Page Seven Of A Continuing Dialogue With
KONRAD: I assert that ... no ‘I’ separate from thought exists ... ... the reason why I make such a big fuss of exactly this point [is] as long as you talk in terms of the ‘I’ must be eliminated, you must free yourself from the ‘self’, or, as you do, stating that: [Richard] ‘What is central to my approach is the elimination of an identity in any way, shape or form’, it just betrays, that you are unable to see, that there is no identity to eliminate.
RICHARD: Oh, I get this ploy from many long-time spiritual seekers ... they get to a point where they fondly imagine that there is no problem. The ‘I’ is an illusion, they say, so nothing has to be done once this is realised. This is nothing but spiritual masturbation. And thus all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides go on ad infinitum.
KONRAD: Yes, Richard, your reaction is very predictable.
RICHARD: Oh? And just whereabouts did you predict this? And if you did not forecast it ... then it what way is it predictable? Do you mean to say that my reply is something that you could have expected given the nature of what has been discussed so far? If not, then just what, exactly, do you mean by this apparently useless comment? In what way does this statement add to your argument? Because it reads like sarcasm ... and to be sarcastic is to be contemptuous; it is pomposity thinly disguised as pointed wit.
Personally, I like to be trenchant in as jocose a way as is possible with the English language ... it is much more fun that way. Being facetious beats sarcasm hands down, any day, because it is waggish, droll ... it highlights the ludicrous. Besides, sarcasm is a subtle form of abuse ... verbal violence. To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale (so too with irony ... just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful). They are thus both pathetic wit, by definition. As the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’ – which indicates sorrow – then the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans.
KONRAD: You are right, when you say that this insight does not end all murders, rapes, tortures, domestic violence and child abuses. Something else is required for that.
RICHARD: Aye ... and that something else is that the ‘I’ must be eliminated and not merely realised to be an illusion. This illusory ‘I’ must undergo an illusory death. This death, when it happens, is indistinguishable from physical death ... it is that startling in its intensity. This is a far cry from you ‘realising that this ‘I’, this identity, IS an illusion’ that you referred to in your previous post. Becoming free from this – at times very real – identity requires far more than the illusory nature of ‘I’ being merely ‘totally realized, in the sense that it is observed to be true’ ... as you so accurately described in your reporting of your own personal experience.
KONRAD: Still, this only shows that the pretences some people make about this transformation is wrong. Not the insight itself.
RICHARD: If you take the insight to be sufficient to release you from all human suffering, forever, then you are fooling yourself in a most particularly treacherous way.
KONRAD: But ... you show that you are incapable of seeing that this insight, this understanding is correct.
RICHARD: The insight that any ‘I’ is an illusion is correct ... but the insight requires action to actualise the understanding. This ‘I’ must die a psychological death ... its ending is commensurate to its pernicious existence.
KONRAD: Since this understanding is basic for enlightenment, in fact is its igniter, your claim that you have moved to something beyond it is clearly false.
RICHARD: Not so, Konrad ... I understood the implications of understanding this insight very well indeed. In fact, I have detailed this self-same matter to you before. Vis.:
I also have detailed the actualisation of this insight to you before as well. Vis.:
I have also detailed the actual moment of this actualisation of the insight to you before. May I quote from ‘A Brief Personal History’ which is to be found on my Web Page (and which I sent to you at the beginning of our correspondence)? Vis.:
I must ask, at this point: Do you ever read what I write and send to you?
KONRAD: And, another thing, for somebody who is able to see the world directly, I take back that there are no infinities, for now I have encountered one. You stubbornness to keep up your misunderstanding is, indeed, infinite.
RICHARD: Maybe it is because I know what I talk of ... out of my on-going experience. Maybe – with your propensity for changing your mind – you cannot comprehend that someone, somewhere, can be consistent. Maybe you are confusing consistency for stubbornness.
KONRAD: I refer to this one: [Konrad]: ‘But you misunderstand me. You read my explanations backwards. You think, that because I define the ‘I’ as a thought that controls the body I am defending this as a necessity’. [Richard]: ‘I do not ‘think’ this ... you repeatedly tell me so. Are you going to change your mind again?’ [Konrad]: ‘I do not have to. For you are clearly either unwilling or unable to see that this is NOT what I am saying’.
RICHARD: Look, Konrad, I am not going to wade through all of your posts to me about this subject ... two quotes of yours is all that is needed. Now I ask you this: please read them this time – actually read them – and you will see that you say that an ‘I’ is a necessity. Vis.:
Do you see it there? You clearly say: ‘a certain thought ... controls the body ... your ‘will’ produces a conclusion and this conclusion is then allowed to control your body ... I assert that this conclusion is a form of ‘I’’ . And here is the second one. Vis.:
Do you see it there? You clearly say: ‘in this witnessing, there is only the ‘process’ ... ... this witnessing is therefore not put into words ... for [speaking] is only possible when an ‘I’ is formed’ . You emphasise this impossibility of operating and functioning by following that statement with: ‘if all thought stops ... the action of speaking is then impossible ... for there is no ‘I’ that can speak ... ALL action is then impossible, including speaking (and typing)’ .
I only go on what you say, Konrad ... and you clearly say that without an ‘I’ that all action is impossible.
KONRAD: Your so-called ‘capability to see the world directly’ distorts it in such a way that you do not see that this is not at all what I am saying.
RICHARD: This is such a cheap shot that it is unbecoming of a person who teaches logic to other people as a profession ... and is patently untrue anyway. My reading of what you write has nothing to do with my condition. I have shown these words of yours to other people – who are not able to see the world directly – and they all tell me that you are clearly saying that without an ‘I’ you cannot operate in the world.
KONRAD: I repeat: you read it backwards, and therefore you do not understand. You do not see, that I deny that the ‘I’ has the identity most people, including you, say it has.
RICHARD: No, I understand all right. For example, you say that the nature of ‘I’ (what you call seeing the ‘I’-ness of ‘I’ ) is that no ‘I’ exists separate from thought. You explained this to me in another way only recently. Vis.:
These are your words, Konrad, and this is exactly what the Krishnamurtiites say ... that ‘I’ is the product of thought. In what way do you justify saying that ‘I deny that the ‘I’ has the identity most people say it has’ . Now, what I ask people to look at is this: What about the sense of identity as feeling ... which in the enlightened state this identity as feeling becomes ‘Pure Being’?
People are so busy blaming only thought. This is the subterfuge that ‘me’ – busily ‘being’ and potentially becoming ‘Pure Being’ – throws up to remain in existence.
KONRAD: You are showing here that you are either unwilling or unable to understand abstract definitions. I think you are unable. An inability that might be the direct consequence of your ‘actualism’.
RICHARD: I can understand abstract definitions okay – to the degree that they are applicable – but what you are presenting is simply the same old stuff that has been handed out for ages by the great thinkers and sages of history. It is the ‘Tried and True’.
KONRAD: Let me give one example, in what way you misunderstand. (Sigh ...)
RICHARD: Why the ‘sigh’ comment? Are you becoming tired of your own verbiage? Speaking personally, I find all that you write to be such fascinating reading ... because I am amazed that you are able to get away with teaching logic as a profession. I always understood logicians to be consistent, clear and precise.
KONRAD: In astronomy there was an amateur astronomer, who wanted to find comets. I do not remember his name, I only remember it begins with an M. (Maelzel, perhaps? It is a long time ago that I studied astronomy). Now, when he chased after these comets, there were certain objects in the sky he frequently mistook for comets. It were ‘diffuse’ cloud-like, radiant objects. (Remember, that the light of a comet can be very weak, and therefore the mind can be distracted by any radiant object.) So he began to classify them on a map. Every such object he denoted with an M and a number. Now other astronomers became curious about these ‘clouds’. first they assumed that it were certain light emitting, gaseous objects. For that was, after all, what they saw through their telescopes. But when they began to take spectra of these clouds, they discovered that these spectra were very similar to the spectra of suns. If it were gases, the spectra would be different. So this ruled out this hypothesis. After closer examination, with far better equipment, they discovered, that one of these clouds, denoted by M 31 (andromeda nebula) consisted of very small ‘dots’ that HAD to be suns. (And there was more, the discovery of certain variable stars, called Cepheids. But I do not want to become too technical. The point is clear enough (I hope).) But this meant, that these clouds were far more distant than anyone had ever imagined. In fact, the light of M 31 takes no less than 2 million years to reach us. This explained why these ‘dots’ were so small. They were not small, but they were at a very large distance. To arrive at this understanding, they first had to face the fact that the universe was far larger than they previously imagined. Or, to say it in other words, as long as they are unable to imagine that the universe might be far greater than they believed it to be, they could not understand what these gaseous like clouds really were. Now the common understanding of these clouds, the ‘common sense’ of them were, that it were gaseous nebula. So in the minds of everybody they were observed as such. But later, with the emergence of better equipment, and also a revolution in their thinking, they discovered that it were complete star systems, and, consequently, it was discovered that our planet also was situated in one such system of which there turned out to be millions and millions in the universe. So these innocently looking clouds caused a mayor change in the observation of the universe, and our place in it. Now, what has this to do with your misunderstanding?’
RICHARD: Goodness me, Konrad ... how on earth would I know? You are the one who is writing all this ... I would have thought that you, at least, should know why you are doing it. But, here goes ... I will give it my best shot. Let me see ... um ... you are trying to tell me that the universe is bigger than you thought it was?
I have always maintained that it is what it is: infinite and eternal. But, as you want me to believe that it is finite, so that you can demonstrate your mathematical prowess about what happened with time before the fictitious ‘Big Bang’, I can only assume that you are regressing and looking through the wrong end of the telescope. Maybe you could turn it around and look the other way? I have always maintained that my condition is 180 degrees opposite to the ‘Tried and True’.
KONRAD: It is this: In my eyes you look like somebody, who has looked through these early telescopes, and concludes, like those early astronomers, that you are looking at a gaseous, light emitting cloud. And then, when there are better instruments, you assert that your instrument is good enough. No, even worse, the instrument you use to look cannot be improved in any way. Therefore you refuse to look through them, and, besides, you are able to observe the world directly, so your first conclusion, that it is a gaseous nebula, is not an interpretation, but a statement of fact. Therefore you stick to it. (I hope you understand that all this is metaphorically. I do not say that you are defending any form of astronomy. Maybe you do, but that is not the issue here.)
RICHARD: Oh ... you want me to look through your telescope instead of mine? Why? What is so good about your life? Do you experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body? Are you free of the Human Condition? Are you blithesome and benign? Are you free from malice and sorrow? Are you happy and harmless? Are you free of fear and aggression? Are you carefree and considerate? Are you free from nurture and desire? Are you gay and benevolent? Are you free from anguish and animosity? Are you felicitous and friendly?
KONRAD: This is the same manner you stick to your ‘actualism’, and the observations it makes possible.
RICHARD: In case you do not understand what I have just written (above), let me put it this way: Do you ever get sad? Do you ever get lonely? Do you ever get sorrowful? Do you ever get depressed? Do you ever get angry? Do you ever get spiteful? Do you ever get envious? Do you ever get hateful? Do you ever get bored? Do you ever get peeved? Do you ever get irritable? Do you ever get anxious? Do you ever get afraid? Do you ever get guilty? Do you ever get resentful? Do you ever get ashamed? Do you ever get apprehensive? Do you ever get embarrassed? Do you ever get distressed? Do you ever get jealous? Do you ever get self-conscious? Do you ever get fearful? Do you ever get aggressive? Do you ever get ... I could go on and on, but do you get the point? Yes? No?
The point is that do you ever experience any of this list of feelings, emotions and passions (and the list is by no means exhaustive)? Because if you do not, and you can unequivocally declare that you will never, ever experience them again ... then you are free from the Human Condition.
But if you do, and you cannot unequivocally declare that you will never, ever experience them again ... then all your prose is intellectual masturbation.
KONRAD: This causes two things. 1: You deny that it is possible to look at things, (in our discussion the ‘I’) purely abstract, or you are unable to do so.
RICHARD: Yet I have already sent to you, many times, my description of me seeing this ‘I’ back in 1980. Do you wish for me to copy and paste it all over again?
KONRAD: Therefore you are unable to see, that I do not defend the continuous existence of ‘I’. I do nothing of the sort, for this is the same as defending an illusion.
RICHARD: Yet you do defend the necessity of ‘I’. Here, let me copy and paste your own words. Vis.:
KONRAD: What I AM saying is that it might appear that there is such a thing, but in reality it is not an identity, but something completely different. Its true identity I have shown in this robot metaphor.
RICHARD: Except that it completely ignores one pertinent fact. Blind nature does not endow robots or computers with survival instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire. It is these instinctual passions that form the rudimentary self that all sentient being are ruled by. Now the human animal, with its ability to know its impending death, transforms the physical survival instinct into an emotion-driven will to survive as a psychological and psychic entity ... ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ a soul. In the Eastern Mystical Enlightenment process, ‘I’ as ego, desiring to perpetuate itself for ever and a day, passionately feels itself to really be ‘me’ as soul – and an immortal soul at that – and becomes ‘Pure Being’. It then identifies as being ‘I am everything and Everything is Me’ (this narcissistic self-aggrandisement is epitomised in the phrase ‘I am God’). No robot or computer does this.
KONRAD: I agree, that it has many shortcomings, and that it needs to be worked out more fully, but it shows clearly the essence of the true identity of the ‘I’.
RICHARD: But it does not at all ... the ‘true identity’ of the identity is affective, not cerebral. You came close to acknowledging this yourself in your last post. Vis.:
Do you see the word ‘feeling’ in there?
KONRAD: 2: You deny that it is possible to go through a transformation of the nervous system that makes you capable to see that that what I say the true nature of the ‘I’ is, is not a theory, but a statement of fact.
RICHARD: I am not disputing that you have had something happen to your ‘nervous system’ that allows you to see the first layer of what the identity is made up of. And the fact that you have this ‘process’ going on shows me that you understand this experientially ... this puts you ahead of any Krishnamurtiite who understands this matter only intellectually. It is the deeper layer that I am endeavouring to get you to look at ... otherwise you will remain stuck at the level of the ‘Tried and True’. You may even become enlightened and therefore perpetuate all the suffering of humankind forever and a day ... just the same as all the Masters and Messiahs and the Saints and the Sages and the Avatars and the Saviours have done for millennia.
KONRAD: You assert blindly, that others, who HAVE gone through it, and see what I see, and the things they also say about it is their delusion.
RICHARD: Why do you say ‘blindly’ ? Do you not read what I write? For if you did, then how could you say that I am ‘blindly’ saying what I say? This does not make sense. You tell me that you have read my Web Page where I explain this matter thoroughly ... just what tiddly little bits did you read?
KONRAD: However, the only thing you can make clear to such a person is your own inability to see this, and therefore you clearly show that your pretences about actualism being better is simply false.
RICHARD: Yet it is obviously better ... I never get infuriated like you do. I never have to use the ‘good’ emotions to restrain myself from acting on my ‘bad’ emotions with principles, like you do. Principles – ethics and/or morality – are only necessary when there is a wayward ‘I’ creating havoc inside the body ... and these symptoms of an ‘I’ are occurring in you. For me, every moment again is a joy and a delight. So how is it false?
KONRAD: I can even go further. Your actuality even blinds you for seeing that it is an inability. For you believe that the world can be observed directly, without thought and thinking intervening.
RICHARD: Round and round we go again ... however, I can say it again: I say that the world can be observed directly only when there is no ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul extant in the body. Thinking may or may not occur ... but feelings have disappeared entirely. If purposeful action is required by the circumstances, thought swings into action. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness going on.
KONRAD: Therefore you take this misunderstanding as an observation.
RICHARD: No, Konrad, no ... it is not a misunderstanding at all. You say that ‘I’ is a product of thought, therefore there can never be an absence of ‘I’ without an absence of thought ... for you, this is. Therefore, you cannot comprehend that it is possible to be able to operate and function – do purposeful action – without an ‘I’. I am suggesting that you look deeper into the nature of identity ... deeper than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did; deeper than Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did; deeper than Mr. Rinzai did ... deeper than any of these revered peoples. Can you do this? If you do you will find that the identity – as ‘me’ as soul – is a product of feelings ... and at root the rudimentary self of the instinctual passions.
Will you do this?
KONRAD: You are unable to see that your mind is making an interpretation of what I say that is simply and flatly false, and you stick to it, for you cannot even imagine that this is a clear case of that what I have been telling you all along.
RICHARD: No, no, no ... not at all. I am not ‘making an interpretation’ . I read what you say ... I understand what you say ... I know what you say experientially ... I lived in the enlightened state for eleven years.
KONRAD: Reality can NOT be observed directly. If you believe that, you make such, sorry to say, stupid mistakes as you are making here.
RICHARD: I agree ... reality cannot be observed directly for it is an illusion just like the ‘I’. Only actuality can be directly experienced ... and only when any identity whatsoever becomes extinct.
KONRAD: If THAT is what Actualism does with the mind, then it is very, very dangerous.
RICHARD: Oh? And in what way is it dangerous? 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone ... with these normal minds steering the ship. Scientists – with their highly developed abstract thinking and ‘heavy mathematics’ – invented the atomic and nuclear bombs ... are these not dangerous?
What on earth are you talking about?
KONRAD: I have seen this same inability to follow arguments in their contents, and to change it in such a way that it becomes ‘personal’ in Vineeto.
RICHARD: Come now, Konrad ... it was you who had the incredible inability to follow an argument with Vineeto. You unnecessarily complicated what was an otherwise lucid E-Mail correspondence about human relationship and the utter failure of abstract logic to produce total peace and harmony, with involved, complex and convoluted cerebalisation. Indeed, you had to dress-up your native intelligence – commonsense is epitomised by sensible rationality and sensitive reason – with ‘extensive and thorough logical analysis and heavy mathematics’ in order to justify the way you avoided answering Vineeto’s very intelligible original question. Here, let me copy and paste for your edification. Vis.:
And your answer had nothing whatsoever to do with the question ... which was clearly about human relationship and not technological progress. Vis.:
Make use of your memory course and see if you can remember doing this, Konrad. Because you have been trying this stunt with me for ages now ... and you just do not address the issue of the Human Condition and logic’s arrant failure in the area of human relationship. Nevertheless, Vineeto did try again. Vis.:
And just who was it that felt attacked and felt it to be personal? Find out by reading your enlightened reply. Vis.:
Undeterred by such animosity, Vineeto tried again ... I considered these sentences of hers to you very reasonable. Vis.:
Now, having re-read this ... do you still maintain that ‘I have seen this same inability to follow arguments in their contents, and to change it in such a way that it becomes ‘personal’ in Vineeto’ , eh?
KONRAD: For she also took my pointing out to her that certain things can only be understood if the intellectual equipment is developed enough as a personal attack .
RICHARD: I think not ... she was clearly talking about human relationship. You ignored this completely and aired your knowledge of higher mathematics to demonstrate that she could not know what she was talking about if she could not understand certain formulae. Let me copy and paste it for you. Vis.:
Now, I ask you ... what has all that to do with human relationship? What has all that to do with peace and harmony? You made yourself look so silly, Konrad, and by bringing this gaffe up again here ... you make yourself look silly all over again.
KONRAD: She misunderstood it to be statements to the effect that I was telling her that she was not up to my standards, while this was not at all the point that I was making.
RICHARD: Okay ... here is your opportunity to explain. What was the point that you were making?
KONRAD: [Another respondent] was right, (remember him?) when he said that actualism is a dangerous vision.
RICHARD: I remember him, yes, he is a man who has apparently studied philosophy at the university level ... but what does he know about this particular discussion (anyway, he never said that actualism was a dangerous vision, to my recollection ... could you please copy and paste his comments so that we can all see what his reasons for saying this were)?
KONRAD: I did not believe it then, but now that I see it in operation, and see that it destroys the ability to think abstractly.
RICHARD: Yet I can think abstract thought as required ... I learnt algebra and trigonometry in high school, for example, and can appreciate their contribution to technological development. As for logical thought ... my problem solving rationality operates well in the technological field, as I have used it often throughout my life ... even in these latter years. Where is the difficulty?
KONRAD: I see it is dangerous.
RICHARD: Here is that ‘dangerous’ statement again ... could you please explain in what way it is dangerous to be utterly free from malice and sorrow ... so much so that I am completely happy and harmless? With all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that have blighted this fair earth of ours for all these aeons that the Saints and Saviours and Masters and Messiahs and Gurus and God-Men having been setting the example to follow, do you not consider that the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’? Is it not high time for something new?
How much longer are you going to go on defending the indefensible?
KONRAD: And that it is totally worthless.
RICHARD: And in what way is peace-on-earth totally worthless? Do you like seeing all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides being paraded onto your television screen or in your newspaper or on the cinema screen or wherever it is that you keep in touch with what is going on in this world of people, things and events? Do you want to preserve this dingy neighbourhood, that you live in, as it is for ever and a day?
Just what do you want for yourself and your fellow human beings?
KONRAD: So much for actualism.
RICHARD: And so sayest the erudite Konrad. Okay, I would like to draw your attention to the following point. Vis.:
Goodness me, I have no idea what you hope to achieve by such dissimulation ... this goes beyond confronting another person with your fantasising in order to make them ‘think hard’ . This is such straight-forward lying that it makes all of your arguments look pathetically weak in the reader’s eyes.
The Third Alternative
(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)
Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.