|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 14
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 2): In order to see ugliness in the actions of others one must look out through their own ugly nature. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I can state unequivocally that I do not have an ugly nature ... nor a beautiful nature. Yet I see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive) and I unhesitatingly call that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. Do you, No. 14, see these things too (for if you do not, then you are in denial of what is happening all over the world)? RESPONDENT: ‘No. 14’, eh? Very interesting. RICHARD: Oh ... should I have addressed you as ‘Something Else’ then? Just what is the accepted protocol when writing to ‘It!’? RESPONDENT: Speak as you wish, Richard. The interest was in that you think No. 14 is a ‘you’. ‘It’, eh? Very interesting. RICHARD: I do not ‘think’ that there is ... I know there is because you told me so in a previous E-Mail. RESPONDENT: This seems a rather trusting attitude considering the mistrust that is exhibited for most of what is discussed here. RICHARD: Neither trust nor mistrust play any part in my life ... I keep my wits about me. As for knowing that there is a ‘you’ in that body ... I go by what you say in your E-Mails and take it from there, for I do not know you personally. If your following words bear out your original statement ... well and good. If they do not, then I question your statement ... that is in part what this forum is about. You are now saying that there is no ‘you’ inside that body ... yet some weeks previously you advised anybody who cared to read what you had to say that the ‘ego’ does not have to die ... it expands. You even quoted a Zen Master to back your statement with borrowed authority. Therefore, unless you were misleading the readers into doing something that you did not do ... there is still a ‘you’ in there. Only now it is expanded as all get-out ... expanded into being ‘All That Is’ (another way of saying ‘I am It!’). With this ‘I am All That Is’ philosophy as your guiding principle in life, you cannot afford to acknowledge subjectivity and objectivity even though it exists. You have to pretend that you do not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ even though it exists. You have to dissimulate when someone addresses you as No. 14 (rather than the little ‘b’ that you affect) even though No. 14 exists ... and so on and so on. It has nothing to do with trust or mistrust ... it is just seeing the facts. RESPONDENT: If it is that all the evidence needed for certainty is words from here it makes the remainder of this discussion rather moot. RICHARD: Then why do you bother to write at all? You see, by writing to others you are tacitly acknowledging their existence ... to the point of hoping to get them to see the world from your borrowed Eastern Mystical point of view. You may fool some people, but in the end you only succeed in fooling yourself. As for the remainder of this discussion being moot ... maybe the persistent pointing to facts may turn things around for you until you come to your senses and regain some access to your native intelligence. * RICHARD: Is this not why you had to twice use that non-committal phrase ‘very interesting’? RESPONDENT: I am thinking that the commitment is to being very interested, Richard. RICHARD: But ‘interested’ in what? Are you interested in examining your understanding to see if it contains the fatal flaws that are inherent in any belief system? Or do you wish to continue to live in a delusion? Remember, you are being influential towards other people – some of them very young – so it is not only your own salubrity that is at stake here. You are interfering with other people’s lives and it behoves you to examine what you are living out – and propagating – with great care. * RICHARD: So, in what way is it very interesting that Richard knows that there is a ‘you’ lurking behind that borrowed Eastern mystical belief system and all that dissembling? As for this ‘It!’ business; it was you who told me that ... several weeks ago too. Do you have another unannounced up-date to make? RESPONDENT: Interestingly, this becomes even more interesting – sincerely, honestly and without hope of gaining anything through ploy or scam – interesting. In what way is it interesting? The conclusions created from the information is interesting. It is interesting that these words can be used to establish certainty on occasion and yet a complete lack of confidence in the sincerity of the words is demonstrated on other occasions. Richard, the over-all presentation leans toward a very interesting endeavour. RICHARD: Good grief ... you used the word ‘interesting’ seven times only to say the identical thing that you have already just said (above). Have you no substance at all behind your smooth words? RESPONDENT: Is it, Richard, that this question [ugliness or denial] is intended to be rhetorical? RICHARD: No, it is not rhetorical ... it is a very sincere question that strikes at the very heart of your ‘I am It!’ philosophy. RESPONDENT: I have missed the strike, Richard, but it is interesting that you think that. RICHARD: Once again ‘interesting’ ... what a pathetic two-way communication this is. RESPONDENT: Would you not agree then, Richard, that it is interesting that you continue in light of your disdain for the exercise? RICHARD: There is no disdain ... I am enjoying myself immensely. And it is not only an exercise ... you are a fellow human being. I simply point out that your communication skills are pathetic ... for one who purports to have something important enough to say to warrant a Web-Site. How about some substance? * RICHARD: And of course you missed ... you are too deeply immersed in the beloved solipsism of the East to come up for air even when someone points it out. It is the Eastern mystical belief system that is at fault, not you ... you just bought it – hook, line and sinker – that is all. It is never too late to regain your intelligence. RESPONDENT: Thank you for your concern. If I may, if it is a matter of fact that I have missed the points made due to the No. 14 destroying effects of an Eastern mystical belief system, isn’t it rather hopeless to suspect that anything can be gained by a continued effort to rescue me? RICHARD: Oh, I do not operate upon hope at all ... I point out facts. I point out contradictions. What you do with it is your business ... it is you who has to live your life and not me. I can only suggest. It is you who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences for any action or inaction that you may or may not do. RESPONDENT: It seems that the thoughts from there would have little taste for being involved in bringing sight to the blind, such undertakings are, after all, the work of Messiahs and the like. RICHARD: I set my sights further than being a mere messiah, all those years ago when I was determined to be free of the human condition, and I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I have succeeded. Human beings need something else than re-hashes of the ‘Tried and True’ if there is to be global peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: It seems you have provided little room for an answer [ugliness or denial]. RICHARD: No, it is your ‘I am It!’ philosophy that puts you in a tight corner ... like all philosophies (belief systems) it has blatantly unliveable aspects to it. RESPONDENT: Ahh, very well then, thank you for pointing this out. RICHARD: I never need thanks ... flattery flows off me like water from a duck’s back. RESPONDENT: Be assured, Richard, there is no inkling of courtesy being amongst your needs. What is offered is offered for the enjoyment of the giving. RICHARD: So you are saying that it was self-serving, then? That you did it for your self-gratification? Because you did not mean anything substantial by it, now did you? RESPONDENT: I hope little occasion is given to create offence when I say that your allusion to the duck’s back is very humorous. RICHARD: Why are you so afraid of offending people? Not that I ever take offence ... that is simply silly because it perpetuates war. But what is your belief system worth if it does not allow you to speak freely? * RICHARD: Especially empty flattery. If you were to come to your senses ... then I would sit up and take notice. RESPONDENT: Thank you, Richard, however, the warm attention that you are currently directing to these words is sufficient notice. RICHARD: Aye ... there is sincerity here. I spent eleven years locked into Eastern Mysticism ... so I speak from personal experience. RESPONDENT: Chances are, Richard, the answer from here, if you were seriously interested and if I understand your question, would be both yes, these things have been seen. RICHARD: You say ‘have been seen’? Are they being seen now? Currently? RESPONDENT: No, not at this moment, but thank you for being interested. RICHARD: I am interested because you are a fellow human being. Also, when I visited your web-site, I saw some intelligence shining through – unlike in your E-Mails – and I consider that all is not lost. RESPONDENT: AHH!! You have visited! Wonderful!! I bid you, if you visit again, would you please sign the guest book? Others might enjoy your writing flair. RICHARD: I do not write just for flair ... it is the content that is important when all is said and done. As flair makes the communication of this difficult subject more easily conveyed then it is appropriate to make use of that. However, I would not be interested in depositing bits of ‘flair’ here and there just for other’s entertainment. Unlike most people, I do not talk for the sake of talking or for the sake of hearing the sound of my own voice or for the sake of patting myself on the back for being so erudite. I talk because I have something to say: an alternative to the ‘Tried and True’. RESPONDENT: Likewise, I see you as other than a total loss, Richard. RICHARD: Good ... there is a line of possibility open then. * RICHARD: So, let us see if your intelligence can be awakened by this: If, as you say, there is no ‘ugly nature’ in you at this moment then you must not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ anywhere at all in the world. RESPONDENT: Not at this moment no. As stated earlier, this current discussion is rather enjoyable. RICHARD: This is cleverness in operation again. Never mind ‘this moment’ ... how about all the time? * RICHARD: You simply do not see wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (this list is by no means exhaustive)? Is this correct? RESPONDENT: Richard, I spend each day immersed in many of the things you have included in the list. At any time there may be as many 12 young people here that may have experienced these things as recently as the day before they were welcomed to this home. Interestingly, just last evening one of the Wonderful Young Friends who has been here for about 8 months choose to believe that suicide was the most comfortable answer to her current circumstance. The entire evening was spent with her. I found no ugliness in any of it. By night’s end, she saw less ugliness, more ability to be responsible, and less desire to be dead. Frankly, and sincerely, I simply saw decisions being made, circumstances being created, responsibility being avoided, and assistance being asked for. The response offered was appropriate for the outcome hoped for. RICHARD: Okay ... so you have a value judgement about suicide then. I would presume that you have value judgements about the other items on the list? And to forestall you playing games with words ... when you spend considerable time with a person so as to avert a particular course of action being taken by that person then it can only be because that course of action is ‘ugly’. Whether it be given any other name – like ‘inappropriate’ – suicide is ‘ugliness in the actions of others’. RESPONDENT: And yes, you would probably think me in serious denial of what you assert is happening in the world. RICHARD: Firstly: I do not ‘think’ you to be in serious denial ... I know that you are. All your writing is permeated by denial. (Incidentally, your use of the word ‘think’ is used here in the same way you tried to use ‘believe’ on me before ... that ploy does not work on me). RESPONDENT: Gracious Richard, most sincerely, there is no scheme to hoist a ploy on you. RICHARD: I guess there is no ‘scheme’ ... maybe it is just an unconscious – and slick – debating trick you have learned to use on those who are novices at the game of detecting dissimulation and equivocation. But I am sure that you will not be using it in the future now that it has been pointed out to you so many times ... will you? RESPONDENT: I guess that explains the lost college years!! I was off learning debating skills! Very Good! Sincerely Richard, I can see nothing to be gained by any of what you accuse me of, nor do I see anything to be lost. RICHARD: This neither-this-nor-that ploy is nothing other than slipperiness in action again. What would be gained is increased communication skills and a chance to examine your borrowed belief system for flaws. What would be lost would be pathetic communication skills and the continued slide into self-created delusion. RESPONDENT: Please create no offence here Richard, but it is interesting that you think me ‘slick’. RICHARD: Oh, I do not ‘think’ you to be slick, your words simply abound with slickness. RESPONDENT: It is interesting, however, that you think that. RICHARD: Whoops ... there you go again. Both ‘interesting’ and ‘you think’ ... and in one short sentence, too. RESPONDENT: If you would, what do you see as the motivation in such an endeavour? RICHARD: To fend off anyone who comes close to the bone, of course. RESPONDENT: Oh Richard, for goodness sakes. I Love you. There is no threat perceived, no fending undertaken, and outside of that created in the evaluation given here, no bone to protect. RICHARD: If what you say is indeed correct then why do you do it? Where is your substance? What do you have to back your flowery words with? Where is your wisdom? * RICHARD: Secondly: I am not ‘asserting’ what is happening in the world ... it is indeed happening. And you know it is. RESPONDENT: If you are more comfortable believing you know what is known, there is Joy for your comfort. RICHARD: Whoops ... there you go again. Do you see it in action? And what a pointless sentence it is anyway. RESPONDENT: A response to a pointless sentence – Very Good! RICHARD: Yes, but it was a pointed response to a pointless sentence ... the point now is: did you get the point? * RESPONDENT: Know this; if you return their attitude you have indeed plummeted to the very station of being they have accused you of. RICHARD: It seems that you are writing about ‘their attitude’ in disparaging terms, so it would appear that you do see ‘‘ugliness in the actions of others’ . Thus would you say that you have an ugly nature? RESPONDENT: It would not be mine to assert a me having an ugly nature, Richard. RICHARD: Why ‘assert’? A simple yes will do. RESPONDENT: It is most respectfully offered that in response to the inquiry, a simple yes does not suffice, Richard. RICHARD: No, I guess not ... you have too much to lose. Your whole organisation, for starters. RESPONDENT: This is a list of current associations, now, if you would, which of these organisations is threatened? (1) Institute for Noetic Science (2) Automobile Association of America (3) Community Justice Project (4) Friends of WXXI (local PBS broadcaster) (5) Association of Professional Foster Parenting (6) Family Mentors of Hillside Children Centre (7) National Home Gardening Club (8) Board of Directors Hornell Cinderella Soft Ball. RICHARD: I was referring to your ‘Sangha’ , actually ... which gives you a sense of identity and purpose. RESPONDENT: There is no doubt, however, that ugly nature has been here. RICHARD: Ah, so you do not have an ‘ugly nature’ now, eh? Therefore you do not see ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ anywhere? Then No. 2 is not being physically harmed? Is it but a dream that he is having? RESPONDENT: Awareness (Universe, God, corn flake, now, or if it is that ‘material’ is most comfortable for you) is what it is doing (being). RICHARD: Yes, (after wading through all your gobbledegook) what you mean is that god is physically harming god ... and no one is genuinely being ugly. Good one, Admiral Nelson. RESPONDENT: Is it necessary that ‘no one is genuinely being ugly’ follow ‘god is physically harming god’? If I may, I would not consider these assertions to be mutually exclusive. RICHARD: Oh? Have I misunderstood, then? If so, that is good ... are you now saying that ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ does exist (all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide (and this list is by no means exhaustive) RESPONDENT: Richard, I find none of things ugly. RICHARD: But they are not ‘appropriate’ courses of action, now, are they? You are just playing with words. RESPONDENT: It has been chosen not to create such things (the listed choices) here. RICHARD: No, they do not have to be created because they already exist. You have merely covered them over with the ‘Tried and True’ platitudes of Love and Compassion. You definitely have a platitude problem. RESPONDENT: As pointed out earlier, effort is put into helping others see that a similar choice can be made, if in fact, that is what is desired. RICHARD: But is it desired by you? And if so, why? Is it because it is – by any other name – ‘ugliness in the actions of others’? * RICHARD: Are you saying that your ‘god-which-is-you’ does know about this ‘ugliness in the actions of others’ ? Are you at last allowing that there may be some objective reality to the world of people, things and events? RESPONDENT: I am sorry Richard, I make no sense of this ‘your god-which-is-you does know about it’. RICHARD: ‘I am It!’ translates into ‘I am God’. (God by whatever name). RESPONDENT: As for objectivity-no, the reality of objectivity is not seen here. If it is helpful, neither is the reality subjectivity. RICHARD: Here is that ‘neither-this-nor-that’ ploy again. * RICHARD: So, is No. 2 being physically harmed? Is it not just a dream that he is having after all? RESPONDENT: Oh no, this is not the case as seen from here at all. If this is the conclusion created, then yes, indeed there has been a misunderstanding. RICHARD: Okay ... now is being physically harmed something to avoid? If so, you are affirming the reality of objectivity ... which you re-stated (above) does not exist. If objective reality does not exist then any physical harm – being an objective reality – does not exist either. RESPONDENT: Forgive me please, but I am not understanding why you say ‘Admirable Nelson’? I bid you, if this is important to you that this phrase be understood, please assist me grasp what is meant. RICHARD: ‘Admiral’ Nelson, actually, not ‘Admirable’ Nelson (although he is certainly admired). He was that English chappie – quite famous in British history – who turned a blind eye to his superior’s orders. He won his battle as a result and was lauded for his action. Of course, if he had lost he would have been keel-hauled ... nobody likes losers. Thus the ‘turning a blind eye’ has come to mean that one will muddle through somehow and all will turn out fine. I meant in the way of ‘I do not want to see what is actually going on in the world as it will upset my carefully constructed mind-set’. RESPONDENT: Wonderful Story! Thank you Richard. I really liked the use of the terms keel-hauled and muddle. I make little sense out of the idea of turning a blind eye, seems rather ridiculous to try and see with a blind eye, but I think I understand the spirit of your criticism. If I may, why is it that it is thought nobody likes a loser? RICHARD: It is not ‘thought’ that nobody likes a loser ... it is observed in daily life. People flock around a winner – patting them on the back – and commiserate with or ignore the loser. Please, do not try to tell me that you have lived this long and not noticed this. * RICHARD: All this leaves me musing. Does God have an ugly nature then ... or is God’s nature that of serious denial? RESPONDENT: Ahh, yes, yes, very good! To this I can respond! RICHARD: Do you mean that all the above was not a response? What was it? Oh, I know ... prevaricating and obfuscating. RESPONDENT: If ugliness exists, Richard. RICHARD: It does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed God is an ugly nature! RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, it is, without reservation, meant as it is stated. RICHARD: Not so fast ... your use of the word ‘if’ in ‘if ugliness exists’ conditions your agreement. You therefore do not mean anything at all ... it is all bombast and blather. RESPONDENT: Rather supports the point about expecting a blind eye to see. Very good then, bombast (an utterly delightful term!) and blather it is. RICHARD: Gradually the full story of No. 14 and his belief system comes out. You are turning a blind eye to what is actually going on in the world ... and your god (which is you) does have an ugly nature. Good. RESPONDENT: By the same token, if serious denial exists. RICHARD: By the same token ... serious denial does exist. RESPONDENT: Then indeed, God is serious denial. RICHARD: Oh, if only you meant that. RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, it is, without reservation, meant as it is stated. RICHARD: Not so fast ... your use of the word ‘if’ in ‘if serious denial exists’ conditions your agreement. You therefore do not mean anything at all ... it is all bombast and blather (this is great ... have we found a new and easy way to write E-Mails by just endlessly repeating ourselves?) RESPONDENT: (Smile) RICHARD: Am I to take it as an agreement? If so, then gradually the full story of No. 14 and his belief system comes out. You are turning a blind eye to what is actually going on in the world ... and your god (which is you) does not only have an ugly nature but is in serious denial. Good. RESPONDENT: Wonderful Richard! Wonderful! Good line you have initiated here. RICHARD: What was so good about it? You had to slip and slither your way through it ... all the way. How can you live with such duplicity? RESPONDENT: Most respectfully, Richard, contrary to your belief that you are the knowledge of what is known here, this communication is Enjoyed Greatly. RICHARD: There is the use of that ‘belief’ ploy-that-is-not-a-ploy again. RESPONDENT: I have enjoyed your writing skills since the list was joined. There is no compulsion here to slip and slither, but thank you for being concerned. RICHARD: If there is no compulsion – as you say – then why do you do it? RESPONDENT: Perhaps this is not unexpected, Richard, but why do you continue to see it? RICHARD: Because it is so obvious. RESPONDENT: Your response is Joyfully anticipated. RICHARD: How can you live with such mendacity? RESPONDENT: If there is extra time this day, I will look up mendacity – I am hoping that it is somewhat related to bombast and blather! Be Well, Richard. As always, your response is Joyfully anticipated. RICHARD: How can you live with such paltericity?
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 21): I long ago abandoned ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ because far too many of
my fellow human beings have been killed because of what is ‘right’ ... or savagely punished because they were ‘wrong’. It
is far better – and much more understandable – to appraise one’s feelings, thoughts and actions as being either ‘silly’
or ‘sensible’. It is simply silly to drive on the wrong side of the road, for example, because of the obvious danger to one’s
own life and limb and to others ... not ‘wrong’ with all its judgemental condemnations of one’s implicit wickedness and
badness. It is sensible to find out why one is driven to perform socially unacceptable acts, for instance, rather than to refrain
from committing these deeds because such restraint is the ‘right’ thing to do. Because ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ are emotive
words loaded with reward and punishment connotations – which is poor motivation for salubrious action anyway – then one has
dignity for the first time in one’s life. RESPONDENT: First off, Richard, your wallpaper decorating is wonderful! Thank you for sharing your talent. RICHARD: I am pleased that you like it ... but it required no talent at all. I went wandering around the Web-Site dedicated to Mr. Franklin Jones’ delusion a few weeks ago, for some telling information to present to one of his misguided devotees, and pinched it from there. RESPONDENT: Second, I have been following this thread and find easy agreement with much of what you are on about. What though is to be made of the idea of morality being raised up to an exercise in relative functionality? It seems from here that if it is sensibility and silliness that are to be the pans of balance on which actions are weighed, where then would the scale fall when the entire enterprise of ‘being alive’ is put to it. What sense is there in being alive at all? RICHARD: Oh, every sense in the universe ... which means infinite sense. You cannot get bigger than that, now, can you? You see, I am this very material universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being ... that is the sense of being alive. Also, as me, this universe can be intelligent ... and that is very sensible in view of the proliferation of solipsists these days. RESPONDENT: That which is alive can hardly breath without bringing harm or destruction to some aspect of the environment, yes? The whole exercise of personal existence must be a heavy measure on the side of silliness when a larger view is taken toward its effect. Does it not seem silly that this body should eat while another starves? RICHARD: The very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die in order to supply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgement. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action. When it comes to the consumption of nutrients there are many and various beliefs one can hold dearly to. There are people who will not eat red meat at all ... only white meat and fish. Then there are people who will not eat any flesh of warm-blooded animals at all ... only fish and reptiles. Then there are people (vegetarians) who will not eat any meat at all, but will consume eggs and dairy products. Then there are people (vegans) who will eat only vegetables, grain and seed. Then there are people (fruitarians) who will only eat fruit. Then – as we go into myth and fantasy – there are those who live on water and air ... and finally those who live on air only. Some vegetarians maintain that as a carrot (for example) does not scream audibly when it is pulled from the ground there is no distress caused by the consumption of vegetables. Yet the carrot indubitably dies slowly by being extracted from its life-support system – the ground is its home – and is this not distressing on some level of a living, growing organism? It all depends upon the level, or degree, of ‘aliveness’ that one ascribes to things. Vegans, for instance, will not consume eggs as this prevents an incipient life from being born. Fruitarians go one step further and say that, as the consumption of carrots prevents them from going to seed and sprouting new life, vegetables are to be eschewed entirely. Then, as the eating of grain and seeds also prevent potential life-forms from growing, they will eat only the flesh of the fruit that surrounds the kernel and plant out the embryo plant-form (I have been a fruitarian so I know full well what I am speaking of.) The obvious fact is clearly demonstrated by taking all this to its ultimate consideration. What will one do – as a fruitarian causing no pain or the taking of life of anyone or anything – about those pesky things like mosquitoes, sand-flies, cockroaches, rats, mice and other ‘vermin’ that invade my house? Put up screens? What about outside? Will I slap them dead ... or just shoo them away? What will one do if attacked by a snake, a crocodile, a shark, a lion and so on? Do as the Revered Scriptures say and turn the other cheek? Will I humbly submit to my fate and be mauled severely myself – or even killed – simply because of a religious injunction, a moral scruple, a noble ideal, a virtuous belief, a passionate opinion, a deeply held ethical theory? In other words, have animals and insects been given the right, by some inscrutable god, to do with me whatsoever they wish? Is my survival dependent upon the non-existent benevolence of all those sentient beings that I am not going to cause distress to? What then about germs, bacteria, bacillus, microbes, pathogens, phages, viruses and so on? Are they not entitled to remain alive and pain free? If one takes medication for disease, one is – possibly painfully – killing off the microscopic creatures that one’s body is the host too. Some religions – the Jain religion in India, for example – has its devout members wearing gauze over their nose and mouths to prevent insects from flying in and they even carry small brooms to sweep the path as they walk so that they will not accidentally step on some creature. It can really get out of hand. For instance, small-pox has been eradicated from the world by scientists as a means of saving countless human lives ... is this somehow ‘Wrong’? What is ‘Right’ in regards to what I do in order to stay alive? If I do none of these things then I will be causing pain and suffering to myself – and I am a sentient being too. It is an impossible scenario, when pursued to its ultimate conclusion. And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate belief in not causing any pain and suffering to other sentient beings then one must be more than a fruitarian ... one must be a pacifist as well. This amounts to hanging out a sign – if everybody else in the country one lives in adopts this specific belief – which says, in effect: ‘Please feel free to invade us, we will not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering to any sentient being whatsoever’ (the Tibetan situation is a particular case in point.) Thus anarchy would rule the world – all because of a belief system handed down by the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Avatars, the Redeemers and the Saviours, the Prophets and the Priests, century after century. All this is predicated upon there being an enduring ‘I’ that is going to survive the death of the body and go on into the paradisiacal After-Life that is ‘my’ post-mortem reward for being a ‘good’ person during ‘my’ sojourn on this planet earth. It is ‘I’ who is the ‘believer’, it is ‘I’ who will cause this flesh-and-blood body to go into all manner of contorted and convoluted emotion-backed thoughts as to what is ‘Right’ and what is ‘Wrong’, what is ‘Good’ and what is ‘Bad’. If it were not for the serious consequences of all this passionate dreaming it would be immensely humorous, for ‘I’ am not actual ... ‘I’ am an illusion. And any grand ‘I’ that supposedly survives death by being ‘Timeless and Spaceless’, ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Immortal and Eternal’ am but a delusion born out of that illusion. Thus any After-Life is a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion ... as I am so fond of saying. When ‘I’ am no longer extant there is no ‘believer’ inside the mind and heart to have any beliefs or disbeliefs. As there is no ‘believer’, there is no ‘I’ to be harmful ... and one is harmless only when one has eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. It means that no act is malicious, spiteful, hateful, revengeful and so on. It is a most estimable condition to be in. One is then free to kill or not kill something or someone, as the circumstances require. Eating meat, for example, is an act of freedom, based upon purely practical considerations such as the taste bud’s predilection, or the body’s ability to digest the food eaten, or meeting the standards of hygiene necessary for the preservation of decaying flesh, or the availability of sufficient resources on this planet to provide the acreage necessary to support the conversion of vegetation into animal protein. It has nothing whatsoever with sparing sentient beings any distress. Thus ‘Right and Wrong’ is nothing but a socially-conditioned affective and cognitive conscience instilled by well-meaning adults through reward and punishment (love and hate) in a fatally-flawed attempt to control the wayward self that all sentient beings are born with. The feeling of ‘Right and Wrong’ is born out of holding on to a belief system that is impossible to live ... as all belief systems are. I am not trying to persuade anyone to eat meat or not eat meat ... I leave it entirely up to the individual as to what they do regarding what they eat. It is the belief about being ‘Right or Wrong’ that is insidious, for this is how you are manipulated by those who seek to control you ... they are effectively beating you with a psychological stick. And the particularly crafty way they go about it is that they get you to do the beating to yourself. Such self-abasement is the hall-mark of any religious humility ... a brow-beaten soul earns its way into some god’s good graces by self-castigating acts of redemption. Holding fervently to any belief is a sure sign that there is a wayward ‘I’ that needs to be controlled. Give me ‘silly’ and ‘sensible’ any day. RESPONDENT: Certainly it is at risk of limb that I drive on the wrong side of the road, but am I not putting other at risk by driving at all? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I do not drive ... I dropped my Driver’s License into the pot-belly stove eighteen years ago. I walk ... for longer distances I have a bicycle. RESPONDENT: Which act is sillier, to risk limb by driving against the tradition or putting that child on a bike around the next blind corner at risk by driving at all? RICHARD: Being alive is a risk ... that is what makes it thrilling. As for cycling ... knowing that there are some drivers who hate cyclists, and consider that they should not even be on ‘their’ road, I look out on blind corners. I passed this kind of information onto my children – and anyone else who wants to listen – so I would recommend that this child that you refer to be advised likewise. Somewhere along the line, each person takes amenability for their own life and actions. Do you see how you have taken a straight-forward matter-of-fact way of appraising a situation and attempted to turn it into morality? It is not a matter of merely substituting ‘silly’ and ‘sensible’ for ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ ... it requires a paradigm shift born out of the sincere endeavour to enable the already always perfect moment apparent via elimination of identity in its totality. As you are busy trying to foolishly prove that it does not work by fudging the issue – rather than seeing how it does work in delivering the goods – then you obviously have no interest in playing a part in bringing about peace-on-earth. But what solipsist would, eh?
RESPONDENT: First off, Richard, your wallpaper decorating is wonderful! Thank you for sharing your talent. RICHARD: I am pleased that you like it ... but it required no talent at all. I went wandering around the Web-Site dedicated to Mr. Franklin Jones’ delusion a few weeks ago, for some telling information to present to one of his misguided devotees, and pinched it from there. RESPONDENT: Thank you for this information. I am wondering, what exactly is ‘talent’ in the philosophy you have expounded here? RICHARD: I am aware that the word ‘talent’ would signify the divine endowment of this quality as a means of self-improvement to you – given your predilection for living out the hallucination that this infinite and eternal universe is but a manifestation of an imaginary divinity – but it has a secular meaning as well. It is an ability, a skill, an aptitude to do something well. RESPONDENT: Second, I have been following this thread and find easy agreement with much of what you are on about. What though is to be made of the idea of morality being raised up to an exercise in relative functionality? It seems from here that if it is sensibility and silliness that are to be the pans of balance on which actions are weighed, where then would the scale fall when the entire enterprise of ‘being alive’ is put to it. What sense is there in being alive at all? RICHARD: Oh, every sense in the universe ... which means infinite sense. You cannot get bigger than that, now, can you? You see, I am this very material universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being ... that is the sense of being alive. Also, as me, this universe can be intelligent ... and that is very sensible in view of the proliferation of solipsists these days. RESPONDENT: Is then the knowledge that this is so material? RICHARD: There is nothing but this material universe ... and with it being infinite and eternal then how much bigger and better than the best can you get, eh? It takes a super-charged imagination – born of discontent – to fantasise about something better than this perfection which is already always here now. RESPONDENT: That which is alive can hardly breath without bringing harm or destruction to some aspect of the environment, yes? The whole exercise of personal existence must be a heavy measure on the side of silliness when a larger view is taken toward its effect. Does it not seem silly that this body should eat while another starves? RICHARD: The very fact that one is alive means consuming nutrients ... and staying alive means that something, somewhere, must die in order to supply these nutrients. This is a fact of life ... and the marvellous thing about a fact is that one can not argue with it. One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgement. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action. <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Gracious! What I am asking Richard, is how is the silliness of an action determined? RICHARD: I have already explained (above) ... did you not read with both eyes but rushed here to show your ignorance? Seeing the fact determines action. RESPONDENT: Is it silly, for example, to kill a bacteria so that a human body can live? RICHARD: I have already explained (above) ... did you not read with both eyes but rushed here to show your ignorance? Seeing the fact determines action. RESPONDENT: Does the bacteria think it silly to do what it needs to survive? RICHARD: What kind of hallucination is it that you are living in? There is no Noddy and Big Ears here ... bacteria cannot think. RESPONDENT: Who determines what is silly? RICHARD: I have already explained (above) ... did you not read with both eyes but rushed here to show your ignorance? Seeing the fact determines action. RESPONDENT: What is the criteria for that which is silly, and that which is sensible? RICHARD: I have already explained (above) ... did you not read with both eyes but rushed here to show your ignorance? Seeing the fact determines action. * RICHARD: And then there is the matter of one’s fellow human beings. Some of them – in fact at times a lot of them – are desirous of invading the country that one is living peacefully in, with the avowed intent of killing, torturing, raping, pillaging and subjugating oneself and one’s fellow citizens. If one holds a strong and passionate belief in not causing any pain and suffering to other sentient beings then one must be more than a fruitarian ... one must be a pacifist as well. This amounts to hanging out a sign – if everybody else in the country one lives in adopts this specific belief – which says, in effect: ‘Please feel free to invade us, we will not fight back, for we hold firmly to the principle of not causing pain and suffering to any sentient being whatsoever’ (the Tibetan situation is a particular case in point.) Thus anarchy would rule the world – all because of a belief system handed down by the Saints and the Sages, the Messiahs and the Avatars, the Redeemers and the Saviours, the Prophets and the Priests, century after century. All this is predicated upon there being an enduring ‘I’ that is going to survive the death of the body and go on into the paradisiacal After-Life that is ‘my’ post-mortem reward for being a ‘good’ person during ‘my’ sojourn on this planet earth. RESPONDENT: This hardly need be the case. I am both a vegan and a pacifist and gladly wear a sign that says, ‘I will do you no harm’. RICHARD: You can eat whatever you choose as far as I am concerned ... but know full well that by being
a pacifist RESPONDENT: But I have no belief in an after-life. RICHARD: What solipsist would ... there is no life in the first place, in their belief system, as it is all an illusion anyway. RESPONDENT: The reward is the action. RICHARD: What ‘action’? It is the gullible youth and dedicated career soldiers that do all ‘the action’. The pusillanimous pacifist can sit safely at home ... all the while casting guilt trips at those who have the intestinal fortitude to get off their backsides and do something. RESPONDENT: Why the fear of anarchy? RICHARD: I looked back at what I had written and for the life of me I cannot see anarchy anywhere there. I guess all this commonsense talk must have stirred up your fears and you have projected them onto some innocuous writing. It is only a guess, though. RESPONDENT: What could that mean to someone who is perfectly at Peace? RICHARD: Ah ... now this sentence does throw some light upon the puzzle. The capitalisation of the word ‘Peace’ means that you are referring to your Holy Peace and not the secular peace-on-earth that I talk about. Yea verily ... you should indeed be trembling in your boots. The wrath of your god will descend any moment now. RESPONDENT: Are you afraid of not having all you desire? RICHARD: Have you ever noticed that once someone starts projecting they cannot stop? RESPONDENT: Are you afraid of being in pain? RICHARD: It is the word fear that is the give-away ... it being what gives a pacifist their pseudo-courage. RESPONDENT: Are you afraid of the possibility of total extinction at death? RICHARD: No ‘possibility’ about it. Death is oblivion. * RICHARD: It is ‘I’ who is the ‘believer’, it is ‘I’ who will cause this flesh-and-blood body to go into all manner of contorted and convoluted emotion-backed thoughts as to what is ‘Right’ and what is ‘Wrong’, what is ‘Good’ and what is ‘Bad’. If it were not for the serious consequences of all this passionate dreaming it would be immensely humorous, for ‘I’ am not actual ... ‘I’ am an illusion. And any grand ‘I’ that supposedly survives death by being ‘Timeless and Spaceless’, ‘Unborn and Undying’, ‘Immortal and Eternal’ am but a delusion born out of that illusion. Thus any After-Life is a fantasy spun out of a delusion born out of an illusion. RESPONDENT: Any conception of the afterlife is a fantasy. RICHARD: Your whole life is a ‘fantasy’ ... you are the person who came onto this Mailing List declaring that ‘I am IT!’ and that ‘objective reality is solipsism’! RESPONDENT: You can produce no fact, as it were, about the afterlife. RICHARD: But facts mean nothing to you. For you there are no facts. Facts require an actuality and for you none of all this is real ... let alone actual. RESPONDENT: That it is any of the things you have listed, or that it is not is pure speculation. RICHARD: Your whole life is ‘pure speculation’ , whereas for me everything is actual. There is no identity – no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – inside this flesh and blood body to go into any ‘after-life’. Any one who says that proposing or discounting an ‘after-life’ is nothing but ‘speculation’ reveals that their identity is still intact. RESPONDENT: From here, there is nothing gained thinking one way or another about it, but I am happy to listen to your imagined outcomes. RICHARD: This stance is sometimes known as being agnostic ... and the people I have met personally, over many years that I have discussed these matters, who embrace this position have invariably been firmly convinced that this course of inaction is the intelligent approach. Mostly they have been academics ... it is a variation on that hoary adage: ‘he who says he does not know, really knows’. I guess it makes them feel intellectually comfortable. It does reveal that their identity is still firmly in place, however, for when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die one already knows what happens at physical death. * RICHARD: When ‘I’ am no longer extant there is no ‘believer’ inside the mind and heart to have any beliefs or disbeliefs. As there is no ‘believer’, there is no ‘I’ to be harmful ... and one is harmless only when one has eliminated malice – what is commonly called evil – from oneself in its entirety. That is, the ‘dark side’ of human nature which requires the maintenance of a ‘good side’ to eternally combat it. By doing the ‘impossible’ – everybody tells me that you can’t change human nature – then one is automatically harmless ... which does not mean abstaining from killing. RESPONDENT: These words have not come from here, ergo the claim that everybody tells you that is not a fact at all. RICHARD: Nothing in all your words to this Mailing List or anywhere on your Web Site shows the slightest bit of evidence that you have changed human nature. You are but dissembling ... divine nature is nothing but human nature glorified and sanctified. * RICHARD: It is the belief about being ‘Right or Wrong’ that is insidious, for this is how you are manipulated by those who seek to control you ... they are effectively beating you with a psychological stick. And the particularly crafty way they go about it is that they get you to do the beating to yourself. Such self-abasement is the hall-mark of any religious humility ... a brow-beaten soul earns its way into some god’s good graces by self-castigating acts of redemption. Holding fervently to any belief is a sure sign that there is a wayward ‘I’ that needs to be controlled. RESPONDENT: Controlled by what? RICHARD: A socially constructed conscience. RESPONDENT: Controlled how? RICHARD: By reward and punishment ... and by awe and dread. RESPONDENT: Have we not elsewhere in your post eliminated the good me bad me duality? RICHARD: What is with this < we > business? I have ... but you have not. * RICHARD: Give me ‘silly’ and ‘sensible’ any day. RESPONDENT: It is not mine to give. RICHARD: It is a figure of speech ... an English expression. However, what is the use of living in the delirium that you are a god if you cannot give anything to anyone, eh? * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I do not drive ... I dropped my Driver’s License into the pot-belly stove eighteen years ago. I walk ... for longer distances I have a bicycle. RESPONDENT: Wonderful! Very nice! RICHARD: Not really ... I was still a bit idealistic RESPONDENT: Which act is sillier, to risk limb by driving against the tradition or putting that child on a bike around the next blind corner at risk by driving at all? RICHARD: Being alive is a risk ... that is what makes it thrilling. As for cycling ... knowing that
there are some drivers who hate cyclists, and consider that they should not even be on ‘their’ road, I look out on blind
corners. I passed this kind of information onto my children RESPONDENT: How is this determined? RICHARD: By commonsense. RESPONDENT: What is the risk? RICHARD: The risk of life and limb ... as you very well know from your ‘child on a bike’ example. Is this all an intellectual exercise for you? I am talking about actually living this ... there does not seem to be any point in writing if you are but mimicking the academics. I have far better things to do with my time ... like sitting with my feet up watching television. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t this thrill be based on some conception of a certain loss that can only be the outcome of active imagination? RICHARD: You see ... what if I had indulged in this intellectual type of bovine faecal matter verbiage when answering your ‘child on a bike’ question. What if I had said: ‘Oh there is no danger when whizzing around a blind corner ... your concern is all ‘based on some conception of a certain loss that can only be the outcome of active imagination?’ This is what wanking looks like in print. RESPONDENT: From here, I find no risk in being alive, nor in not being alive. One does as they do, what is there to loose? RICHARD: Try telling that to the parents of the ‘child on a bike’ ... or the judge and the jury when arraigned on a manslaughter charge. Wake up and smell the coffee. * RICHARD: Do you see how you have taken a straight-forward matter-of-fact way of appraising a situation and attempted to turn it into morality? RESPONDENT: It is interesting that these are the eyes you see with, Richard. I will keep in mind that this is how what is offered from here is painted. Thank you. I am now wondering if your belief that this is so is evidence of ‘Holding fervently to any belief’ and is ‘a sure sign that there is a wayward ‘I’ that needs to be controlled’. RICHARD: Wonder away to your heart’s content ... it makes no difference at all. * RICHARD: It is not a matter of merely substituting ‘silly’ and ‘sensible’ for ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ ... it requires a paradigm shift born out of the sincere endeavour to enable the already always perfect moment apparent via elimination of identity in its totality. RESPONDENT: If I may, if it is an ‘already always perfect moment’, what sense is there to be made out of endeavouring to make it so? RICHARD: Try reading with both eyes before dashing to the keyboard and tapping out your latest bit of ignorance. I never said ‘make it so’ . Have a look. RESPONDENT: I am in agreement with the claim ‘already always perfect moment’, more, I would see the endeavour to make it so an ‘already always perfect moment’, but this does not seem to be your intent here. RICHARD: This is but further verbiage based upon a false premise born out of not bothering to read what I write. In fact your entire post smells of cheap point-scoring and reflects your character well. * RICHARD: As you are busy trying to foolishly prove that it does not work by fudging the issue – rather than seeing how it does work in delivering the goods – then you obviously have no interest in playing a part in bringing about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Where is such an agenda evident in what I have offered? RICHARD: Oh ... pretty well in every sentence you write. RESPONDENT: Whether a particular belief system works or no is not mine to decide. RICHARD: Indeed not ... when one has surrendered their will to an imaginary god they are excused from making decisions of their own. I am sure this plea would stand up well in court. RESPONDENT: One’s path is where their foot falls and I have no desire to move your legs. RICHARD: I am well-pleased that you cannot ... let alone will not. RESPONDENT: I will be certain to keep your determination of my intentions in mind. RICHARD: This is but a platitude ... we have corresponded before, remember, and all your subsequent writing shows that you have never kept anything discussed ‘in mind’ at all. So why should you start now? RESPONDENT: I am interested, however, in where telepathy fits into your materialistic belief system? RICHARD: It is not a belief system because the ability to believe disappears along with the identity. Thus all of the psychic world – including prescience – disappears also. There are no gods or demons outside of passionate human fantasy. There is no good and evil here in this actual world. Look, the Human Condition is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. Peace-on-earth is possible only when there is freedom from the Human Condition. Freedom from the Human Condition is the ending of the ‘self’. The elimination of the ‘self’ is simultaneously the demise of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within oneself. Then ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... which is the only place they can live in. Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live as this flesh and blood body – one then lives freely in the magical paradise that this verdant earth floating in the infinitude that the universe actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending. I can heartily recommend committing both psychological and psychic suicide. RESPONDENT: This is a Grand Statement you have made! RICHARD: Aye ... it means an actual peace-on-earth in this life-time if acted upon.
CORRESPONDENT No. 14 (Part Three) 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 |
