|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 22
RICHARD: We have been down this path before, you and I, months ago. Just knowing that ‘I’ am an illusion does nothing to end the illusion. This ‘I’ appears very real and its actions in the world are obvious. Thus there needs to be a corresponding illusory death of this illusory ‘I’ that is as apparently real as its apparently real existence is. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – whom you like to quote – underwent such an illusory death of the illusory ‘I’ in 1922 ... and any other genuinely enlightened person can similarly point to a specific event on a specific date in their life.
RESPONDENT: This is silly. RICHARD: So, you are saying that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – whom you like to quote – was silly? RESPONDENT: If something is truly seen as illusory, there is nothing that needs to end. RICHARD: The seeing of the illusory ‘I’ is so startling that it is the outstanding beginning of a remarkable process that leads to ‘my’ eventual dramatic demise. RESPONDENT: If there is thinking (knowing) that something is illusory, that is just thinking and not seeing. RICHARD: Then, by your own definition, you have yet to see that ‘I’ am an illusion. RESPONDENT: If it is just thinking about illusion, then it may appear that something may still need to end. RICHARD: If you wish to rewrite what all the enlightened people have said constitutes enlightenment then go ahead. As I said above ‘any genuinely enlightened person can point to a specific event on a specific date in their life’. You, obviously, cannot ... hence the need to do a rewrite. * RESPONDENT: Are you now suggesting that this being here is not illusory as you say elsewhere? RICHARD: Do I say elsewhere that it is a illusory? Being here now in actuality is not a illusory ... and for the life of me I do not know where I would have said it was not. Unless you are confusing it with the spiritual ‘be here now’ ... I have said that as it is in a metaphysical dimension it is a delusion. I do say the real world – everyday reality for 5.8 billion people – is an illusion ... is this what you are referring too? RESPONDENT: Is there some ‘thing’ that is being, existing here? (Compton’s Dictionary: being: (1) the state or fact of existing or living; existence or life. (2) fundamental or essential nature. (3) one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so [a human being, a divine being]. (4) all the physical and mental qualities that make up a person; personality. (5) Philosophical. (a) fulfilment of possibilities; essential completeness. (b) that which exists, can exist, or can be logically conceived being as (or that) [Colloq. or Dial.] since; because; for the time being for the present; for now). RICHARD: There is a flesh and blood body here ... if that is what you mean by ‘thing’. There is no ‘being’ inside this body ... no psychological or psychic entity whatsoever. Both ‘I’ and ‘me’ died a psychological and psychic death ... that was the end of ‘being’ . * RICHARD: I say that I am not separate from the universe ... I am made of the very stuff of the universe. Literally, I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I have written before that I come out of the ground in the form of carrots and beans and rice and so on and so on ... which is the very stuff of this universe. We do not come from ‘outside’ of the universe ... we are not placed ‘in’ here for some unknown reason by some inscrutable god. RESPONDENT: I suggest that the ‘we’ or the ‘I’ that you speak of as not separate from the universe does not truly exist at all. RICHARD: I know you do not ... you deny the actuality of the senses. You say that nothing is inherently real ... which is akin to the solipsism of Eastern Mysticism. RESPONDENT: Seeing that there is no true separation anywhere, there is no way to separate out a ‘we’ or an ‘I’ that can be not separate. RICHARD: Dream on ... all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse stems from a psychological ‘I’ and a psychic ‘me’ that is most definitely separate. Denial does not make something go away. RESPONDENT: It is just life doing life. RICHARD: This is a nonsense statement like ‘a rose is a rose is a rose’ ... unless you mean ‘Brahma dreaming worlds’. RESPONDENT: Any division between air and skin for example is but an arbitrary discrimination without any basis in actual separation. Any division between a supposed actual physical body and the universe is apparent since there is no actual division anywhere. RICHARD: Agreed. This is why I say that I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. Are you now saying that ‘things’ are, in fact, inherently real? * RESPONDENT: How can the physical universe be unborn? RICHARD: There never was a ‘Big Bang’ ... nor a ‘Creation’. This material universe is already always here now. RESPONDENT: Is that like saying the physical body is unborn? RICHARD: No. The physical body was born ... and will die. As there is no separation between me and this physical body – I am this body – then I did not exist until physical birth and I will cease to exist at physical death. I am only here now. RESPONDENT: How is a permanent, unborn nature of all forms any different from the essential nature of all forms? RICHARD: It is an enormous – and vital – difference. In actuality, physical nature – ‘things’ – is the ultimate ... and is in no way metaphysical. Your ultimate ‘essential nature’ is nothingness ... no ‘things’. RESPONDENT: I suggest that what you think of as ultimate is also made of smaller things and dependent on conditions outside of it. There is no ultimate actual physical thing that has any independent existence. Something that appears to have an actual separate existence, can be called an apparent existence based on concepts or images that artificially separate it from the rest of the universe. RICHARD: You can suggest all you like ... but it will not make it so. For there to be freedom from the human condition – for there to be individual peace-on-earth – one first has to acknowledge actuality. I notice that you go through phases ... when I first came on this List you were ‘imputing’. Then the prevailing word was ‘seeming’... and now it is ‘apparent’. Was ‘ostensibly’ in there somewhere ... and what comes next? How about ‘plausibly’? * RESPONDENT: You distinguish between real and actual things the same as between illusory and actual things. It seems very unclear considering their definitions. RICHARD: Not so unclear when one considers that people say that their god is real to them. They use the word ‘real’ like some people use the word ‘apparent’. The word ‘actual’ is unambiguous ... it is a sensate word only. RESPONDENT: In any case, since no thing labelled real or actual has any truly independent ongoing substantial existence, we can say that its existence is apparent. RICHARD: And here you go ... proving my point so well. You use words in such a slippery fashion that you can fool most people some of the time ... but in the long run you are only fooling yourself. I actually exist as this flesh and blood body ... I am not ‘seemingly’ here. RESPONDENT: Clinging to the notion of some truly existing ‘me’ or some truly existing actual thing or physical body or physical universe seem to be an expression of the same fearful clinging. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I am not ‘clinging’ to anything at all. This flesh and blood body is actual ... it is a fact, just like this physical universe is. There used to be a ‘me’ inside this body, clinging to the realisation that it was ‘essential nature’ (in the metaphysical sense) but it became extinct in October 1992. Simultaneously that much-prized ‘essential nature’ disappeared. It too was an illusion ... yet to you it is real. Do you see what I mean about the word ‘real’, now? RESPONDENT: No ‘I’ to cling or not cling. No real or actual blood body. Ungraspable dancing sensations. Essential nature is not subject to birth or death. Essential nature of physical universe or physical body is that they lack any actual existence. Seeing the apparent nature of things as in a mirage or dream or movie, we can say they lack any actual existence. Seeing they only apparently exist, we do not act as if they actually existed. RICHARD: I see that you have brushed up on your Zen terminology. RESPONDENT: We will not depend on a mirage for a drink of water. RICHARD: No we do not ... yet you like to deny water’s actuality. * RESPONDENT No. 18: You are trapped in a universe of your own belief. RICHARD: Since when has seeing the actual – observing the obvious – become a belief? This physical
universe exists in its own right and does not require belief from me to bring it into being or sustain its existence. It was here
before I was born and will be here after I die. Just how does that constitute it being a product of my – or anyone’s –
belief system? RESPONDENT: One belief is that there is something outside this momentary flashing (of sensations) labelled ‘universe’ that continues to exist. RICHARD: No belief is required ... not being a Krishnamurtiite I have not crippled my native intelligence by having to scorn memory. Memory is a record of a series of yesterdays, that were packed full of ‘momentary flashing (of sensations)’, going all the way back to one’s earliest memory. Before that, one can refer to the reports given by one’s parents (for example) back to one’s birth. Unless one is paranoid – thinking that there is a conspiracy by one’s parents to deceive one – then it is obvious that this universe has been here for all those years. Unless one wishes to be solipsistic and believe that this universe came into being when one was born (complete with 5.8 billion people whose sole aim in life is to convince you that it was here before you were born when it was not) then it is equally obvious that this universe has been here throughout human history. As for before human history ... unless one is anthropocentric (and egocentric people often are) it is obvious that this universe does not require verification from human beings in order to exist. Palaeontology evidences this. Before that? Unless one is a religious cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Creation’) or a scientific cosmogonist (believing in a ‘Big Bang’) then it is obvious that this universe has always been here. As it has always been here ... it always will be here. Observation renders belief redundant.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 23): I am not ‘enlightened’ ... an actual freedom lies beyond
enlightenment. RESPONDENT: Here is what it seems you are saying. Let me know where I have gone astray. Enlightenment includes an attachment to some kind of soul. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: The physical universe and body are impermanent, but actual. RICHARD: The physical universe is permanent – of unlimited duration – whilst the body, being of limited duration, is impermanent. RESPONDENT: There is a physical body that actually exists, but the ‘I’ is an illusion. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: Actualism is a new, special state of mind that has been occurring for some years. There is a becoming free and a going beyond enlightenment. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: I suggest that regardless of what some may think that enlightenment means, we can still look at the meaning of actual and what becoming free or going beyond implies. RICHARD: Unless you comprehend what enlightenment means (as per reports from genuinely enlightened people) then you have no chance of comprehending what going beyond enlightenment means. RESPONDENT: The notion that there is someone to be free or become free, someone to be harmless, or to have an experience beyond enlightenment, to hasten the demise of a ‘me’, or a someone that is born or dies are quite imaginary or illusory or conceptual. RICHARD: Yes ... yet the effects that this illusory ‘me’ are patently obvious. For example, if there is any anger or sadness ‘coming and going’ you can bet your bottom dollar that there is a ‘you’ in there somewhere. RESPONDENT: By virtue of those concepts (thought constructions) there may be an apparently actual body or someone to have attained some special state of mind that has some continuity in time. RICHARD: No, by virtue of apperception there is an actual body free of any ‘I’ or ‘me’. This is evidenced by the total absence of, for example, anger and sadness. RESPONDENT: It is because of the insight into the impermanence of this body, that it can be said that there is no actually existing body. RICHARD: That is not an insight ... that is intellectual masturbation. That there is an actual body is obvious and requires no insight: the eyes see it; the nose smells it; the tongue tastes it; the ears hear it; the skin feels it. RESPONDENT: There is no moment that the body is not changing and not being influenced by causes and conditions outside the body. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: That means there is no actual separate thing here at all. RICHARD: Yes, which is why I say that I am not separate from the universe ... I am made of the very stuff of the universe. Literally, I am the universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. I come out of the ground in the form of carrots and beans and rice and so on and so on ... which is the very stuff of this universe. We do not come from ‘outside’ of the universe ... we are not placed ‘in’ here for some unknown reason by some inscrutable god. RESPONDENT: Any sense of there being some actual body separate from everything else is purely conceptual. RICHARD: Yes ... though this particular body is physically distinct from that particular body and the environment at large. RESPONDENT: It is by virtue of concepts and images that there is an appearance of some ongoing thing, some continuity labelled a physical body that is born and dies. RICHARD: No, it is by virtue of observation that there is an on-going physical body that is born and dies. RESPONDENT: Even the very sensations that form the basis of the assumption of physical actuality are but impermanent, flashes with no ongoing actuality whatsoever. RICHARD: Yes, the sensations are impermanent. No, physical actuality is not an assumption. No, actuality is indeed on-going. If you cease denying the validity of memory and the verification by other human being’s reports, you will comprehend a whole lot better. RESPONDENT: Since everything is impermanent there is no stable place to stand to view an ongoing actual physical body. RICHARD: No, this moment in time and this place in space is both permanent and stable ... one is always here now. It is simple ... ask yourself this:
Wait for five minutes and walk into another room. Ask yourself this: • Where am I? Here. Keep doing this until you comprehend that one can never not be here and it can never not be now. You can never get away from this moment in time and this place in space. This moment is always happening here and this place is always happening now. RESPONDENT: All effort to hasten the demise of an ‘I’ is totally unnecessary and instead affirms it. RICHARD: No, it is essential to hasten the demise of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... peace-on-earth depends upon it (and it does not affirm it ... you will simply cease denying it). RESPONDENT: Seeing there is no truly existing ‘I’ those efforts drop away without any effort at all. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have never applied myself with such diligence both before and since that nine month period prior to the dissolution of ‘I’ as ego. The precise moment of dissolution was effortless, yes, and lasted for maybe three-four seconds. It was the most thrilling ride of a life-time. ‘I’ went out in a blaze of glory. And then I was here where I am now ... where I have always been. (Except that a Grand ‘Me’ came sweeping in to take up residence for the next eleven years and I could hardly get a word in edgeways). RESPONDENT: Extrapolating and concluding is just thinking. RICHARD: Why the pejorative use of the word ‘just’? Thought is perhaps the most useful tool to ever emerge on this planet. RESPONDENT: Seeing is allowing that thinking to come and go freely along with concepts of a ‘me’ or an actual physical body or a state of mind that has continuity. RICHARD: Do you ever ask why these concepts ‘come and go’ (whether freely or otherwise)? Do you ever ask why anger and sadness ‘comes and goes’ (whether ‘merely watched’ or not)? There is a ‘you’ in there somewhere.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): Enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from
the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your
Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can
point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is
understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we should quibble or question or investigate directly and not depend on so-called stories of enlightenment. RICHARD: Why the use of ‘so-called’ in reference to some of our fellow human beings’ discoveries that they made in their enterprising essays into human consciousness? Are you indeed that cynical? RESPONDENT: It seems that that there is indeed no truly existing ego that could ever die. RICHARD: Never mind what ‘seems’ ... you are hopelessly incorrect in your solution to all the ills of the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: That belief is part of the illusion. RICHARD: Not so ... it is your belief that ‘you’ only have to know that ‘you’ are a mirage – and therefore nothing else has to happen – that is an illusion befooling itself. This is called ‘knowledge’ ... and has led many a spiritual seeker astray. RESPONDENT: The apparent enlightenment of beings could very well be an effort at skilful means for those not able to understand the lack of any inherent ego, self or Self from the first. RICHARD: Oh, I see that you understand it ... but unless there is action – and an action that is not of ‘my’ doing – happening out of this understanding then it is all intellectual masturbation. * RICHARD: When another person tells me – or demonstrates to me – that their identity is still intact it is not me making an image about them, surely ... it is so. It is a fact. RESPONDENT: What is this truly existing ego that is fact other than an image or an idea? RICHARD: It is the cause of 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 ... that is what it is. RESPONDENT: What is its basis? RICHARD: Its basis is the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at birth. RESPONDENT: Action based on the belief in there being some true centre or self does not necessarily mean there is such a thing. RICHARD: Not so ... in fact any action based on the belief that there is no ‘true centre or self’ to self-immolate will perpetuate 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 for ever and a day. * RICHARD: Why object when another informs you of this fact being an actuality in his life and tell him that ‘the thought that ‘I’ have this quality compared to you who do not, or ‘I’ have achieved what you have not, is divisive self-image’? What is achieved by making such an inaccurate observation? RESPONDENT: Because harbouring such a belief in someone who has attained versus someone who has not attained is based on the belief in some truly existing separation. RICHARD: I am sure that this philosophy of yours gives you no end of satisfaction ... but I know from past discussions with you that you say that anger, for example, still occurs. What you say is ‘anger comes and goes’ ... therefore it behoves you to get of your backside and look to see why this is still happening in you despite your intellectual understanding that the ‘self’ is an illusion. Of course, it is your life that you are living and provided that you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols you will be left alone to live as wisely or as foolishly as you choose. RESPONDENT: The imputed appearance of such a one does not mean there is actually a separate person that can have qualities or achieve. RICHARD: There is indeed an actual flesh and blood body ... unless you believe that Eastern mystical twaddle about this world of people, things and events being an illusion. Therefore, if by ‘person’ you mean ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (or any other description) then there is certainly psychological separation. This causes sorrow. Combine this with malice and then we have 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. If you personally do not wish to participate in peace-on-earth, then that is your business ... yet realise, the next time you complain about all the violence you see on TV, that you are as ‘guilty’ as the next person. * RICHARD: When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. The extinction of identity – both an ego death and a soul death – is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. RESPONDENT: This does not make any sense. How does something that supposedly truly exists cause its own demise? RICHARD: Simply by the earnest and sincere desire to do something constructive about 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 ... instead of indulging in intellectual masturbation. It is called being altruistic. * RICHARD: Any ‘me’ – any psychological or psychic identity – is an emotional-mental construct. This flesh and blood body is not such a construct ... this is actual. RESPONDENT: Actual in what sense? RICHARD: Actual in the sense that anybody can see it, hear it, touch it, smell it and even taste it. Are you for real in this question? Are you on the same planet ... this one I am on is called ‘Planet Earth’? RESPONDENT: This body seem quite impermanent and quite dependent on many factors outside of it for its existence. RICHARD: It is indeed impermanent ... you are but a missed heart-beat or two away from physical death each moment again. It is possible to actually experience what all these ‘many factors’ are. I describe this on-going experiencing as ‘I am this very material universe experiencing itself in all its magnificence as a sensate and reflective human being’. RESPONDENT: How can you make any kind of actual division between this body and the sun or the air in order to define its actual existence? RICHARD: I do not just sit around defining things away ... I live what I write about. In this particular flesh and blood body called Richard, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolated some years ago. That was when the already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent for the twenty four hours of every day ... each moment again. It is yours for the choosing.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): Enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from
the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your
Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can
point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is
understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. RESPONDENT: Perhaps we should quibble or question or investigate directly and not depend on so-called stories of enlightenment. RICHARD: Why the use of ‘so-called’ in reference to some of our fellow human beings’ discoveries that they made in their enterprising essays into human consciousness? Are you indeed that cynical? RESPONDENT: It seems that that there is indeed no truly existing ego that could ever die. RICHARD: Never mind what ‘seems’ ... you are hopelessly incorrect in your solution to all the ills of the Human Condition. RESPONDENT: That belief is part of the illusion. RICHARD: Not so ... it is your belief that ‘you’ only have to know that ‘you’ are a mirage – and therefore nothing else has to happen – that is an illusion befooling itself. This is called ‘knowledge’ ... and has led many a spiritual seeker astray. RESPONDENT: We are not speaking of knowing anything . RICHARD: Oh, no ... not that spiritual ‘he who says he knows does not know’ male bovine faecal matter again, surely? RESPONDENT: We are just giving attention to some of the beliefs that you expressed. RICHARD: Wow! Who is this < we > that I am writing to? Are you not one person but Siamese twins? RESPONDENT: The apparent enlightenment of beings could very well be an effort at skilful means for those not able to understand the lack of any inherent ego, self or Self from the first. RICHARD: Oh, I see that you understand it ... but unless there is action – and an action that is not of ‘my’ doing – happening out of this understanding then it is all intellectual masturbation. RESPONDENT: Seeing a mirage as a mirage, there is no choice about action. You can no longer treat the lake as truly existing RICHARD: Well, I saw the ‘lake’, and successfully eliminated it. Consequently I do not have any anger, for example, that ‘merely comes and goes’. * RICHARD: When another person tells me – or demonstrates to me – that their identity is still intact it is not me making an image about them, surely ... it is so. It is a fact. RESPONDENT: What is this truly existing ego that is fact other than an image or an idea? RICHARD: It is the cause of 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 ... that is what it is. RESPONDENT: You suggested that there some truly existing ‘me’ other than an image. Action based on misconception can cause what is suggested. What is a proof of a real ‘me’? RICHARD: Your anger that ‘comes and goes’ for starters? RESPONDENT: What is its basis? RICHARD: Its basis is the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at birth. RESPONDENT: Again, those are the fruit of misconception and cannot be a basis of some truly existing ‘me’. RICHARD: When you watch footage of World War Two (or any other war) do you fondly imagine that all that bloodshed is caused by a fear and aggression that results from a ‘misconception’ that there is some ‘truly existing ‘me’ other than a mirage’? RESPONDENT: Action based on the belief in there being some true centre or self does not necessarily mean there is such a thing. RICHARD: Not so ... in fact any action based on the belief that there is no ‘true centre or self’ to self-immolate will perpetuate 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 for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: Listen again to your logic. The widespread suffering that you point to is not caused by a belief in the lack of a ‘me’. There is no such common belief. The root is the common belief in some true division, self, centre or independent ‘me’. A lake mirage is not dispelled by adding a belief in no lake. It is merely seeing that what was thought to be true, isn’t. RICHARD: As anger still ‘comes and goes’ in the body called No. 22 then you are living proof that the ‘lake mirage’ is not dispelled by ‘merely seeing that what was thought to be true isn’t’ as you so quaintly insist (above). * RESPONDENT: How can you make any kind of actual division between this body and the sun or the air in order to define its actual existence? RICHARD: I do not just sit around defining things away ... I live what I write about. In this particular flesh and blood body called Richard, ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolated some years ago. That was when the already always existing peace-on-earth became apparent for the twenty four hours of every day ... each moment again. It is yours for the choosing. RESPONDENT: I have only brought attention to the divisions that you have expressed as someone who has attained, someone who lives this way or that, some real separate body, some ‘me’ that is born or dies, or some one that has qualities. Those presently occurring concepts are an expression of life that are being questioned. Viewing from this peace-on-earth state of mind, what part of a body actually exists if at every moment every aspect of that body is impermanent? What, other than a label (body), has any continuity that can be a basis of any thing being actual? RICHARD: May I suggest a practical example instead of more words?
Okay?
If your non-existent nose starts so-called bleeding you will know that you have used sufficient supposed strength to ensure the success of this demonstration.
Does this ‘mirage’ ego feel foolish for being so stupid all this while?
RESPONDENT: What is this truly existing ego that is fact other than an image or an idea? RICHARD: It is the cause of 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 ... that is what it is. RESPONDENT: You suggested that there some truly existing ‘me’ other than an image. Action based on misconception can cause what is suggested. What is a proof of a real ‘me’? RICHARD: Your anger that ‘comes and goes’ for starters? RESPONDENT: Observing something that comes and goes is just something that comes and goes. It does not mean there is some ongoing truly existing ‘me’ that is a cause of anger. RICHARD: What causes the seeming anger in this appearance of a body called No. 22 then? RESPONDENT: What is its basis? RICHARD: Its basis is the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that blind nature endows on all sentient beings at birth. RESPONDENT: Again, those are the fruit of misconception and cannot be a basis of some truly existing ‘me’. RICHARD: When you watch footage of World War Two (or any other war) do you fondly imagine that all that bloodshed is caused by a fear and aggression that results from a ‘misconception’ that there is some ‘truly existing ‘me’ other than ‘a mirage’? RESPONDENT: I would suggest observing the mind in action instead of movies. RICHARD: Why would I follow your advice? This ‘observing the mind in action’ has not stopped the seeming anger in the apparent body called No. 22. now has it? RESPONDENT: Action based on the belief in there being some true centre or self does not necessarily mean there is such a thing. RICHARD: Not so ... in fact any action based on the belief that there is no ‘true centre or self’ to self-immolate will perpetuate 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 for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: Listen again to your logic. The widespread suffering that you point to is not caused by a belief in the lack of a ‘me’. There is no such common belief. The root is the common belief in some true division, self, centre or independent ‘me’. A lake mirage is not dispelled by adding a belief in no lake. It is merely seeing that what was thought to be true, isn’t. RICHARD: As anger still ‘comes and goes’ in the body called No. 22 then you are living proof that the ‘lake mirage’ is not dispelled by ‘merely seeing that what was thought to be true isn’t’ as you so quaintly insist (above). RESPONDENT: Again, the apparent anger coming and going, is not a proof of a truly existing ‘me’. It is only anger coming and going. That anger may be based on an assumption of a truly existing ‘me’, but that still does not mean there is some truly existing ‘me’ that is angry. RICHARD: You say ‘maybe based on the assumption’ ... is it or is it not? Can you ever make a committed statement without hedging it about with all kind of conditions? * RICHARD: When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. RESPONDENT: This does not make any sense. How does something that supposedly truly exists cause its own demise? RICHARD: Simply by the earnest and sincere desire to do something constructive about 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 ... instead of indulging in intellectual masturbation. It is called being altruistic. RESPONDENT: This does not explain how a ‘me’ can put an end to a ‘me’. RICHARD: No ... I did not consider it necessary to go into detail of how to do it because you do not see that this action is necessary. * RESPONDENT: I have only brought attention to the divisions that you have expressed as someone who has attained, someone who lives this way or that, some real separate body, some ‘me’ that is born or dies, or some one that has qualities. Those presently occurring concepts are an expression of life that are being questioned. Viewing from this peace-on-earth state of mind, what part of a body actually exists if at every moment every aspect of that body is impermanent? What, other than a label (body), has any continuity that can be a basis of any thing being actual? RICHARD: May I suggest a practical example instead of more words? Hold your conceptual hands in front of the seeming computer monitor with your apparent palms facing toward you and at the height of your impermanent eyes. Okay? Now, with all of your imputed strength, bring your supposedly truly existing hands rapidly toward your un-real face until there is a loud, satisfying thump! If your non-existent nose starts so-called bleeding you will know that you have used sufficient supposed strength to ensure the success of this demonstration. Is it the label ‘face’ that is stinging painfully ... or the actual face? Does this ‘mirage’ ego feel foolish for being so stupid all this while? RESPONDENT: Stinging is just stinging. It does not mean there is some real face that is stinging or some actual body that is stinging. I would suggest that the apparent suffering of this apparent body lacks any true independent existence. The face of one moment is not the same as the face of another. There is no ongoing thing behind the label face. The body of one moment is not the same as the body of another. There is no ongoing thing behind the label body. In this way there is no truly actual face or body that has any ongoing independent existence. RICHARD: Was there much blood? * RESPONDENT: Seeing a mirage as a mirage, there is no choice about action. You can no longer treat the lake as truly existing. RICHARD: Well, I saw the ‘lake’, and successfully eliminated it. Consequently I do not have any anger, for example, that ‘merely comes and goes’. RESPONDENT: If the lake is what is thought to be a ‘me’, how does the lake end the lake? That is what you are suggesting. You are suggesting that a lake (mirage), which has no actual existence is causing a lake (mirage), which has no actual existence, to end. If I depend on this lake (mirage) for a source of water, suffering may arise, since I attribute some true existence to that which has no actual existence. Likewise, action based on the assumption of a truly existing ‘me’, may foster suffering. This suffering is not caused by some real ‘me’ that must die, but by not seeing that the lake is merely a mirage. Seeing that the label ‘me’ does not have a basis of any real independent thing, anger and suffering drop away without having to end a ‘me’. In this way, it seems quite impossible for a someone (like Richard) to eliminate a ‘me’. The one eliminating and that which is eliminated never had any true existence. That is why I asked how does a ‘me’ end the ‘me’. RICHARD: Yes I know that this is how you think ... that is why I do not consider it necessary to go into detail of how to do it because you do not see that this action is necessary.
RESPONDENT: Observing something that comes and goes is just something that comes and goes. It does not mean there is some ongoing truly existing ‘me’ that is a cause of anger. RICHARD: What causes the seeming anger in this appearance of a body called No. 22 then? RESPONDENT: Speaking from memory, it is merely the habitual misconception of there being some actual separation, some truly independent thing. RICHARD: And when was the last imputed time this seeming anger came and went in the not truly existing body called No. 22? In other words, when did this apparently existing ‘me’ in the not truly independent body called No. 22 habitually misconceive that there was some ‘actual separation’ and some ‘truly independent thing’? Secondly, how often does this ‘habitual misconception’ occur in any imputed year for this not truly-existing body called No. 22? You see ... I want to know how reliable this is as a solution to 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. For example: in the middle of hand-to-hand combat, with an enemy, a spouse, a child and so on, how likely is it that a person might all of a sudden remember and say something like: ‘Golly gosh, here I go again ... I am habitually misconceiving that there is some actual separation again and I am once more imputing that there is a ‘me’ in a truly existing thing and this dratted seeming anger has come again making me try to actually bash one of my fellow human beings into a bloody pulp in a seeming rage?’ Do you then take some time out – run up the white flag for a bit – and sit down cross-legged meditating until this ‘habitual misconceiving’ ceases and the seeming anger then goes ... as easily as it came? And then how do you persuade the not-truly existing other – whose seeming anger has been aroused by your seeming anger and is now manifesting actual violence all over your apparent body in retaliation for your forgetfulness – to do like-wise ... given that you ‘habitually misconceive’ from time-to-time. Also, this memory that you are plainly speaking from (you did not say ‘seeming’ memory) ... do I take it that it is actual then? RESPONDENT: It is the same habitual misconception that imputes a someone that can eliminate a ‘me’ or a ‘me’ that can be eliminated or that can attain freedom from a ‘me’. RICHARD: Not so, I live on a different planet to you ... it is called ‘Planet Earth’. People here call a spade a spade ... it is a lot more simple that way.
RICHARD: When was the last imputed time this seeming anger came and went in the not truly existing body called No. 22? In other words, when did this apparently existing ‘me’ in the not truly independent body called No. 22 habitually misconceive that there was some ‘actual separation’ and some ‘truly independent thing’? RESPONDENT: I don’t remember exactly. Some days I notice mental reactions based on the assumption of something being truly existing, although perhaps not anger. Many things that used to occur do not. RICHARD: Aye ... but is there a total freedom from all the things that cause the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides? * RICHARD: Secondly, how often does this ‘habitual misconception’ occur in any imputed year for this not truly-existing body called No. 22? You see ... I want to know how reliable this is as a solution to 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. RESPONDENT: Why would someone who claims to have eliminated a ‘me’, ask about the reliability of a means to end war? RICHARD: Because you have been consistently telling me that I have got it wrong inasmuch as a ‘me’ that does not actually exist cannot die (which I say enables the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent) ... and you convey that your method is more efficacious. So I am curious as to why you consider that an anger that ‘comes and goes’ will ensure peace ... that is why. RESPONDENT: If you are willing to question the notion of eliminating a ‘me’, then I would suggest that there is no truly existing ‘I’ to habitually do anything. RICHARD: The not truly existing ‘me’ was indeed willing – eighteen years ago – to die so that the already always existing peace-on-earth could become apparent. It worked ... now there is no anger that ‘comes and goes’. Now, you have been seeing – and suggesting – that there is no ‘truly existing ‘me’’ for some time now ... and yet anger still ‘comes and goes’. RESPONDENT: The habit is in conceiving of there being such an ‘I’. To understand suffering it seems more important to give attention to what is thought to be suffering as it occurs than to speculate about imaginary reactions to imaginary situations. RICHARD: War is not ‘imaginary’ ... there are 27 wars occurring as you read this. Murder is not ‘imaginary’ ... someone, somewhere is being murdered as you read this. Torture is not ‘imaginary’ ... just ask ‘Amnesty International’. Domestic violence is not ‘imaginary’ ... someone, somewhere is being beaten up as you read this. Child abuse is not ‘imaginary’ ... somewhere some child is being brutalised. Sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is not ‘imaginary’ ... all over the world such suffering is going on in uncountable numbers. And you propose that by merely seeing that there is no ‘truly existing ‘me’’ that all this will somehow end even when anger has not ended in you ... you the proponent of this solution? * RICHARD: Also, this memory that you are plainly speaking from (you did not say ‘seeming’ memory) ... do I take it that it is actual then? RESPONDENT: The memory has no independent existence, but arises in dependence on many causes and conditions. RICHARD: Ahh ... so it was a ‘seeming memory’ after all, then. Just a typo, eh? RESPONDENT: ANGER update ... I noticed anger arise this morning amidst a stop and go, hour and a half grid-locked commute to work. RICHARD: As anger can arise in such an everyday occurrence as a traffic jam ... how efficacious is ‘seeing that there is no truly existing ‘me’’ going to be in those ‘imaginary situations’ that you do not wish to speculate about? And so 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 will go on forever and a day.
RESPONDENT: ANGER update ... I noticed anger arise this morning amidst a stop and go, hour and a half grid-locked commute to work. RICHARD: As anger can arise in such an everyday occurrence as a traffic jam ... how efficacious is ‘seeing that there is no truly existing ‘me’’ going to be in those ‘imaginary situations’ that you do not wish to speculate about? And so 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 will go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: We share an interest in ending war etc. What I mentioned is not a method to do that. RICHARD: Oh? How do you propose then, that 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 that blight this fair earth of ours come to an end? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: It is merely pointing to life. Once the lack of inherent existence of a ‘me’ or anything is seen, there is no wondering about methods to end war. RICHARD: Do you mean that you have given up finding a solution? Therefore, 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 will go
on forever and a day? Is this not fatalism? RESPONDENT: The misconceptions or beliefs concerning some truly existing ‘me’ or things get exposed and drop naturally. RICHARD: Yet they arise again and again and drop again and again ... is there an end to all this arising and dropping? Is this why you said (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Since there is no ongoing ‘me’, there is also no ongoing entity free of anger. RICHARD: Maybe not ‘on-going’ ... yet there is an intermittently arising ‘me’ that necessitates a consistent ‘seeing through’ and an intermittently arising anger that necessitates a consistent dropping. Do you advocate that this is a sensible way to live? Would you like to see 6.0 billion people adopt this approach? I am asking because you did say (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. What will stop 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 then? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Each moment is new. RICHARD: Aye ... and in each new moment someone is being murdered somewhere. In each new moment a person is being tortured somewhere. In each new moment someone, somewhere is being beaten up in a domestic violence situation. In each new moment somewhere some child is being brutalised in yet another incidence of the endemic child abuse. In each new moment, all over the world sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is going on in uncountable numbers. World-wide there are 27 wars occurring as you read this ... and you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Seeing there is no truly existing ‘me’ of one moment does not mean that the habitual tendency to project inherent existence disappears. RICHARD: So ... I guess that this is why you are saying that this is not a very efficacious method to ensure peace-on-earth? Okay then, what is your proposal? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: The habitual tendency to think there is some truly existing separate ‘me’ not only can inspire anger, but also the notion that there is an ongoing entity who has eliminated a ‘me’, who is free of anger, who can apply a method to eliminate anger and that there is a ‘me’ to be eliminated. RICHARD: So, what you are saying is that this method of yours is actually useless as in regards to bringing this entire process to an end, eh? Therefore, what other options do you propose? You did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Moment after moment, letting go and letting go. This seeing/letting go is in relation to presently arising phenomenon and not images of the suffering of others. RICHARD: Hmm ... what does the ‘images of the suffering of others’ do to you, then? The reason that I ask is that you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’. RESPONDENT: Living from a state of mind prior to the arising of anger, anger can come and go without having to act on it. RICHARD: Can you guarantee – one hundred percent – that a person will be able to ‘go without having to act on it’? Is this why you said (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. RESPONDENT: As the identity with the anger and the projected inherently existing ‘me’ that it is based on, is repeatedly exposed and dropped. The tendency withers away on its own. RICHARD: Does it ‘wither away on its own’ until it is no more? How many years has this ‘withering away’ been happening for you? Is there an end to this process? Will it take as long for each person if adopted on a world-wide scale as it is taking for you? Then what happens after all this? Is there some plan you have to bring to an end 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? Because you did say (above) ‘what I mentioned is not a method to end war etc.’. The reason that I ask is that you did say (above) that ‘we share an interest in ending war etc.’
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 |
