|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RESPONDENT No. 31: ... Ramana Maharshi said that if you point out wrong in others, it is a greater wrong. RICHARD: Who did he say that to? (SNIP) RESPONDENT No. 54: ... I was just pointing out that Richard was possibly being a little ironic. RICHARD: I can assure you that there is no irony in me ... I am entirely sincere. I was merely nipping this hypocritical wisdom in the bud before it bloomed into yet another (unexamined) pithy aphorism tirelessly trotted out by those who cannot think for themselves. For a hoary example (which I have used before on this Mailing List): Those who know do not speak; those who speak do not know’. Who spoke those words of wisdom? Surely not those who know (for they do not speak). If it was spoken by those who speak ... then it is not worth the rice-paper it was written upon all those centuries ago as they do not know of what they speak. Great stuff, is it not, to think for oneself instead of relying upon hallowed (but specious) ‘ancient wisdom’? RESPONDENT No. 25: I think you are entirely missing the deeper meaning of the statement – trapped as you appear to be by the apparent contradiction inherent in the surface logic. RICHARD: I am somewhat surprised you would say this ... seeing that we had an exhaustive correspondence on the ‘deeper meaning of the statement’ some time ago on this very Mailing List. RESPONDENT No. 25: Lao Tzu’s words point to the fact that words cannot but represent actuality – they are not that which they re-present (excepting of course the word ‘word’ and perhaps a few others). RICHARD: If you say so ... nevertheless the pithy aphorism as quoted is taken as read by many a person, who does not splash about in shallow waters, just as the ‘if you point out wrong in others it is a greater wrong’ wisdom is taken as read. RESPONDENT No. 25: After all, words cannot capture the multi-dimensionality of living actuality – no matter how lengthy or erudite the discourse. RICHARD: Au contraire ... they can indeed by those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge. RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard, is sincerely wanting better than just plain wanting? RICHARD: Indeed it is ... sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté. RESPONDENT: Why do we teach (and were taught) to want? RICHARD: So as to change one’s lot in life.
RESPONDENT: Why do we teach (and were taught) to want? RICHARD: So as to change one’s lot in life. RESPONDENT: Hum how stupid are you Richard, we have been doing that for 3 million years, and each change is for the worse, for it is thought invented. The consciousness that created what is, cannot fix the ‘what is’ for it is the what is. RESPONDENT No. 56: From here it seems that want itself is the very problem – want is the perception of lack. We do not want to want, we want to have. But we think we need to want, and for that reason we choose to want. Here’s a startling proposal for you: the things we value come to us not because we want them, but in spite of us wanting them. Wanting them is a hindrance to getting them. Want is just like hate, something to be let go of (i.e., allowed to be there with no resistance) as soon as it is seen. Want is an alarm clock revealing unnecessary attitudes that can be released. RICHARD: I can understand my previous co-respondent rushing past the ‘sincerely wanting’ part of what I wrote as he has an investment to maintain ... but you snipped the sequence off entirely and fell to discussing the plain or garden version of ‘want’ and ‘wanting’ as if you were, in fact, responding accurately to what I am conveying. Here is what I wrote in sequence: [Richard]: ‘... those who are sincerely wanting to take the plunge’. [No. 10]: ‘I wonder Richard, is sincerely wanting better than just plain wanting?’ [Richard]: ‘Indeed it is ... sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté’. [No. 10]: ‘Why do we teach (and were taught) to want?’ [Richard]: ‘So as to change one’s lot in life. [endquotes]. If you are genuinely interested in discussing this subject I will expand upon my ‘sincerity works to awaken one’s dormant naiveté’ sentence so as to start the ball rolling. Because it is quite simple: naiveté is the closest one can come to innocence whilst being a ‘self’. RESPONDENT: Please do not Richard, for ignorance expanded, is our worlds problem. RICHARD: Why is it that you align naiveté with ‘ignorance’ ... and not ‘innocence’? For to be naive is to be virginal, unaffected, unselfconsciously artless ... in short: ingenuous. Naiveté is a much-maligned word, having the common assumption that it implies nescience, whereas to be naive means to be simple, uncomplicated, unsophisticated, straightforward and down-to-earth. The wisdom of the enlightened ones is derived from an intelligence inured to naiveté: to such an intellect, to be guileless appears to be stupid, oblivious, obtuse, unaware, unintelligent, brainless or dim-witted. Needless is it to say it is innocence expanded which would solve what you call ‘our world’s problem’?
RESPONDENT No 21: From ‘Think On These Things’ ... 1964; p76. ‘You cannot learn how to love, but what you can do is to observe hate and put it gently aside. Don’t battle against hate, don’t say how terrible it is to hate people, but see hate for what it is and let it drop away; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let hate take root in your mind. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem’. RESPONDENT: Perfectly spoken K, the problem is we already did, now what? RICHARD: What you can now do is to observe love and put it gently aside also. Do not protect love, do not say how transforming it is to love people, but see love for what it is and let it drop away as well; brush it aside, it is not important. What is important is not to let love take root in your heart. If you encourage love, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem for you and your partner ... and all humankind. RESPONDENT: Agreed 100% Richard, Thanks. RICHARD: You are welcome ... after all, to discuss how to become a totally agreeable person, to be and to associate with, is what this Mailing List is for, is it not? RESPONDENT: Hell no it isn’t. RICHARD: Then why did you say ‘agreed 100% Richard’ in reply to my response to you writing ‘... the problem is we already did, now what’? RESPONDENT: And if a statement is made that is true, then agreement is needed ... RICHARD: Are you saying that what I wrote in response to you writing ‘... the problem is we already did, now what’ is a true statement? RESPONDENT: ... if not then speak what is needed as well. RICHARD: I am speaking ‘what is needed’ ... are you? I do consider that what I wrote (further above) most certainly needs to be spoken ... again and again. Vis:
In the interests of exemplifying ‘people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter’
RESPONDENT No. 33: Will you consider the possibility that what you concluded might have been based on inadequate contact with and exposure to a foreign land? RICHARD: No ... what was seen was seen with both eyes open: what was seen was the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. Such that there is no need to ever visit any other country. RESPONDENT No. 33: So, India could have been any other country ... say, Australia, and the conclusion that you arrived at would have been the same. Right? RICHARD: Yes ... generally speaking, any country will serve the purpose of displaying the human condition in all its sickness. RESPONDENT No. 33: Then, why single out India for your awakening or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was where I happened to be at the time that I saw the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. It was in the fifth month of being on the subcontinent ... in a small hamlet, in the foothills of Uttar Pradesh, a thousand feet or so above the town of Almora, near the Nepalese/Tibetan border, where the local deity was Kasa Devi (feminine). There had been a cumulative build-up of imprints in the months prior, of course. RESPONDENT No. 33: Interesting. That is my ancestral place, right there in the Himalayas. The very cradle of the non-dualistic thought. RICHARD: As ‘non-dualistic thought’ ultimately stems from the Upanishads you must be referring to the sages and seers who were active circa 1000 BCE-600 BCE when you say ‘the very cradle’... are you speaking of the Himalayas in general or specifically the area I visited? The same for ‘my ancestral place’ ... specifically the area I visited or the Himalayas in general? Also ... what do you mean by ‘ancestral’ (traceable via a definitive family tree or vaguely as in lost in the mists of time)? * RESPONDENT No. 33: Not that I mind it, I am curious. What was different about India that caused your awakening, or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was not an ‘awakening’ (the awakening into love, compassion, intelligence and truth had already occurred three or so years previously) ... it was directly seeing the human condition in action irrespective of any culture or society. What was different about India was that the whole purpose of the visit had been to see, first hand, what others had made of similar awakenings (what is generally called spiritual enlightenment). As such I doubt that it would have occurred so readily in Australia ... given that information regarding such experiences comes to the monotheistic-based Australian culture via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. Whereas India is steeped in the spirituality of the nature such as this Mailing List is predicated upon. RESPONDENT No. 33: The above paragraphs are not clear to me. What are you saying? RICHARD: It cannot put it more succinctly than this: the human condition was seen, in all its sickness, irrespective of any culture or society (any exoteric and esoteric differences). RESPONDENT No. 33: You seem to be acknowledging that the spirituality of India helped you realize something. In what way? RICHARD: It was seen that essentially there was no difference in kind (only a difference in degree) between Western spirituality and Eastern spirituality ... and that the many and various saints, sages and seers (which included yours truly at the time) were as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone, anywhere, anytime. RESPONDENT No. 33: If the realization is that there is only this body ... RICHARD: There was no realisation ‘there is only this body’ ... it was nothing more and nothing less than a direct seeing as has already been described above. RESPONDENT No. 33: ... why would any spiritual tradition, monotheistic or of any other denomination, would be necessary? Please explain your point fully. Thanks. RICHARD: Perhaps I could explain it this way: a seed was planted in India as described above (in 1984); it germinated whilst living in isolation on an uninhabited tropical island off the north-eastern Australian seaboard (in 1985); it flourished during an intimate relationship with a remarkable woman (commencing 1986); fruition came in 1992 (and it was not until 1992 that it became obvious that what I was is this flesh and blood body). There never was a realisation ... the actual became apparent of its own accord in 1992 (because of what was seen in 1984). It took this long as it was a monumental undertaking to break through maybe 3,000-5,000 years of atavistic wisdom. RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, the same can be done in four hours, however it takes the loss of life to experience it. RICHARD: If you were to actually read what is written (instead of scrolling to the bottom to add your pithy comment) you would have noticed that what you are talking about had already occurred in 1981 ... and taking only 5-6 seconds. I will copy-paste it down here so as to save you looking for it:
I only draw your attention to this as you have previously explained to me what your four hour Transformation includes. Vis.:
That reference was in an e-mail I wrote to you 30 days ago wherein you had written:
To which I responded:
But you did not reply ... maybe it is because you are only noticing my ‘manner of speaking’
RESPONDENT No. 33: What was different about India that caused your awakening, or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was not an ‘awakening’ (the awakening into love, compassion, intelligence and truth had already occurred three or so years previously) ... it was directly seeing the human condition in action irrespective of any culture or society. What was different about India was that the whole purpose of the visit had been to see, first hand, what others had made of similar awakenings (what is generally called spiritual enlightenment). As such I doubt that it would have occurred so readily in Australia ... given that information regarding such experiences comes to the monotheistic-based Australian culture via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. Whereas India is steeped in the spirituality of the nature such as this Mailing List is predicated upon. RESPONDENT No. 33: The above paragraphs are not clear to me. What are you saying? RICHARD: It cannot put it more succinctly than this: the human condition was seen, in all its sickness, irrespective of any culture or society (any exoteric and esoteric differences). RESPONDENT No. 33: You seem to be acknowledging that the spirituality of India helped you realize something. In what way? RICHARD: It was seen that essentially there was no difference in kind (only a difference in degree) between Western spirituality and Eastern spirituality ... and that the many and various saints, sages and seers (which included yours truly at the time) were as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone, anywhere, anytime. RESPONDENT No. 33: If the realization is that there is only this body ... RICHARD: There was no realisation ‘there is only this body’ ... it was nothing more and nothing less than a direct seeing as has already been described above. RESPONDENT No. 33: ... why would any spiritual tradition, monotheistic or of any other denomination, would be necessary? Please explain your point fully. Thanks. RICHARD: Perhaps I could explain it this way: a seed was planted in India as described above (in 1984); it germinated whilst living in isolation on an uninhabited tropical island off the north-eastern Australian seaboard (in 1985); it flourished during an intimate relationship with a remarkable woman (commencing 1986); fruition came in 1992 (and it was not until 1992 that it became obvious that what I was is this flesh and blood body). There never was a realisation ... the actual became apparent of its own accord in 1992 (because of what was seen in 1984). It took this long as it was a monumental undertaking to break through maybe 3,000-5,000 years of atavistic wisdom. RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, the same can be done in four hours, however it takes the loss of life to experience it. RICHARD: If you were to actually read what is written (instead of scrolling to the bottom to add your
pithy comment) you would have noticed that what you are talking about had already occurred in 1981 ... and taking only 5-6
seconds. I will copy-paste it down here so as to save you looking for it: [Richard]: ‘It was not an ‘awakening’ (the
awakening into love, compassion, intelligence and truth had already occurred three or so years previously) ... (...) the whole
purpose of the visit had been to see, first hand, what others had made of similar awakenings (what is generally called spiritual
enlightenment)’ [endquote]. I only draw your attention to this as you have previously explained to me what your four hour
Transformation includes. Vis.: [Respondent to Richard]: ‘There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not
like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. The cause of this Transformation will be people who
speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has
been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born’
[endquote]. That reference was in an e-mail I wrote to you 30 days ago wherein you had written: [Respondent]: ‘Agreed 100%
Richard, Thanks’ [endquote]. To which I responded: [Richard]: ‘In the interests of exemplifying ‘people who speak the
truth to themselves 100% no matter’ could you please expand upon your ‘agreed 100% Richard’ reply to the above
paragraph? [endquote] RESPONDENT: No Richard ... RICHARD: Ahh ... good. Am I to take it then that you have read all the above? RESPONDENT: ... it is given I delete most of the messages not addressed to me, they are mostly full of comparison and theory, at times I skim the rhetoric and find a Jewel, however for the most part it is repetition of age old thought. RICHARD: Okay ... and just where in what I write is this ‘repetition of age old thought’ to be found (given that you said ‘No Richard’ to my conjecture regarding your cavalier way of reading/responding)? RESPONDENT: The Transformation of our old will not come from discussion about our world, it will only come from the death of us. RICHARD: I am well aware of what you speak (a transformation of the old in lieu of the extinction of the old) ... plus we have had an extensive correspondence over the past three years, you and I, on this very subject. Speaking of which ... may I ask something pertinent? Do you ever actually read what I write? RESPONDENT: P.S.: I snipped below given you have it recorded, no need to repost it. RICHARD: Okay, I only posted it for your refreshment anyway ... I already know what you have written. What I am currently interested in is to see how much ‘repetition of age old thought’ you have found thus far in my writings. ‘Tis fascinating to watch a ‘Transformation’ in action amongst its peers.
RESPONDENT: ... it is given I delete most of the messages not addressed to me, they are mostly full of comparison and theory, at times I skim the rhetoric and find a Jewel, however for the most part it is repetition of age old thought. RICHARD: Okay ... and just where in what I write is this ‘repetition of age old thought’ to be found (given that you said ‘No Richard’ to my conjecture regarding your cavalier way of reading/responding)? RESPONDENT: The Transformation of our old will not come from discussion about our world, it will only come from the death of us. RICHARD: I am well aware of what you speak (a transformation of the old in lieu of the extinction of the old) ... plus we have had an extensive correspondence over the past three years, you and I, on this very subject. Speaking of which ... may I ask something pertinent? Do you ever actually read what I write? RESPONDENT: P.S.: I snipped below given you have it recorded, no need to repost it. RICHARD: Okay, I only posted it for your refreshment anyway ... I already know what you have written. What I am currently interested in is to see how much ‘repetition of age old thought’ you have found thus far in my writings. RESPONDENT: Now Richard perhaps we can converse, given you said ‘currently’ that is of importance, not the age old words that have lead us to ‘current’. RICHARD: Hmm ... you would be better off speaking for yourself as no ‘age old’ words –
words such as ‘Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth’ Where is this ‘repetition of age old thought’ you have found in my writings?
RESPONDENT No. 19: I observe what the world is doing; what I am doing. I wonder at the observation. I wonder if we will ever see the insanity so completely that we will stop doing the insane. Do you ever wonder if that is possible? RICHARD: If I may point out? You are not observing what the world is doing, what you are doing, at all ... if I may take the liberty of rewriting your paragraph as an example? Vis.: [Example]: I observe what the world is doing; what I am doing. I wonder at the observation. I wonder if we will ever see the sanity so completely that we will stop doing the sane. Do you ever wonder if that is possible? RESPONDENT No. 19: Thanks for the rewrite, Richard, but I wonder what you are
saying. RESPONDENT: Yes, his rewrite lost the order from which you wrote and put confusion into it. RICHARD: Did it not occur to you that my rewrite lost the confusion from which the paragraph was written and put order into it? Or are you suggesting that people in general (aka the world) are born insane and that a transformation into sanity is what must happen to enable peace-on-earth? Are you sane?
RICHARD: Did it not occur to you that my rewrite lost the confusion from which the paragraph was written and put order into it? Or are you suggesting that people in general (aka the world) are born insane and that a transformation into sanity is what must happen to enable peace-on-earth? Are you sane? RESPONDENT: Nope nope not at all Richard, and you? RICHARD: I have not been sane for many, many years now. RESPONDENT: By the way dummy, it is the opposite. RICHARD: What is the opposite ... and opposite to what?
April 18 2003: RESPONDENT: Nope nope not at all Richard, and you? RICHARD: I have not been sane for many, many years now. RESPONDENT: By the way dummy, it is the opposite. RICHARD: What is the opposite ... and opposite to what? RESPONDENT: The opposite, if you say the world is sane then you would say you are insane, and the opposite is true as well, get it? RICHARD: No, but then again I am not insane Get it?
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX 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.
Disclaimer |
