Human Condition, some way to fit it in or ‘clip it on’ to the beliefs they already had. Finding no Master to follow, no philosophy to espouse, nothing to fit in with their accrued knowledge, they all disappeared over the cyber-hill to re-run the ‘Tried and Failed’ methods outlined by Ancient Wisdom. Actual freedom is a method to become free of the Human Condition – not a philosophy – and a lot of useful writing and information is available to make Actual Freedom readily accessible for any intrepid adventurers. RESPONDENT: To discover oneself is an adventure. There are no maps fit to everybody’s needs. One has to find out for oneself and in this sense one is alone. PETER: To discover oneself on the spiritual path is a gruelling, serious and arduous business – the success rate to become a God-man is only 0.0001% . The path is so well-worn by now with everyone treading it, it is as boring as all get-out. The path has been widened so much that it fits everybody’s needs – the spiritual world is a very broad church indeed. Everyone is a God and everything is God, everyone is spiritual and everything is spiritual, any fantasy is accommodated and taken on board. Gullibility reigns unimpeded by any semblance of sensibility or credulity. * PETER: I did start to get close to Enlightenment at one point, but by then it had already begun to lose its attraction as a lifestyle. There is all that celibacy business, keeping up the God image, fawning disciples, the isolation of being God, the impossibility of seeing others as fellow human beings, the whole Religion bit, etc. RESPONDENT: Is enlightenment really that formal? You picture it as not being attractive indeed, yuck! As for what you describe, fawning disciples, keeping up a God image, etc. Sannyas to me is freedom, meaning that anything is possible, even fawning, provided one is aware of it. PETER: So, Sannyas is freedom to be ‘fawning, provided one is aware of it’? Sounds awfully close to the Zen martial art proposition that to kill another is a holy act – provided one is ‘aware’. It matters not what one does – get angry, fight, kill, blindly follow orders, as long as one is ‘aware’. In an article, in the ‘What Is Enlightenment’ magazine, Ramesh Balsekar is on record as saying –
To stand back and to be ‘aware’ of what you do, be it something plainly ridiculous or something that is harmful to others, is but another slippery version of ‘it is all God’s will’. All is but self-justification leading to self-gratification leading eventually to the extreme delusion of the Self-Aggrandizement of Enlightenment. This insanity is institutionalized by the formation of the various groupings that espouse their version of the ‘Truth’. To be a member of one of those institutions is slavery and madness, definitely not freedom. * RESPONDENT: To want to become an Enlightened God-man is too big an aim. No wonder you failed. PETER: I am immensely happy to have failed. By everybody else’s terms I am a total failure in life. RESPONDENT: Funny, Osho called himself a total failure too... PETER: He was referring to his failure in the ‘real’ world but he called himself ‘Master of Masters’ in the spiritual world, thereby crowning himself the most successful and most powerful of all the Masters. For an Indian this is to reach the pinnacle... and then he even claimed to have thrown Buddha out of his bedroom... The facts show a different picture. He was an Enlightened God-man with an international reputation, albeit for notorious and criminal acts. With only some 50,000 disciples, however, he was not big on numbers of followers. So in terms of his chosen profession, he has been second-rate at best, and with the inevitable decline in His religion will come the decline in his status and fame as a Guru or a God. History will remember him only for his notoriety and for the deeds on the Ranch. That makes him twice failed ... once as a flesh and blood human being and secondly as a God. ‘Twas a silly thing to do, to take on the Christians in America, for it proved to be his personal Waterloo. The whole Guru-disciple business in the East has reached its peak and is in decline as Spiritualism waters down into a popular Oprah-ism of moral and ethical platitudes and splinters into increasingly bizarre and desperate concepts. Many, no doubt, will still seek to find God or become God, but increasingly intelligence and open communication will supersede superstition and censorship. To come to one’s senses, figuratively and literally, is now the achievable destiny of those humans willing to make the effort. ... And it beats Enlightenment by a country mile.
Peter’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
