Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’
with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: To add-on or to read into what another says from your own experience is to colour or distort what is pointed to.
RICHARD: Yet as ‘what is pointed to’ is the self-same experience – like recognises like – there is nothing to either ‘add-on or read into’ what the other says.
For example: suppose I am the first to get up in the morning and go outside and I report that the sky is blue; when another person similarly goes outside and sees for themself they too see that the sky is blue – it is an experience in common, a shared understanding, a mutual comprehension – and so when somebody else says to the other person, that to add-on or read into what my words ‘the sky is blue’ point to is to colour or distort from their own experience, then that other person can legitimately say, as it is the self-same experience, that there is nothing to add-on or read into what my words ‘the sky is blue’ say.
I do find it odd that you would choose to pursue this line of argument when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti specifically says, time and again, that what he is talking about is something to find out for yourself, to see for yourself that what he is saying is true, and not just merely listen to or read the words and form an intellectual understanding ... if you persist with this way of trying to invalidate my lived experiencing you will lock yourself into a position wherein another can rightfully say to you, when you too report from your lived experiencing that what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says is true, that to add-on or read into what he says from your own experience is to colour or distort what his words point to.
RESPONDENT: Experience is the past, memory and images.
RICHARD: As already discussed previously an intuitive/imaginative faculty is not required for memory to function ... in fact it functions far, far better without imaging interfering.
RESPONDENT: Image can distort perception.
RICHARD: Aye, but what distorts perception big-time is the intuitive ‘presence’ which the affective feelings form themselves into: to see the world whilst being the feeling of beauty, for example, is to miss the purity of the actual (rose-coloured glasses block the purity) ... just as seeing the world whilst being the feeling of love, for another instance, is to be missing out on the perfection of actual intimacy (no separative identity in the first place means no unification via love is required).
There is no inner and outer in actuality.
RESPONDENT: To attend without the centre is to dissolve images in a natural state of emptiness.
RICHARD: Now this is an interesting thing, as you explained to me only recently that the ability to imagine creatively or intuit is not only not problematic but that the ability to remember through use of images is essential to effectively function, yet when it comes to reading or listening to what another has to say it all-of-a-sudden does become problematic after all ... images can distort perception, you say, and the solution to this is to ‘attend without the centre’ so as to dissolve images.
Whereas when the image-maker ‘self’-immolates in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, the entire imaginative/ intuitive faculty which the image-maker is ceases to be forever ... thus there is no need to attend without the centre of the image-maker when images are problematic (reading or listening to another) and to attend with the centre of the image-maker when images are essential for memory to effectively function again.
Especially so when memory functions far, far better sans the image-maker in toto, anyway.
RESPONDENT: The state of emptiness can not be imagined.
RICHARD: As the entire imaginative/ intuitive faculty is no longer extant in this flesh and blood body then that is never going to happen.
RESPONDENT: If I point out that listening is not interpreting and then proceed with interpreting anyway, I am obviously not aware of the contradiction between what I say and what I do. No doubt this occurs sometimes when I discuss ...
RICHARD: Like what happened just above?
RESPONDENT: Adding on is to be biased by one’s conclusions and experiences. It has nothing to do with adding to life that is (or is not) complete.
RICHARD: Oh? What if I were to put what you say here into its context? Vis.:
Maybe if I were to say it a third time: as life is already always complete in this actual world there is nothing that can be added to it.
RESPONDENT: ... and it appears evident at times in your comments as well.
RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why you see my ‘comments’ as being overly literal (whatever that means) might very well be because the benchmark you are judging them by is your underly literal (whatever that means) understanding? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: Sometimes your observations seem insightful and sometimes you pay more attention to the words then what they point to.
RICHARD: None of my observations are ‘insightful’ as they come out of lived experiencing – they are nothing more mysterious than being the fruit of the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension that lived understanding endows – which is why I can draw attention, from time-to-time, to what unambiguous wording says.
Of course the words themselves are not what they refer to – there is nothing profound about saying the word ‘bread’ cannot be eaten – but to take this as licence to read all manner of poesy into them is to get lost in a world of one’s own making.
RICHARD: I have never made a secret of what my agenda is in writing to this mailing list (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) and I have no reservations whatsoever about endeavouring to persuade another to read with both eyes ... but to describe this pastime as ‘pushing a particular set of conclusions’ is to miss the point entirely.
RESPONDENT: I agree that if there is a PCE, for some people the memory itself can be a trigger for the actuality. But that doesn’t seem to be the case for most people.
RICHARD: One of the many things I did, in the years before I went public, was to ascertain whether people from all walks of life could recall having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – as distinct from an altered state of consciousness (ASC) – for obvious reasons. Sometimes it took a quite a while for them to remember – once it took over three hours of intensive description/discussion – as being sans any affective content whatsoever the PCE cannot be stored in the affective memory banks (which is where the ASC is primarily located) ... plus they are much more common in childhood and require further reach.
Everybody I spoke to at length – everybody – could recall at least one PCE ... and usually more
RESPONDENT: Some of us find keen awareness of death or the truth of impermanence tends to trigger PCE but again, that does not seem to be so for most others I have talked with, unfortunately.
RICHARD: Mostly PCE’s happen for no demonstrable reason at all – as in being a serendipitous event – and quite often occur in everyday surroundings doing everyday things ... I can recall being on a farmhouse verandah at age eight, looking into the glistening white of a full glass of milk in the early morning sunshine, when it happened for the entity within.
As for ‘impermanence’ ... as the PCE evidences that it is never not this moment then permanence is already always here.
RESPONDENT: We are not taking a fresh look ourselves.
RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... apperceptive awareness ensures that an ever-fresh percipience is constantly happening of its own accord.
RESPONDENT: I indulge in authoritative pronouncements sometimes, but I realize they are not very helpful. How about you? <g>
RICHARD: I have no problem whatsoever about the authority of the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension that lived understanding endows because it is actual ... meaning that it is automatically beneficial of its own accord.
RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt that you believe what you say and that you feel what you have to offer could be helpful.
RICHARD: I do not have to ‘believe’ that what is being written is beneficial at all as the words describing what is on offer are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring ... they are coming directly out of actuality – factual experiencing – and not from some nebulous feeling of helpfulness such as you would have be the case.
RESPONDENT: Even if one speaks authentically as to experiencing, haven’t you noticed that it doesn’t change anything for the listener one iota?
RICHARD: No ... those peoples who listen to or read what I have to say without adding it on to an existing mind-set (by virtue of naiveté as already detailed previously) tell me that such authenticity as the actual indubitably is has been of inestimable benefit.
RESPONDENT: When I represent my experience as something others should seek or emulate, I am trying to lead. But it is my experience and others can only imagine that.
RICHARD: Whereas I provide a description of life in this actual world such that others who are vitally interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, can recall, or have happen again, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... and, as the PCE enables one to know for oneself what is being described, it is what does the leading. As this leaves me sitting watching TV, with my feet up on the coffee table, it is a most estimable state of affairs.
RESPONDENT: Actual experiencing enables one to better understand but obviously that can not be given to another.
RICHARD: Does it not give you cause to reconsider when it is pointed out that what is on offer has been presented, is being presented, and will continue to be presented, by descriptive words ... and by these words alone?
Speaking personally I find it remarkable what language is capable of ... peace-on-earth is no little thing.
RESPONDENT: Moreover, I question whether freedom or happiness is something to seek. The seeking, grasping, desiring mind is painful, is suffering.
RICHARD: Whereas with the PCE as one’s guiding light, as it were, one is drawn deliciously to one’s destiny.
RESPONDENT: It is to be ‘in the way’ rather than on the way.
RICHARD: How I express it is that the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition is marked by enjoyment and appreciation – the sheer delight of being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst remaining a ‘self’ – and that the slightest diminishment of such felicity/ innocuity is a warning signal (a flashing red light as it were) that one has inadvertently wandered off the way.
One is thus soon back on track ... and all because of everyday circumstances.
RESPONDENT: You say that suffering is not happening for you because you have though some deliberate action brought about an end to the self that suffers.
RICHARD: I did not do anything at all – I have been here all along having a ball – as it was the identity in parasitical residence who did all what was necessary.
RESPONDENT: I understand what you mean though I find it an odd way of explaining the process.
RICHARD: It is not an odd way of explaining the process at all when what the first person pronoun is being used to indicate – this flesh and blood body – is spelled-out in its place:
There is no identity whatsoever inside this flesh and blood body ... which is why I can unequivocally say that there is no inner and outer in actuality.
RESPONDENT: You say be aware of what you are experiencing.
RICHARD: What I say is nothing other than a report of what worked for the parasitical identity ... who asked, until it became a non-verbal attitude to life, a wordless approach each moment again, the following question: How am I experiencing this moment of being alive? After all, this moment is the only moment one is ever alive, and such exquisite attentiveness as this attitude/approach engenders makes short-shift of anything not conducive to peace and harmony. So much so that an inevitability sets in.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps it is not inevitable at all.
RICHARD: I do not see why not as I was born a normal person of normal parents; I had a normal childhood and went to a normal school; I took a normal job and got married in the normal way; I bought a normal house and car in the normal way (mortgage/hire purchase) and had normal children ... in short, if the ‘I’/‘me’ who was within was able to do it any ‘I’/‘me’ can.
RESPONDENT: It is only the way it may have unfolded for you and your purported parasitic predecessor.
RICHARD: No way ... that smacks of being one of a kind.
RESPONDENT: If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right?
RICHARD: Since when has naiveté been sudorific?
RESPONDENT: A PCE means that the centre is momentarily dissolved.
RICHARD: No, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) is when the identity in toto, and not just its centre, is temporarily in abeyance ... so that one is nothing other than a flesh and blood body living life intimately on this verdant and azure paradise.
As one has been all along.
RESPONDENT: In order for that to occur, the illusion of being in time has to stop.
RICHARD: No, in order for a PCE to occur the identity in toto goes into abeyance ... then one is where one has always been: just here right now at this moment in eternal time.
Have you not ever noticed that it is never not this moment?
RESPONDENT: That is why awareness of death or impermanence can be a trigger. Whatever is being experienced now is not ‘going’ anywhere. It is just a mind thing, a movement of thought.
RICHARD: What one is as this flesh and blood body only is this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being and, as its physical space is infinite, and as its time is eternal, and as its matter is perpetual, then the infinitude which this universe actually is has no beginning and no ending and therefore no middle. As there are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre either, one is neither coming from anywhere nor going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go too.
By being here as-this-body now one is nowhere in particular – which means one is anywhere at all – and in the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here and, as it is always now, one cannot ever get away from this place in space and this moment in time anyway. Furthermore, one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in here and there – for the relative is the absolute.
In other words: one is always here as it is already now.
RESPONDENT: Psychologically there is no tomorrow. Tomorrow is just a projection and yesterday is just memory.
RICHARD: Aye, the past, although it was actual whilst it was happening, is not actual now; the future, although it will be actual when it happens, is not actual now.
Only this moment is ever actual.
RESPONDENT: Knowledge is distorting perception.
RICHARD: We have been down this path before, you and I, and nothing has changed since then. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘People say they experience God or love or they want to have or know love. But what is known is of thought and memory, it is rooted in time, i.e. – the self’. [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, using ‘thought and memory’ , could readily recognise that which he variously called god, truth, that which is sacred, holy, the presence, the otherness and etcetera, each time again. For an example: [quote]: ‘That presence which was at il L. [two months previously at Il Leccio, Italy] was there, waiting patiently, benignly, with great tenderness. It was like lightening on a dark night but it was there, penetrating, blissful’. (June 27 1961; page 14, ‘Krishnamurti’s Notebook’, Harper & Row, New York 1976). It does pay to read with both eyes open (rather than listen only to the ‘he who says he knows does not know’ style of rhetoric), eh? (www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m13677.html). Now do you comprehend how I can say that listening to or reading another relating the very same experiencing, with the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension which lived understanding endows, can in no way be described as interpreting ... if for no other reason than like recognises like?
RESPONDENT: You must know that K often stated that what is recognized, what is of thought or within the field of the known is not love, not the sacred.
RICHARD: Of course ... but that is not what is being referred to (above).
RESPONDENT: What do you mean?
RICHARD: What he is recognising, else it cannot be known that it is the same ‘presence’ of two months previously, is not ‘what is of thought or within the field of the known’ ... it is love, it is the sacred.
Put simply: what is being demonstrated, in his own words, is that what is not of thought, not within the known, can indeed be known (recognised).
RESPONDENT: So it is understandable that you would question, how then did K know?
RICHARD: No, I do not question it at all as I am already intimately aware, due to the direct experiencing which was happening, night and day for eleven years, that the truth can be known.
RESPONDENT: There is a point at which there is no self-reflection or identification at all. More often there is subtle division occurring. It is as if there is a relationship between oneself as the limited body/intellect and the absolute.
RICHARD: In all mystical descriptions there is invariably a subtle – a very subtle – distinction between the mystic and the absolute which creeps in ... which subtle differentiation, it is intimated, will only cease upon physical death.
It was this oh-so-subtle demarcation which occasioned the ‘being’ who was to proceed beyond the norm.
RESPONDENT: You indicate that the universe is experiencing you as a flesh and blood body.
RICHARD: More precisely: as this flesh and blood body only I am this material universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
RESPONDENT: Experiencing implies awareness or mind.
RICHARD: Indeed ... experiencing is awareness of what is happening whilst it is happening; the mind, which is the human brain in action in the human skull, has this amazing capacity to be, not only aware, but aware of being aware at the same time (a simultaneity which is truly wondrous in itself).
And it is where this awareness of being aware is unmediated (apperceptive awareness) that this universe knows itself.
RESPONDENT: The contact between you as flesh and blood body and awareness that is not limited to the particular can be understood on many levels.
RICHARD: There is no ‘contact’ between this flesh and blood body and the unlimited awareness (apperceptive awareness) which it is ... there is no separative identity, no particular, in the first place to necessitate such a thing.
RESPONDENT: Why jump to a conclusion that the experiencing that you say you alone speak from is the only genuine experiencing of that contact?
RICHARD: But I am not saying that which you describe is what is happening now – that was during the eleven years of mystical experiencing – as what is happening now is beyond enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: Doesn’t a claim of exclusivity more likely imply a delusion of grandeur?
RICHARD: No ... it only indicates that somebody has to be the first to discover an actual freedom from the human condition (as is the case in any field of human endeavour).
What is so strange about that?
RESPONDENT: The other is when the self is not.
RICHARD: The other is when the ego-self is not.
RESPONDENT: To be clear, K suggested a higher ‘me’ or a Super-me is an escape.
RICHARD: Only if it be not the living reality, at that very moment, for the person concerned (just as he did in regards god or truth and so on also being such an escape).
RESPONDENT: If the intellect is a tool of intelligence or impersonal insight, how is that an escape?
RICHARD: In the context of what this part of the e-mail is discussing (spirituality) it is not an escape when that is the living reality.
RESPONDENT: If an attention that is not from the known is what is predominate in human consciousness, if that is the living reality, there is orderliness.
RICHARD: So it is said ... my experiencing, night and day for eleven years, showed that this ‘orderliness’ is not what it purports to be – as was borne out by investigation of other beings’ modus operandi as well – in that there is a discrepancy between what is said and what is done.
RESPONDENT: Yet thought tends to interpret that according to its background. The intellect is the background of the species and culture. There is always that limitation.
RICHARD: The intellect, the faculty of knowing and reasoning, is not a limitation per se ... it is only because its intelligence is crippled by the instinctual passions that it is currently so for the species at large.
RESPONDENT: It is similar to the problem in Buddhism. Teachers use the expression ‘your’ or ‘our’ big mind or ‘your’ Buddha mind.
RICHARD: The problem being, of course, that identity as ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (aka ‘suchness’, ‘thatness’, ‘isness’) is still in place in spiritual enlightenment ... whether it be described as transformed, transfigured, transmuted, metamorphosed, merged, integrated, unified, or any other word of that ilk, it is identification nevertheless.
RESPONDENT: Life is awakening to itself in man.
RICHARD: Not in spiritual enlightenment it ain’t.
RESPONDENT: It is not that I am awakening through my prideful efforts.
RICHARD: Hmm ... humility is but pride standing on its head in order to remain in existence.
RESPONDENT: The bottom line is that you can’t understand the nature of mind by merely studying the words of others.
RICHARD: As I have repeatedly referred to a living understanding of, not only eleven years of spiritual enlightenment, but a decade now of an actual freedom from the human condition, I do look askance at what you say here ... plus there is more to understanding human nature than pointing the finger at thought. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘The self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought. [endquote]. As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding.
RESPONDENT: Why divide the process up?
RICHARD: I am not dividing the process up ... that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary.
The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal ... and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction).
Not that I knew anything of these laboratory tests all those years ago ... but it is always pleasing when science proves what one has already sussed out for oneself.
RESPONDENT: Whatever presents itself in terms of divisive thought and feeling can dissolve in awareness.
RICHARD: Nothing substantive can happen in awareness while the instinctual survival passions dominate ... and the word ‘survival’ should explain why.
RESPONDENT: It comes through earnest self-study.
RICHARD: If the above quoted understanding is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for.
RESPONDENT: You mean simplistic advice like keep asking ‘what am I experiencing?’ ;-)
RICHARD: Ahh ... I always like it when someone says something like this as it shows that they are beginning to take notice that when I say naiveté I mean naiveté.
Maybe its very simplicity is why it has been overlooked all these aeons?
RESPONDENT: It is possible to let what you see reveal what it is.
RICHARD: Only if it is hidden in the first place ... here in this actual world the ‘meaning of life’, or the ‘purpose of existence’, or however one’s quest was described, lies open all around. As it has been all along.
RESPONDENT: Sure feels good to talk about it doesn’t it. ;-)
RICHARD: If it ‘sure feels good’ to talk about the meaning of life being not hidden but lying open all around as it has been all along then one is not here, in this actual world, now. The perfection and purity of this actual world is impeccable ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in.
RESPONDENT: It is only dirty or corrupted when there is identification.
RICHARD: One could attempt to purify the affective feelings – flush out the entire affective faculty again and again so as to be centreless in deed as in principle – until one was blue in the face and one would still not be here in this actual world now.
Not even the slightest trace of ‘presence’ can slip through.
RESPONDENT: Only what is false can drop away. Body drops away has a peculiar meaning.
RICHARD: If, as you say, ‘body drops away’ has a peculiar meaning it could very well be in the translation from thirteenth century Japanese into twenty first century English ... for example, the quote you provided (further above) has at least a dozen variations: [translations snipped for reasons of space].
RESPONDENT: One who is unaware of what is referred to will misinterpret it as something false, i.e. – metaphysics, invention of thought; a grand delusion.
RICHARD: One who is unaware that spiritual enlightenment is a delusion born out of an illusion will, of course, not even begin to comprehend the degree of self-deception involved in saying ‘mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body!’ ... they would rather say, for example, that the phrase has a ... um ... a peculiar meaning. In other words: anything other than what the phrase says.
RESPONDENT: Unalike misunderstands unalike, no?
RICHARD: If the various translations (above) are anything to go by it would appear so.
RESPONDENT: It seems you don’t understand what the phrase points to, however it is translated.
RICHARD: I understand perfectly well what the phrase points to: a massive delusion brought about by dissociation. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: No trace means a state of emptiness that is without identification.
RICHARD: Being what one actually is – this flesh and blood body only – is the one and only way to be sans identification in actuality.
RESPONDENT: There is no one separate to seek to ‘go further’ and never was.
RICHARD: Never mind there being no one ‘separate’ ... how about there being no one at all?
RICHARD: ... there is more to understanding human nature than pointing the finger at thought. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘The self is nothing other than conditioning, the thinker/ feeler/ doer is thought’. [endquote]. As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding.
RESPONDENT: Why divide the process up?
RICHARD: I am not dividing the process up ... that is how it operates naturally (as is borne out by laboratory testing): sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary. The sensate signal, a loud sound for example, takes 12-14 milliseconds to reach the affective faculty and 24-25 milliseconds to reach the cognitive faculty: thus by the time reasoned cognition can take place the instinctual passions are pumping freeze-fight-flee chemicals throughout the body thus agitating cognitive appraisal ... and whilst there is a narrowband circuit from the cognitive centre to the affective centre (through which reason can dampen-down and stop the reactive response) the circuitry from the affective faculty to the cognitive faculty is broadband (which is why it takes some time to calm down after an emotional reaction).
RESPONDENT: By dividing the process up, I mean, why bring in the aspect of time or chronology?
RICHARD: Again, I am not bringing in sequence (the chronology of time) as that is what happens of its own accord ... and it is so easy to find out for oneself this is so that science is not required at all: there is a loud noise; there is an alarming feeling-freeze-fight-flee; there is thought seeking to evaluate.
Ergo: sensate perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; cognitive perception is tertiary.
As animals other than the human animal display this ‘fright-freeze-fight-flee’ instinctually passionate reaction it is patently obvious that the feeling self is primal and the thinking self derivative ... and that the thinking self is, fundamentally, affective in substance. Moreover, there is some evidence that awareness of being this primordial ‘self’ – as in ‘self’-consciousness – has arisen in other animals: the chimpanzee, for example, can recognise its image in a mirror as being itself and not another of its species (such as the canary does for instance) and there are preliminary reports that the same may be happening for the dolphin.
Further to the point, as the essential affective feelings are in situ before thought first arises in infancy – a baby is born already feeling – it becomes even more obvious that the feeler, as an embryonic feeling being, is innate in sentient beings ... that the already existing basic set of survival passions form themselves into being the intuitive presence which, at root, is what any ‘me’ ultimately is long before the thinker comes into being.
Any and all conditioning, be it familial, societal, peer-group, or environmental imprinting, needs substance to latch onto, sink into, and be ... it all washes off a clean slate like water off a duck’s back.
Innocence is something entirely new to human experience.
RESPONDENT: To look from the known, from the so-called old brain, is to move from known to known to use K’s expression.
RICHARD: To ignore what is known (that feeling comes before thought in the perceptive process) in order to reach for the stars and beyond is to be building an ornate edifice on quicksand.
RESPONDENT: That is one kind of looking that of course has its place in order to get from here to there in the usual sense.
RICHARD: Hmm ... to see that feeling comes before thought in the perceptive process is to be staying with what is happening.
RESPONDENT: But is it possible to observe with attention that is free of that, with an attention that is not seeking to go anywhere?
RICHARD: What manner of an attention is it that has to ignore the obvious in order to achieve its ‘not seeking to go anywhere’ goal?
RESPONDENT: Most of us discuss in this forum because we realize on some level at least that it is not only possible, but essential for this attention to operate in us.
RICHARD: Aye, but this do-not-let-the-fact-stand-in-the-way-of-the-truth attention is prevalent elsewhere as well.
RESPONDENT: Mind or attention without the centre has unlimited space. It is not bounded by the psyche or by anything at all. Love is a quality of that dimension of mind. It is not ‘my’ love as there is no identification or attachment involved.
RICHARD: The subject of ‘it is not ‘my’ love’ has come up before:
Not that you ever responded ... but at least it has now been made clear that the love you say ‘is not ‘my’ love’ is a quality of that dimension of mind which is the unlimited space of mind without the centre.
If ‘mind ... without the centre’ is another way of saying ‘mind ... that it is true nature or the ground in being of all things’ then it would appear that the love you say ‘is not ‘my’ love’ is not yours in a narrow exclusive sense but is yours in the sense that it is a quality of the unlimited space of true nature or the ground in being of all things.
Would this be correct?
RESPONDENT: Basically K is saying this dimension operates in man through intelligence. It can not operate in human consciousness where thought-feeling is dominated by the known which is the past as programming. The experience of feeling one with the universe means there is still an experiencer which is identification. To say attention has unlimited space as our friend Respondent No. 00 pointed out still implies a degree of separation, otherwise it could not be known. That separation seems innocuous but becomes a state of identification where there is thought-feeling that I am oceanic, I am boundless, I am one with creation, etc.
RICHARD: So as to minimise unnecessary repetition I will re-post the following:
To put it as briefly as possible: in the thread, where you obtained the sentence of mine you start this e-mail with, I neither say nor even imply the egoic ‘I am oceanic, I am boundless, I am one with creation, etc.’ identification you make it out to be as, on the contrary, I particularly stress that an oceanic feeling of oneness with all creation is an impersonal, non-egoic affective state of ‘being’. Vis.:
Further to this (rapidly becoming belaboured) point is this exchange:
What I would suggest is that if you could see your way clear to cease interpreting my words as being a misinterpretation of another’s words – that when I say that this is an ‘experiential understanding’ I mean what those two words say and not that they point to a ‘conceptual’ understanding obtained from another’s words – it just might be possible for you to hear what I am saying.
Especially as you not only say that the mind which understands the unknown (by becoming the unknown) is an inherently blissful mind but that there is a feeling of gratitude for just being alive as well.
RESPONDENT: Hence there is a pointing by K and others teachers to the truth of beginner’s mind which is innocent, with identification.
RICHARD: As enlightened beings are affective beings they are hardly in a position to speak authentically of innocence ... there is nothing experiential in their deliberations on the matter.
No one begins innocent ... innocence is something entirely new.
RICHARD: To blur the distinction between the thinker and the feeler is to lose the plot altogether as the feeler only comes into full being when the thinker is not ... the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is well-nigh ubiquitous among spiritualists and their ilk.
RESPONDENT: ‘Get out of your head and into your heart’ obviously can mean different things to different people. But most would agree its a reference to how consciousness is being structured. Many people perceive the world as if that which is looking is centred in or behind the head area. The energy that looks is being channelled that way. As thought quiets down, there is a sinking from the head area into the heart centre so that looking seems to be channelled from there. The division of thinker from thought is absent. There may be a sense of union or non-separation where the lover and the beloved are one.
RICHARD: Which is indicative of the feeler having come into full being ... as in no longer ‘me’ feeling the feeling, but the being of the very feeling itself (hence ‘being’ as in no longer ‘becoming’).
RESPONDENT: As identifications below the level of conscious thought are exposed and fall away, there is a sense of attention sinking into the centre of the body or the mid-section so that observation stems from there.
RICHARD: Yes, the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is but a generic term as, for just one example, the Japanese use of the word ‘hara’ or ‘hari’ (which translates as ‘belly’) serves to locate the centre of attention, the core of ‘being’ itself, more precisely as being four finger-widths below the navel ... the everyday English equivalent would be the common expression ‘gut-feeling’ (when referring to an intuitive hunch).
Another way of saying it is that there are the more superficial feelings (emotional) and that there are the deeper feelings (passionate) and that the emotions are what one has and that the passions are who one is.
RESPONDENT: There the psyche has space for something new to enter in perception that is outside the field of the known.
RICHARD: Or, to put that another way, where ‘being’ is all there is ... truth reveals itself, unsolicited.
RESPONDENT: It is not localized in its operation to any particular part of the psyche.
RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is the psyche itself (albeit centreless).
RESPONDENT: There are no attachments or identifications and that attention/energy has unlimited space.
RICHARD: The following paragraph speaks for itself:
All the while you have been speaking of being ‘freed of identification with even an aspect of the known’ I have been speaking of identification as the unknown ... and where you say that ‘identity is not in the known’ but that ‘true identity lies in the energy of creative intelligence’ leaves no room for misunderstanding.
An ego-less identity (an identity without the centre) is still an identity nevertheless.
RESPONDENT No. 19: *Your* definition of sanity is based upon what you think you aren’t – or are.
RICHARD: No, the definition of sanity which I provided is the ordinary, normal, common, or everyday meaning as per the five dictionaries I looked up the word in ... to keep on insisting that it is *my* definition adds nothing to the discussion and leads to unnecessary repetition.
RESPONDENT No. 19: What kind of reliable proof is that of anything?
RICHARD: How about the ‘proof’ of the collected experience of billions upon billions of peoples over the ages collated under the heading ‘sanity’ in, not only dictionaries, but encyclopaedias, scholarly books, academic treatises, peer-reviewed journals and so on? Not only are you on a hiding to nowhere redefining sanity as meaning insanity ... you will never be free if you start with a lie.
RESPONDENT: Insanity is to see danger where there is none or fail to see an actual threat when it is clearly present. Fear where there is no actual threat to life and limb suggests aberration. But fear as response to a real threat to physical security is not deluded or confused. You seem to be saying that the natural fight or flight reaction in all sentient beings is a disorder. There is disorder where there is a block to intelligent action. But where conditions are life-threatening, to have all or most of the energy of the organism available to respond is exactly what is needed isn't it?
RICHARD: I am not saying that the natural fright-freeze-fight-flight reaction is a disorder (aka insanity) ... on the contrary:
The ‘energy of the organism’ response you are talking of is the instinctual survival response.
RICHARD: I am not saying that the natural fright-freeze-fight-flight reaction is a disorder (aka insanity) ... on the contrary: [Richard]: ‘The ordinary, normal, common, or everyday state of being sane is how people naturally are ... it is the state of being peoples everywhere are born already being and could be described as the sanity of blind nature’s genetically endowed instinctual survival passions (passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire)’. [endquote]. The ‘energy of the organism’ response you are talking of is the instinctual survival response.
RESPONDENT: So you are saying there are disorders we call insanity and there is also the disorder of what we consider sanity. But you have not demonstrated how an instinctive survival response is connected to the disorder of so-called ‘sanity’. Isn’t the problem that in man the survival response gets carried over into the psychological realm? Otherwise, when an actual physical threat is over, the survival response subsides as well.
RICHARD: I am not talking about ‘so-called’ sanity – I am talking about sanity – and I am not saying that sanity is a disorder (thus there is no such connection you speak of the demonstrate).
There is no carry-over of the survival passions into the psyche ... the psyche is the survival passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
The problem with sanity is that intelligence is crippled by the survival passions.
RICHARD: I am not talking about ‘so-called’ sanity – I am talking about sanity – and I am not saying that sanity is a disorder (thus there is no such connection you speak of the demonstrate). There is no carry-over of the survival passions into the psyche ... the psyche is the survival passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). The problem with sanity is that intelligence is crippled by the survival passions.
RESPONDENT: Why the nit-picking about sanity not being disorder, but being a crippling of intelligence? Crippling implies disorder, no? Likewise to say that I am ‘my’ feelings is exactly what is meant in saying that the survival response is carried over into the psychological realm. It means that identity gets structured in the known which is a thought-feeling complex. A threat to the known or the background gets misinterpreted as a threat to the organism. So there is psychological fear or anger related to a threat to self-image, etc.
RICHARD: I never implied that sanity is a ‘crippling of intelligence’ (hence no nit-picking) as I clearly said that the survival passions cripple intelligence ... the word sanity describes a state of being (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) which is not a disorder whereas the word insanity describes a state of being (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) which is a disorder.
[Editor’s Note: that should read ‘I never implied that sanity is a ‘disorder’’.
I am, of course, using the word disorder in the psychiatric sense ... psychiatric disorders.
How can there be a carry-over of the instinctual passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) into the psyche when the psyche is the instinctual passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’)?
Or, to put that another way, how can ‘me’ get carried-over into ‘me’?
It really does not matter whether ‘I’ am sane or whether ‘I’ am insane as ‘my’ very presence cripples intelligence ... ‘me’ being insane means ‘I’ cripple intelligence much more than normal (sometimes much, much more).
As for ‘a threat’ ... everything is a threat to ‘me’.
‘I’ am doomed.
RICHARD: I never implied that sanity is a ‘crippling of intelligence’ (hence no nit-picking) as I clearly said that the survival passions cripple intelligence ...
RESPONDENT: You said that the sane psyche or the ‘me’ is the survival passions and those passions cripple intelligence.
RICHARD: My mistake: I meant to say I never implied that sanity is a ‘disorder’ (as that is what your question asked). Perhaps if I put it this way: just because the survival passions – or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being which is ‘being’ itself – cripple intelligence they alone do not cause insanity (aka a disorder) as disorders have various triggers.
RESPONDENT: It seems you are more interested in being the authority than in communicating clearly.
RICHARD: Apart from that odd mistake (above) not only have I been communicating clearly I am also consistent with that clarity ... if you look back up this page you will see that three times you have tried to have my words say that sanity is a disorder and three times I have said that it is not.
I am not a psychiatrist and, although I have had considerable experience discussing these matters with psychiatrists and have read-up a little on the subject plus had face-to-face discussions with people afflicted with various disorders, I would in no way consider myself to be an authority on psychiatric disorders.
The main authority for me on that topic is the DSM–IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders) which is the diagnostic criteria used by all psychiatrists around the world for diagnosing psychiatric disorders.
RICHARD: ... the word sanity describes a state of being (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) which is not a disorder whereas the word insanity describes a state of being (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) which is a disorder. I am, of course, using the word disorder in the psychiatric sense ... psychiatric disorders.
RESPONDENT: You are saying that what we call sanity is a different kind of disorder as it involves passions that cripple intelligence.
RICHARD: I am not talking about ‘what we call’ sanity – I am talking of sanity – and I am not saying that sanity is ‘a different kind’ of disorder any more than I am saying it is a disorder ... nowhere in the DSM-IV is sanity described as a disorder in any way, shape, or manner.
As the word ‘disorder’ is the modern-day (or politically-correct) word for insanity then, in effect, you are trying to have my words read that sanity is insanity via a replacement word ... how is it going to aid clarity in communication to lump the ordinary, normal, common, or everyday state of being sane into the same category as psychiatric disorders (such as as the paranoid schizophrenia you mention, further below, for example)?
If one starts with a lie (seeing sanity as insanity) one will end up living a lie through then seeking sanity (aka order) in some other realm ... the doorway to freedom, as it were, does not have the word ‘sanity’ written on it.
One already is sane ... that is the problem.
RICHARD: How can there be a carry-over of the instinctual passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’) into the psyche when the psyche is the instinctual passions (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’)? Or, to put that another way, how can ‘me’ get carried-over into ‘me’?
RESPONDENT: The psyche is what accounts for thinking-feeling-evaluating in the organism. The organism is biologically programmed to sense and respond to physical threats. Where identity is established in the known, in self-image, the fight or flight response gets triggered by a perceived threat to the image as if the threat was an actual danger to the survival of the organism.
RICHARD: You are referring to ego-‘me’ only ... whereas I am talking of ‘me’ in toto – which includes ego-‘me’ of course – with particular emphasis upon the root cause of the problem ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself).
With no ‘being’, or ‘presence’, to stuff-up the works intelligence operates unimpeded.
RICHARD: It really does not matter whether ‘I’ am sane or whether ‘I’ am insane as ‘my’ very presence cripples intelligence ... ‘me’ being insane means ‘I’ cripple intelligence much more than normal (sometimes much, much more). As for ‘a threat’ ... everything is a threat to ‘me’. ‘I’ am doomed.
RESPONDENT: Intelligence is far more crippled by the psyche that can not distinguish between an actual physical threat and an imagined danger, as with paranoid schizophrenia for example.
RICHARD: Everything, be it real or imagined, is a threat to the psyche ... the psyche, be it sane or insane, is doomed.
RESPONDENT No. 19: If Richard were arguing in a court of law, I wouldn’t know if he were arguing ‘for’ or ‘against’.
RICHARD: Neither. I have always said there is a third alternative ... even only recently I made this clear: [Richard to Respondent No. 19]: ‘... the better aspiration would be being as happy and harmless as is humanly possible whilst being a ‘self’. The best aspiration, of course, is for ‘self’-immolation in toto so as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent ... to be living as a flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware in the pristine perfection of this actual world – the ambrosial world of sensory delight – where peerless purity lies open all around. When ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) becomes extinct all its states of being, ranging from sanity through to insanity, also cease to be ... there is no ‘presence’ whatsoever here in this actual world to be either sane or insane.
RESPONDENT No. 19: You’d probably have a hung jury every time.
RICHARD: You have taken the sane ‘me’, arbitrarily declared ‘me’ to be insane by redefining what ‘in one’s right mind’ means, and are attempting to make this sane ‘me’ sane ... which is nonsensical. Because when a sane ‘me’ transforms (upon seeing itself to be insane so completely as you would have it do) you will wind up being an insane ‘me’ ... albeit in an institutionalised insanity revered by many. You then get to speak nonsensically – such as both the opposites being true – and bow humbly at all the applause.
RESPONDENT: You both apparently fail to see the relationship between preventing people from capitalizing on violence and establishing an environment where there is no significant threat of violence. To end violence in oneself is not to end violence in the world any more than curing a disease in one organism can end that disease globally. If a disease is ‘what is’ it has to be contained or there is no physical security from which to even consider eradication of the disease.
RICHARD: As this thread originated in a discussion about the war currently being displayed 24/7 across television screens (never mind the 24 major and 22 minor wars occurring elsewhere around the world) with associated comments casting aspersions upon the military mind it may help to point out that military personnel are not insane.
This I can report from personal experience: when I went to war as a young man I was thoroughly examined by an accredited psychiatrist, as are all military personnel, and adjudged sane, as are all military personnel, and whilst at war I remained sane, as do most military personnel ... it was not until 15 years later, as a civilian, that I went insane.
All I have been doing throughout this thread is to clearly and consistently set the record straight on this sanity/insanity topic so that the root cause of war (and all the other ills of humankind of course) can be exposed to view in the bright light of awareness ... and one cannot see the fact of sanity whilst pre-viewing it as insanity (aka a disorder).
And the fact of sanity is that sanity sucks big-time.
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.