|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT No. 45: But it seems inconceivable the rising of this universe by itself, without something behind, and the own matter becoming conscious of itself as human being and feeler. RICHARD: This physical universe always was, already is, and always will be. RESPONDENT: In other words, it is timeless? RICHARD: No ... it is eternal (always was, already is, and always will be). RESPONDENT: I thought you denied the timeless. RICHARD: I do not need to deny ‘the timeless’ any more than I need to deny ‘god’ or ‘goddess’ or ‘unicorn’ ... they are simply irrelevant hypotheses. There is a distinct difference between the word ‘eternal’ and the word ‘timeless’. The word ‘timeless’ is very explicit ... no time (just like ‘selfless’ means no self) as in not subject to time, not affected by the passage of time, out of time, without reference to time and independent of the passage of time ... like the state to which time has no application (the condition into which the soul enters at death) called the afterlife. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti states that ‘timeless’ means ‘no time’ (and ‘no space’). Vis.:
Whereas the word ‘eternal’ means all time, as in that which will always exist, that which has always existed, that which is without a beginning or an end in time, that which is everlasting time; enduring, persistent, recurring, incessant, constant, continuous and unbroken time; ageless and thus interminable and valid for all time ... which is what this material universe is. Even modern physicists, when they posit their ‘nothingness’ prior to their mathematical ‘Big Bang’, have enough intellectual rigour to use the word ‘timeless’ to refer to that ‘before time began’ fantasy of theirs ... they never say ‘eternal’ because ‘eternal’ is a time-word. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is very specific, on occasion, about the distinction betwixt ‘eternal’ and ‘timeless’:
Yea verily ... I can easily ‘see the point’ too. Yet, just as there are those who water down ‘selfless’ (no self) into meaning ‘unselfish’ (a not selfish self), there are those who corrupt ‘timeless’ (no time) into meaning ‘eternity’ (unlimited time). Even dictionaries do this. However, when viewed honestly, the word ‘timeless’ selfishly implies ‘deathless’ (as in ‘immortal’). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that there is ‘something immortal’ and that it is located ‘beyond time’. Vis.:
Whereas I clearly and unambiguously say that it is this universe that is immortal (ageless, ceaseless, unborn, undying, deathless, immutable and indestructible) ... not me. I am mortal.
RESPONDENT No. 33: I notice that with some of the posters you enter into very same arguments. As an independent reader often I get the feeling that some of these people are quite incapable of understanding what you are saying. Still, you persist. Why? RICHARD: Anybody is (eventually) capable of understanding what I am saying ... and the challenge to have them acknowledge this is a fun challenge. I like my fellow human being ... and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: I understand what you are saying, Richard ... RICHARD: If you did, in fact, understand what I am saying then you would not write what you did just recently. Vis.:
You see? You do not understand what I am saying after all. Thus what you write (below) are but baseless justifications for continuing to align yourself with the ‘Tried and True’. RESPONDENT: [I understand what you are saying] and I doubt everything you say as being actually the truth. RICHARD: I will re-arrange this to read in accord with the fact:
Now there is a solid basis to continue on and derive some sense out of what you say (below). RESPONDENT: I do have no reason not to believe that everything you say happened exactly as it happened to you. I see nothing in what you have to offer that will usher in peace in this lifetime on this earth. RICHARD: Here is an illuminating association:
RESPONDENT: All you every say is to repeatedly ask yourself the question: ‘how you are experiencing this moment’ or something like that. RICHARD: Your cavalier throwaway line ‘... or something like that’ communicates the following:
RESPONDENT: I do see, however, a need for you to believe that you have discovered something beyond that of which you call ‘enlightenment.’ I say ‘believe’ because you cannot prove anything. RICHARD: Your ‘I do see a need for you to believe that ...’ line is so prevalent on this Mailing List it ought to be enshrined as ‘The K-List Blanket Dismissal No. 1. (a)’. RESPONDENT: Your hypothesis is purely conjecture with no corroborating facts that there are three I’s, count them: the soul ‘I’, the ego ‘I’, and, see, already I’ve forgotten the other one. RICHARD: Your ‘... I’ve forgotten the other one’ ending communicates the following:
RESPONDENT: Yours is just not a working hypothesis. RICHARD: Yet it worked for me: I am incapable of malice
It is oh-so-easy to knock something down without putting something in its place. RESPONDENT: In order for something to accepted as an actual fact it has to be corroborated. RICHARD: No ... a fact is where something actual is acknowledged as existing independent of belief. The first person to discover a fact is always on their own ... corroboration is when another or others also see the fact (thus making it a common fact). There are many, many things actual yet to be discovered (and thus established as fact). RESPONDENT: You are now a blood and bones body just like the rest of us ... that is all, and you admit it yourself. RICHARD: Yes ... I fully acknowledge the fact that I am this flesh and blood body as an actuality. RESPONDENT: ... and you totally believe that that is all there is to life when scientist themselves say that 98 percent of what is in existence is unseen and unseeable (unknowable). RICHARD: I am none too sure of your 98% figure but the hoary myth that only 10% of the brain is being used and the other 90% is unused has long ago been dispelled forever by scientific research. Furthermore, as I understand it no scientist has been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Thought activity (thinking, reflecting, planning) can be tracked ... but the ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego by whatever name) has not been located. The affective feelings (emotions, passions and calentures) can be traced ... but the ‘feeler’ (‘me’ as soul by whatever name) has not been located. Scientists tend to disagree among themselves, of course, yet there is sufficient research to allow for a reasonable supposition to be made that thought and thinking is primarily sourced in the neo-cortex and that the affective feelings are primarily sourced (in what is popularly called the ‘lizard brain’) at the top of the brain-stem/base of the skull. I would suggest that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (by whatever name) will never be precisely located ... although I have read that there is a place (popularly dubbed the ‘God Spot’) that can be electronically stimulated to give the oceanic feeling of ‘Oneness’ so beloved of religionists, spiritualists, mystics and metaphysicalists for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history. As for consciousness itself ... my experience (and subsequent reading) leads me to propose the ‘Substantia Nigra’, located in the upper third of the ‘Reticular Activating System’, as being the ‘seat of consciousness’. ‘Tis only a proposal, mind you. RESPONDENT: You are a staunch atheist simply because you cannot know anything else ... RICHARD: Yet as I have said, over and again, that I lived the Summum Bonum of human experience night and day for eleven years, then this what you say here (‘simply because you cannot know anything else’) makes a mockery of what you said (further above):
RESPONDENT: ... and even in that statement I see contradiction because you go on to say that you are this universe experiencing itself at this time, at this moment, and the universe has always been as it is now ... perfect and peaceful. If this is so, then you have been since the beginning of time and always be as this universe. RICHARD: There is no ‘contradiction’ ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body is the same-same stuff as the stuff of this universe: therefore this flesh and blood body is the same age as this universe. That the universe first started forming as this one-off shape in 1947, and will keep on replenishing its configuration as this one-off shape for x-number of years until it ceases its configuration as this one-off shape forever, does not make its configuration as this one-off shape separate from this what it already always is. Incidentally ... this is where the only ‘contradiction’ is (and all in the one short paragraph):
May I ask? Do you read what you send before you send it? RESPONDENT: Respondent No. 40 may have a point about your brain being damaged ... RICHARD: Here is ‘a point’ for you (only a factual point this time): 160,000,000 people with no brain-damage were killed in wars alone in the last 100 years by people with no brain-damage. RESPONDENT: ... and the thing is that a brain so damaged cannot know that it is damaged. RICHARD: There is a psychiatric term for what you describe: anosognosia RESPONDENT: Now I’m not saying that your brain is damaged in that way ... RICHARD: Then why did you say it? RESPONDENT: ... but I do know that a brain that has had a terrible shock to it, may have to adjust its thinking to accommodate what it can accept in order to survive without going totally stark raving mad. RICHARD: But as I am already what you call ‘totally stark raving mad’ according to official diagnoses by accredited psychiatrists ... where does that leave your amateurish psychologising? In the same place as your amateurish scientism, perchance?
RESPONDENT No. 33: I notice that with some of the posters you enter into very same arguments. As an independent reader often I get the feeling that some of these people are quite incapable of understanding what you are saying. Still, you persist. Why? RICHARD: Anybody is (eventually) capable of understanding what I am saying ... and the challenge to have them acknowledge this is a fun challenge. I like my fellow human being ... and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: I understand what you are saying, Richard ... RICHARD: If you did, in fact, understand what I am saying then you would not write what you did just recently. Vis.: [Respondent No. 20]: ‘So why not simply start fresh? ... Free from having to be something special’. [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘having to be’ to be something special to be ‘free from’ as I am already something special: a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and, until some other ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul gets of their backside and does something personal about human suffering, I will remain the only something special on this planet so far (as far as I have been able to ascertain)’. [Respondent]: ‘Don’t forget there is Respondent No. 10’. You see? You do not understand what I am saying after all. Thus what you write (below) are but baseless justifications for continuing to align yourself with the ‘Tried and True’. RESPONDENT: I was just reminding you that Respondent No. 10 has also claimed to have died. I don’t know how many I’s he had, though, that died. RICHARD: Ahh ... that makes it two people’s writing you do not understand, then. * RESPONDENT: [I understand what you are saying] and I doubt everything you say as being actually the truth. RICHARD: I will re-arrange this to read in accord with the fact: [Fact]: I do not understand what you are saying [but] I doubt everything you say as being actually the truth’. Now there is a solid basis to continue on and derive some sense out of what you say (below). RESPONDENT: Did you understand everything that Krishnamurti was saying? RICHARD: Yes ... I have an intimate understanding (direct experiencing) of that what he spoke of for 60 plus years. RESPONDENT: I merely made my statement showing that I was I was appreciative of what you said in your reply to Respondent No. 33: ‘2. If K in your opinion was not a charlatan, what, if any thing, of essence do you find in his various writings and talks?’. [Richard]: ‘His ‘question everything; doubt everything; including the speaker’ advice’. RICHARD: Then might I suggest that if you had copied or snipped that particular exchange and placed it above your ‘I understand what you are saying, Richard ...’, instead of placing my ‘anybody is (eventually) capable of understanding what I am saying ...’ line above it, you would not have conveyed the impression that you do, in fact, understand what I am saying? It makes for clarity in communication ... plus saves a lot of to-ing and fro-ing. RESPONDENT: I doubt everything you say in keeping in line with that advice from K to ‘doubt everything.’ RICHARD: Uh huh ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘question everything; doubt everything; including the speaker’ and what you see fit to doubt is everything Richard says instead. Well done, Admiral Nelson. * RESPONDENT: I do have no reason not to believe that everything you say happened exactly as it happened to you. I see nothing in what you have to offer that will usher in peace in this lifetime on this earth. RICHARD: Here is an illuminating association: [Fact]: ‘I do not understand what you are saying’. [Respondent]: ‘I see nothing in what you have to offer that will usher in peace in this lifetime on this earth’. RESPONDENT: You are saying that if I understood what you are saying, that would usher peace in this lifetime on this earth? RICHARD: I am not at the point of saying that yet ... what I am saying, in this particular association of two sentences, is that the reason why you see nothing in what I have to offer, that will usher in peace-on-earth in this lifetime for the flesh and blood body called No. 19, is because you do not understand what I am saying. I will put it this way:
It is not at all complicated or arcane. * RESPONDENT: All you every say is to repeatedly ask yourself the question: ‘how you are experiencing this moment’ or something like that. RICHARD: Your cavalier throwaway line ‘... or something like that’ communicates the following: [Message Conveyed]: ‘I neither understand what you are saying nor can I be bothered finding out for sure just what it is that you are saying’. RESPONDENT: I was not sure of the exact words you use to convey your ‘method,’ and, yes, I did not take time to search for it. I am not nearly as adept at the magic capabilities of the computer as you ... where you have everything at your fingertips. RICHARD: I am not suggesting that an exact word-for-word quote was required ... there are other people, who do understand what I am saying, who also shorten or change words in that phrase I use and I have no issue with them over that. It is the understanding which is important and what your cavalier throwaway line conveyed was that you neither understand what I am saying nor can you be bothered finding out for sure just what it is that I am saying ... just as your use of scare quotes around the word <method> also conveys in this reply. It is what is being conveyed that I am bringing out into the open here. * RESPONDENT: I do see, however, a need for you to believe that you have discovered something beyond that of which you call ‘enlightenment.’ I say ‘believe’ because you cannot prove anything. RICHARD: Your ‘I do see a need for you to believe that ...’ line is so prevalent on this Mailing List it ought to be enshrined as ‘The K-List Blanket Dismissal No. 1. (a)’. RESPONDENT: OK. From now on I’ll just refer to your belief as KLBD#1. RICHARD: Yet you are still doing it here (‘I’ll just refer to your belief as ...’). How can you look at something another reports with any degree of sincerity if what they say is automatically seen to be their ‘belief’? * RESPONDENT: Your hypothesis is purely conjecture with no corroborating facts that there are three I’s, count them: the soul ‘I’, the ego ‘I’, and, see, already I’ve forgotten the other one. RICHARD: Your ‘... I’ve forgotten the other one’ ending communicates the following: [Message Conveyed]: ‘I do not understand what you are saying and I am so dismissive of it anyway I couldn’t care less about finding out’. RESPONDENT: Well, I did [forget the other one]. I was going to list them, but I drew a blank on the third ‘I’. RICHARD: Again: I am not looking for some scholastic exactitude but what is being conveyed. In order to meaningfully refute what the other is saying, if that is what ensues, one first needs to understand what they are saying. Otherwise why respond at all ... why not just ignore the entire E-Mail and write to someone else? * RESPONDENT: Yours is just not a working hypothesis. RICHARD: Yet it worked for me: I am incapable of malice and sorrow, just for starters. May I ask what has worked for you? Can you say the same? Vis.: ‘I [Respondent] am incapable of malice and sorrow’? RESPONDENT: No, I cannot say that I am incapable of anything, for I have no idea what tomorrow (the next moment) will bring. Everything is in a constant state of flux, and I am in the same state as everything. RICHARD: Yet I can definitively say that I am incapable of malice and sorrow – and in that respect I know perfectly well what tomorrow (the next moment) will bring – which means that only purity and its perfection is all which can be looked forward to for experiencing. And, in that everything is in a constant state of flux, such ever-occurring novelty is the very thing that occasions constant joy and delight. Inasmuch as I am this flesh and blood body, and I am thus this constant state of flux, I am already always novel for my own enjoyment and appreciation (let alone other people, things and events). All this and more is right under your nose, as it were. * RICHARD: It is oh-so-easy to knock something down without putting something in its place. RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard, I don’t understand what you are saying. RICHARD: Good ... now there is an opportunity. RESPONDENT: I only take your words to mean what I understand them to mean. RICHARD: Of course – that is not the issue – for what else can one do? However, it is the preparedness to move with one’s current understanding which is vital. * RESPONDENT: In order for something to accepted as an actual fact it has to be corroborated. RICHARD: No ... a fact is where something actual is acknowledged as existing independent of belief. The first person to discover a fact is always on their own ... corroboration is when another or others also see the fact (thus making it a common fact). There are many, many things actual yet to be discovered (and thus established as fact). RESPONDENT: Indeed, including your hypothesis about ‘Actualism.’ RICHARD: Not so ... actualism is already established as fact. That not many see the fact only indicates that it is early days, yet. * RESPONDENT: You are now a blood and bones body just like the rest of us ... that is all, and you admit it yourself. RICHARD: Yes ... I fully acknowledge the fact that I am this flesh and blood body as an actuality. RESPONDENT: ... and you totally believe that that is all there is to life when scientist themselves say that 98 percent of what is in existence is unseen and unseeable (unknowable). RICHARD: I am none too sure of your 98% figure but the hoary myth that only 10% of the brain is being used and the other 90% is unused has long ago been dispelled forever by scientific research. Furthermore, as I understand it no scientist has been able to locate ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (by whatever name) despite all their RI scans (Radio Isotope), CAT scans (Computerised Axial Tomography), CT scans (Computed Tomography), NMR scans (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance), PET scans (Positron Emission Tomography), MRA scans (Magnetic Resonance Angiography), MRI scans (Magnetic Resonance Imaging), and fMRI scans (functioning Magnetic Resonance Imaging). Thought activity (thinking, reflecting, planning) can be tracked ... but the ‘thinker’ (‘I’ as ego by whatever name) has not been located. The affective feelings (emotions, passions and calentures) can be traced ... but the ‘feeler’ (‘me’ as soul by whatever name) has not been located. Scientists tend to disagree among themselves, of course, yet there is sufficient research to allow for a reasonable supposition to be made that thought and thinking is primarily sourced in the neo-cortex and that the affective feelings are primarily sourced (in what is popularly called the ‘lizard brain’) at the top of the brain-stem/base of the skull. RESPONDENT: Really? RICHARD: Yes, that is really what scientists have repeatedly established through research. RESPONDENT: Is that a fact, or do you just agree with that supposition – believe it because it upholds your theory of an ‘actual’ happening? RICHARD: It is fact that thought and thinking is primarily sourced in the neo-cortex and that the affective feelings are primarily sourced (in what is popularly called the ‘lizard brain’) at the top of the brain-stem/ base of the skull. That I called it a ‘reasonable supposition’ is only for those who are yet to investigate for themselves ... it is called establishing a ‘prima facie’ case (having enough evidence to warrant further investigation). * RICHARD: I would suggest that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (by whatever name) will never be
precisely located ... although I have read that there is a place (popularly dubbed the ‘God Spot’) that can be electronically
stimulated to give the oceanic RESPONDENT: I see that you have totally dismissed the fact that the observer is the observed; that the thinker is the thought. RICHARD: No, I have not dismissed them: when ‘the observer’ died, when ‘the thinker’ became extinct, the ‘observer is the observed’ event and the ‘thinker is the thought’ occurrence vanished forever of their own accord. * RICHARD: As for consciousness itself ... my experience (and subsequent reading) leads me to propose the ‘Substantia Nigra’, located in the upper third of the ‘Reticular Activating System’, as being the ‘seat of consciousness’. ‘Tis only a proposal, mind you. RESPONDENT: I have no idea what you are talking about. RICHARD: I am responding to your observation that I ‘totally believe that that [that Richard is a blood and bones body just like the rest of us] is all there is to life when scientist themselves say that 98 percent of what is in existence is unseen and unseeable (unknowable)’ . Just because you have ‘no idea’ what I am talking about does not mean that what I am talking about is not valid or accurate or that other people do not know about it. However, scientists have been wrong before and will be wrong again – just as I have – and in this particular sentence I specifically stated that it was only a proposal, based upon my experience and subsequent reading, that the ‘seat of consciousness’ be located in the upper third of the ‘Reticular Activating System’ in what is known as the ‘Substantia Nigra’. The encephalitis which developed in some hapless peoples, subsequent to the world-wide outbreak in 1918-19 of what was then dubbed ‘Spanish Flu’, ate away at their ‘Substantia Nigra’ ... with the consequent loss of conscious awareness (their ‘seat of consciousness’). This event was popularised in a movie starring Mr. Robin Williams and Mr. Robert De Niro wherein, with massive doses of a substance called L-Dopa, some patients briefly ‘came to’ with full conscious awareness ... yet with no awareness of all those years having gone by of there being no conscious awareness (what could be called a vegetative state). And, as I have said before, although scientists tend to disagree among themselves, there are some who hold that encephalitis cases such as these thus demonstrates where the ‘seat of consciousness’ resides (this ‘conscious awareness’ is not to be confused with ‘I’ as ego or ‘me’ as soul by whatever name). Again: it is only a proposal, though. RESPONDENT: You have a lot of knowledge upon which you can base your repudiation of that which you know. RICHARD: Aye ... I did a lot of research so as to better present my experience to my fellow human being and thus establish a ‘prima facie’ case for them worthy of further investigation (‘self’-investigation) rather than capricious dismissal. * RESPONDENT: You are a staunch atheist simply because you cannot know anything else ... RICHARD: Yet as I have said, over and again, that I lived the Summum Bonum of human experience night and day for eleven years, then this what you say here (‘simply because you cannot know anything else’) makes a mockery of what you said (further above): [Respondent]: ‘I do have no reason not to believe that everything you say happened exactly as it happened to you’. RESPONDENT: The unknown is something you do not know. RICHARD: Not only is ‘the unknown’ something that I know ... I also know what is called ‘the unknowable’ through and through. * RESPONDENT: ... and even in that statement [that you are a staunch atheist simply because you cannot know anything else] I see contradiction because you go on to say that you are this universe experiencing itself at this time, at this moment, and the universe has always been as it is now ... perfect and peaceful. If this is so, then you have been since the beginning of time and always be as this universe. RICHARD: There is no ‘contradiction’ ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body is the same-same stuff as the stuff of this universe: therefore this flesh and blood body is the same age as this universe. That the universe first started forming as this one-off shape in 1947, and will keep on replenishing its configuration as this one-off shape for x-number of years until it ceases its configuration as this one-off shape forever, does not make its configuration as this one-off shape separate from this what it already always is. RESPONDENT: Then you are timeless – just as the universe? RICHARD: No ... and neither is this universe ‘timeless’. * RICHARD: Incidentally ... this is where the only ‘contradiction’ is (and all in the one short paragraph): [Respondent]: ‘...the universe has always been’. [Respondent]: ‘... since the beginning of time’. RESPONDENT: Yes, that is just a saying here accepted as meaning ‘unknown.’ RICHARD: Okay ... then this is what your short paragraph reads as:
Could you explain where and what the ‘contradiction’ is that you see when the phrase ‘beginning of time’ is not there to make such a contradiction in the first place? * RESPONDENT: Respondent No. 40 may have a point about your brain being damaged ... RICHARD: Here is ‘a point’ for you (only a factual point this time): 160,000,000 people with no brain-damage were killed in wars alone in the last 100 years by people with no brain-damage. RESPONDENT: I agree, Richard. That is gross. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... however, it is what it means, or what it indicates, which is important (and not just say that it is ‘gross’ and leave it at that) for it shows that people with no brain-damage are the problem. * RESPONDENT: ... and the thing is that a brain so damaged cannot know that it is damaged. RICHARD: There is a psychiatric term for what you describe: anosognosia RESPONDENT: Now I’m not saying that your brain is damaged in that way ... RICHARD: Then why did you say it? RESPONDENT: Back in 1970, I moved into the mountains, much as you moved to the island to ‘search for the truth.’ I experienced a three month period in which I lived in a veritable ‘garden of eden.’ I really liked everyone; I had no feelings of malice or sorrow towards anyone or anything. The world was truly a magical place. However, what was magic to me seemed too strange to my family and psychiatrists, and I ended up on the ‘6th Floor’ because the word ‘no’ was not in my vocabulary. My brother finally convinced me that if I didn’t take my medication, I would be put ‘someplace’ where I would have to take it. That scared me. I asked my mother to bear with me; that I knew that I was not ‘all right’ but that I would be by Saturday. I had no clue as to why I said ‘Saturday’ – I never knew what was going to come out of my mouth until I heard it myself. Well, Saturday came, and on that day, there was an audible (to me) ‘snap’ inside of my head as the two parts of the brain came together. I was then back in ‘this’ world. Somehow, the brain had become unbalanced – perhaps functioning only on the right side – I don’t know. This was a testimonial. RICHARD: And I appreciate that you write your testimonial ... it clarifies what you wrote a couple of years back where you abruptly lost interest in exploring (and thus understanding) what I say.
Most countries have their version of your ‘6th Floor’ (in this neck of the woods it is called ‘Richmond Clinic’) and the words ‘psychiatric ward’ strike fear into the heart of the erstwhile explorer. Thus peace-on-earth remains un-enabled ... thanks to the psychiatric profession this time. For what it is worth, my second wife had a three-week experience such as you describe many years before she met me ... and she too reports of an ‘audible ‘snap’’ (for her an ‘audible click’ in the base of the brain) which precipitated her return to the ‘real world’ when she decided to no longer be on her own in a world where no one could understand what she spoke of or who could relate to her ... or her to them. Even though it be the very place, where the peace-on-earth that most peoples say they long for, lies open for all to live in. * RESPONDENT: ... but I do know that a brain that has had a terrible shock to it, may have to adjust its thinking to accommodate what it can accept in order to survive without going totally stark raving mad. RICHARD: But as I am already what you call ‘totally stark raving mad’ according to official diagnoses by accredited psychiatrists ... where does that leave your amateurish psychologising? In the same place as your amateurish scientism, perchance? RESPONDENT: More than likely and right along the side of actualism. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of the fact that the doorway to an actual freedom from the human condition has the words ‘insanity lies ahead’ blazoned upon it ... which is why peace-on-earth has never been enabled before in human history. People everywhere are wasting time looking for a door marked ‘sanity’ or ‘peace’ (or some similar name).
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think there is some similarity between your experiences and Krishnamurti’s experiences? RICHARD: None whatsoever (though for the eleven years between 1981-1992 there was a significant correspondence). RESPONDENT No. 33: What kind? Please elaborate. He died in 1987. RICHARD: The dates referred to me and not him ... I lived that/was that between 1981-1992 (love, compassion, beauty, truth, that which is absolute and so on) and the significant correspondence was between what I reading at the time and what I was experiencing at the time. I have intimate knowledge of all its nooks and crannies and I am providing a report for my fellow human beings to do what they will with ... insider information, as it were. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti provided a report for his fellow humans to do what they will with ... insider information, as it were. RICHARD: Yes ... thus you have, at least, two reports to look at. RESPONDENT: In fact, his insider information is more insider than yours since he had the help of those on the other side (the in-group) – which you do not. RICHARD: And therein lies the rub ... his insider report is about the inside world where 0.00001 of the population have lived for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history whereas my report has nowt to do with either the inner world or the inner world’s outer world. There is a third alternative. * RICHARD: A whistle-blower’s report RESPONDENT: Thanks for the laugh of the day. Wheeeeeeeeeeoooooooooooooo. RICHARD: I am glad you appreciate black humour ... cognitive dissonance
RESPONDENT No. 33: Was he delusional by any chance? RICHARD: All enlightened beings are deluded ... the altered state of consciousness (ASC) known as spiritual enlightenment is a delusional state. I am not ‘guru-bashing’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti per se ... it is the ASC itself I am targeting. I can use the accredited writings of virtually any enlightened being to demonstrate my points. RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t get this. Why is enlightened state a delusional state? Krishnamurti himself described his mental state as one of ‘clarity’ and made sure to record that he was neither delusional nor under the influence of any drugs (when he wrote his experiences as recorded in the ‘Notebook’ and the ‘Journal’). RICHARD: Just consider, for a moment, the fact that all the ills of humankind happen in time and space as form. Then consider, for another moment, the fiction that the ‘solution’ to all the ills of humankind, as proposed by all the saints, sages and seers for millennia, is to be found in some timeless, spaceless and formless realm (and not in the world of time and space and form). If you do you will not even need to look up the word ‘delusion’ in a dictionary. RESPONDENT: Well, Richard, it is quite obvious that all of the ills of mankind that exist in this world of space and time have never been solved by anything ... especially those keepers of the laws and justice and politics, and they have tired. Oh, how they have tried. They keep on putting people in jail and executing them or commit to more wars to kill more people to get them to do ‘right’. RICHARD: You are describing the secular solution here. RESPONDENT: So, what is your point? RICHARD: My point is that both the secular solution and the spiritual solution have had at least 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate their efficacy ... and have both failed to deliver an ultimate solution. My point is that there is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: Are you not as delusional as those sages and saints when you say you have the solution and the killing goes on? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: What’s the difference? RICHARD: The difference is that peace-on-earth is actual. RESPONDENT: The point seems to be that no one has ever done what you say ... turn over your lizard brain ... RICHARD: I have. RESPONDENT: ... anymore than they have done what Krishnamurti said ... die to everything psychological that has been put together by mankind. RICHARD: Approximately 0.00001 of the population have become enlightened over 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think Krishnamurti was a charlatan – for example I consider Sai Baba to be a charlatan: he sells enlightenment / peace etc. to the gullible. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). (...) Most of the ‘Teachings’, however, is discussion about clearing away all that prevents being out of the stream (aka ‘on the other shore’) where there is the timeless energy which is love, which is compassion, which is intelligence, which is the origin of all matter, of all nature, of all mankind: that which is sacred, holy ... as I have said before: despite the rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda. For example, the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: This is undoubtedly true, so why do you think that peace on this earth among the human inhabitants is possible? RICHARD: Because it is my on-going experiencing for many years now. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti’s teaching are in preparation for the understanding that when you realize that there will be no peace by any means in what man has put together, we can stop being bodies and be pure in spirit. RICHARD: Indeed ... and so, here on earth, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides go on forever and a day.
RESPONDENT No. 33: What do you make of Krishnamurti’s dying statement that a great energy used his body and such an energy will not re-appear for many years? RICHARD: He was accurately and correctly reporting his experience. That Christianity has their Parousia; that Buddhism has their Maitreya; that Islam has their Mahdi; that Hinduism has their Kalki; that Judaism has their Messiah; that Taoism has their Kilin and so on all comes from the same type of experience. It is part and parcel of being enlightened (‘I Am That’ or ‘That Thou Art’). RESPONDENT No. 33: Someone who warned against the tendency of the human mind to be mesmerized by such experiences, don’t you think if was true to his grain, he would have at least refrained from making his experience public? RICHARD: Human vanity knows no bounds when one is specially chosen by ‘That’ to bring a message into the world. RESPONDENT: Or by the death of the lizard brain. RICHARD: Not so ... the death of the lizard brain is the death of human vanity.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think Krishnamurti was a charlatan – for example I consider Sai Baba to be a charlatan: he sells enlightenment / peace etc. to the gullible. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). (...) Most of the ‘Teachings’, however, is discussion about clearing away all that prevents being out of the stream (aka ‘on the other shore’) where there is the timeless energy which is love, which is compassion, which is intelligence, which is the origin of all matter, of all nature, of all mankind: that which is sacred, holy ... as I have said before: despite the rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda. For example, the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: This is undoubtedly true, so why do you think that peace on this earth among the human inhabitants is possible? Krishnamurti’s teaching are in preparation for the understanding that when you realize that there will be no peace by any means in what man has put together, we can stop being bodies and be pure in spirit. RESPONDENT No. 12: (1) agenda implies time but is there illumination in becoming? RESPONDENT: To be or not to be is that the question? RESPONDENT No. 12: (2) In what way is body not spirit? RESPONDENT: The body hurts; spirit doesn’t. RESPONDENT No. 12: (3) what does away from the world mean? RESPONDENT: Not here. RESPONDENT No. 12: The world of division and confusion? RESPONDENT: I have no idea if there is confusion or not away from this world. RICHARD: Yet there is much ‘confusion’ in the timeless and spaceless and formless world. RESPONDENT: The fact is that none of KNOWS that of which Krishnamurti spake. RICHARD: I do. RESPONDENT: None of knows anything of what occurs after death. RICHARD: I do. RESPONDENT: Richard knows nothing – just what he believes, and he would have the rest of us believe as he does. Bah! RICHARD: I see that you are invoking ‘The K-List Blanket Dismissal No. 1. (a)’ here ... which indicates that you have nothing useful to contribute to the discussion.
RESPONDENT No. 45: Sometimes all seems to be so complicate, so long and heavy if one don’t want to end into a mental ruse. Thank you for your conscientious dedication sharing your view and experience on these conflictive points. RICHARD: It is only ‘so complicate, so long and heavy’ because the cognitive faculty is being investigated in lieu of investigating the affective faculty ... feelings escape detection over and again. This is because ‘me’ at the core ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) will do anything to divert attention away from the root cause of all the malice and sorrow, the anger and anguish, the misery and mayhem ... even to the point of, not only denigrating thinking, but stopping the thought process entirely so it alone can rule the roost. It is all so very, very simple. RESPONDENT: Indeed. It is what is; not what you think it is. RICHARD: It is not only not ‘what you think it is’ ... it is also not what you feel it is (intuition is the ability to put two and two together and come up with any answer that feels right). Nor is it ‘what is’ (what you instinctually know it is).
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think Krishnamurti was a charlatan – for example I consider Sai Baba to be a charlatan: he sells enlightenment / peace etc. to the gullible. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). RESPONDENT No. 20: Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. But so it does not continue in the here and now. RESPONDENT: That is correct, for this is the only time there ever is to be timeless. RICHARD: Where one lets the moment live one – rather than what is called ‘living in the present’
– it will be seen with startling clarity that this moment is eternal ... and not ‘timeless’. Anyone who succeeds in
‘living in the present’, which is experienced as being that fleeting moment sandwiched between the past and the future, is
present as a self (albeit an impersonal self) in/as an oceanic This moment is not ‘timeless’ ... for, although the fact is that it has no duration, as ‘then’ and ‘now’ and ‘then’ (was here then, is here now, will be here then), it does not negate the fact that this moment is already always here now (eternally here). It is never not this moment ... ‘tis not fleeting at all.
RESPONDENT No. 25: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RICHARD: Aye, he certainly did. Whereas, in actuality, this planet grows human beings in time (and space), just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers in time (and space), although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is our base as it ‘grows’ the suns and the planets in time (and space) ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term. There is no ‘Creation’ here in time (and space) ... this universe is perpetuus mobilis.
RESPONDENT No. 25: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RICHARD: Aye, he certainly did. Whereas, in actuality, this planet grows human beings in time (and space), just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers in time (and space), although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is our base as it ‘grows’ the suns and the planets in time (and space) ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term. There is no ‘Creation’ here in time (and space) ... this universe is perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What do you think creation is if not ‘perpetuus mobilis’ when there is not time? Of course, we’re talking of psychological time, not actual time. RICHARD: First, the phrase ‘psychological time’ is obviously a sop to the intellect, a
paying of lip-service to rationality Second, I do not need to ‘think’ what ‘creation is if not ‘perpetuus mobilis’ when there is not [psychological] time’ as I know what it is (I lived it/was it for eleven years): it is a disassociated delusion, a massive hallucination. In other words: human vanity writ large.
RESPONDENT No. 19 (Part Eight) 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 |
