Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’
with Respondent No. 31
RICHARD: There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual.
RESPONDENT No. 45: What is the third ‘I’?
RICHARD: The flesh and blood body only. I use the first person pronoun, without smart quotes, to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The first two ‘I’s are ‘I’ as ego and ‘I’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) which are the two halves of identity ... thus the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can dissolve/expand/transmogrify so as to reveal/create the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) spoke of (soul or Self). Usually I write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer fame (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation).
RESPONDENT No. 45: By which way the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’)?
RICHARD: As a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways: 1. Jnani (cognitive realisation as epitomised by the ‘neti-neti’ or ‘not this; not this’ approach). 2. Bhakti (affective realisation as epitomised by devotional worship and surrender of will). 3. Yoga (bodily realisation as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’). It is also traditionally held that these broad definitions are not exclusive of each other (there are elements of Bhakti and Yoga in Jnani; there are elements of Jnani and Yoga in Bhakti; there are elements of Jnani and Bhakti in Yoga) and that they refer to the main emphasis, of the whole approach, on the part of the practitioner.
RESPONDENT: From what I have heard from a few sources, it is ‘Jnani’ that underlies all the ways.
RICHARD: I have also been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Jnani’ underlies all the ways ... so I investigated the sources and found that the sources were ‘Jnani’ sources. The reason why I investigated was because I had also been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Bhakti’ underlies all the ways ... and when I investigated the sources I found that the sources were ‘Bhakti’ sources. As well as that I had been informed, from a few sources, that ‘Yoga’ underlies all the ways ... yet when I investigated the sources I found that the sources were ‘Yoga’ sources.
RESPONDENT: I take ‘Jnani’ to be that of self-knowledge. Bhakti and Yoga seems to be conditioned by the apparatus, by the container and can only lead to what is determined by the container.
RICHARD: Aye ... and the ‘Bhakti’ sources and the ‘Yoga’ sources would say that ‘Jnani’ ‘seems to be conditioned’ by the ‘self-knowledge’ and can only lead to what is determined by the ‘self-knowledge’. But enough of that ... would you say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s latter-day ‘Teachings’ are a ‘Jnani’ form of teaching?
I am meaning this as in contrast to the ‘Yoga’ form of ‘Awakening’ (as epitomised by the raising of ‘kundalini’ and the opening of ‘chakras’) for three days prior to and under a certain pepper-tree ... followed by more than eight years of a ‘Bhakti’ form of teaching (as epitomised by praise of ‘The Beloved’).
RESPONDENT No. 45: Is thought involved in this process?
RICHARD: Only initially ... the goal is to become thoughtless and senseless because that which is sacred, holy, cannot come into being whilst thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are operating.
RESPONDENT: Is that goal, your goal or is it something said by Mr. Ramana?
RICHARD: It is not my goal – I have no goal – but is something that is broadly held by mystics in general. I did qualify my very brief précis of mysticism by saying ‘as a generalisation it has been traditionally held that there are three ways ...’.
RESPONDENT: Is the goal a projected goal?
RICHARD: It is not a part-time hobby for the serious practitioners of ‘Jnani’, ‘Bhakti’ and ‘Yoga’ ... they earnestly aim to achieve the thoughtless and senseless state of being. Therefore, they want the real thing to be happening here and now ... not a ‘projected’ real thing.
RESPONDENT: Is that senselessness an aspect of sacredness?
RICHARD: Yes ... that which is sacred, holy is formless (non-material).
RESPONDENT: One could be in that ‘sacredness’ and yet one could drive a fly squatting on the nose (Mr Krishnamurti’s example in Exploration Into Insights).
RICHARD: I am not familiar with the passage you refer to (in ‘Exploration Into Insights’) so I cannot comment on a specific. I was, however, referring to what the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’ (mistranslated as ‘meditation’) refers to in the East (known as ‘jhana’ in Pali). It could be said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was, in part at least, somewhat tending towards what is generally known as a ‘Nature Mystic’ ... Mr. Mike King has put together a fairly well-informed web-site on this subject. Vis:
Yet even ‘Nature Mystics’, when fully absorbed in ‘Nirvikalpa Samadhi’, are oblivious to flies.
RESPONDENT No. 45: Is thought the essence of both ‘I’ or is there anything more?
RICHARD: Both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) are held to be the essence of the first ‘I’ (ego or self) but are, most certainly, not considered to be the essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self). The essence of the second ‘I’ (soul or Self) is solely affective (neither cognitive nor sensate) and is generally held to be a state of ‘being’ ... which is why I usually write it as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul so as to emphasise that the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’) is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’ upon Self-Realisation).
RESPONDENT: Speaking of the first ‘I’ (excuse my use of smart quotes), is not thought itself that essence born of the self (lower case ‘s’) and sensation?
RICHARD: No ... it is the ‘thinker’ who is that ‘essence born of the self (lower case ‘s’) and sensation’ and not thought per se. Where there is no ‘thinker’ (and no ‘feeler’) thought, thoughts and thinking are not problematic at all ... they are a delightful episodic occurrence as according to the circumstances.
Such freed thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating.
RESPONDENT: Where is that ‘I’?
RICHARD: The first two ‘I’s exist only in the affective faculty ... physiologically sourced in the ‘lizard brain’ at the top of the brain-stem (at the base of the skull) but felt to be (1) in the head ... and (2) in the heart.
RESPONDENT: I do not take that ‘self’ to be that ‘I’.
RESPONDENT: Was there an investigation into this ‘I’ (supposedly claimed as false by Mr. Ramana) by you, Mr Richard to come to the above conclusion?
RICHARD: Yes ... night and day for eleven years. I first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... which led to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When I dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) I stumbled across the instincts ... and found the origin of not only the affective faculty but the psyche itself.
I found ‘me’ at the core of ‘being’ ... which is the instinctual rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings.
RESPONDENT: Was there an investigation as suggested by Mr. Ramana into the thoughts, feelings?
RICHARD: I never came across the teachings of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer until later ... I acted on my own initiative at the time.
RICHARD: Mystical liberation (Moksha) from the bonds of samsara (anava, karma and maya), consists of the soul (atman or purusha) extricating itself from its mistaken assumption of personality or individuality (aham or ‘I’ as ego).
RESPONDENT: Thank you, for this. Purusha and Atman are different things.
RICHARD: Aye ... so too is the specific meaning given to the word ‘soul’ in the West: it does not specifically refer to what either ‘Atman’ or ‘Purusha’ refer to (let alone what ‘atman’ refers to being specifically the same as what ‘purusha’ refers to). The last time I checked, Christianity has something like 2,500 differing sects ... and what is loosely called ‘Hinduism’ has umpteen differing sects.
RESPONDENT: Purusha refers to the ‘spirit’ as opposed to matter (‘Prakriti’).
RICHARD: Exactly ... and in the West ‘soul’ refers to ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’ just as ‘atman’ refers to ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’.
RESPONDENT: Atman of course, refers to the ‘Higher’ soul.
RICHARD: Yes. And the ‘‘Higher soul’ is spirit ... not matter.
RESPONDENT: As in soul, there are also levels in Prakriti as ‘Daiva Prakriti’, ‘Mula Prakriti’ etc. And then there is the same I believe with ‘Purusha’.
RICHARD: Yes ... and these ‘levels’ are where the words become specific (leading to endless quibbling) and not the broad distinction of ‘‘spirit’ as opposed to matter’.
RESPONDENT No. 45: I understand that the first ‘I’ (ego or self) can expand and create the second ‘I’ (‘I’ as soul/‘I’ as ‘Self’ as ‘me’), and this second ‘I’ can extricating itself from the first ‘I’ or individuality, whereupon there is mystical liberation (Moksha). Is this what you mean?
RICHARD: Yes. However, this extrication also includes extrication from both the physical body and the physical world (detachment from both thought (cognition) and perception (sensation) inevitably results in dissociation) ... hence the common expression ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’ (maya).
RESPONDENT: Is that first ‘I’ the false ‘I’?
RICHARD: Both the first ‘I’ (ego or self) and the second ‘I’ Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer spoke of (soul or Self) are false ‘I’s ... there are three I’s altogether but only one is actual: I am this flesh and blood body only.
RESPONDENT: What do you mean by expansion?
RICHARD: It is where the ‘contracted self’ expands to be the ‘Uncontracted Self’ ... as made popular in the West as ‘Kashmiri Shaivism’.
RESPONDENT: How can the false expand to become/merge with the true?
RICHARD: Well, I would say through self-aggrandisement ... but the proponents say it is what the ‘Uncontracted Self’ (or ‘True Self’ by Whatever Name) is prior to incarnation or entanglement with the physical.
RESPONDENT: Is it expansion or dissolution?
RICHARD: It depends upon which specific branch of mysticism one is an adherent of: some say ‘surrender’ of ego; some say ‘dissolution’ of ego; some say ‘death’ of ego; some say ‘expansion’ of ego.
RESPONDENT: Why is the first ‘I’ false?
RICHARD: Basically because the second ‘I’ it develops out of is false ... but it is traditionally held to be forgetfulness of one’s true nature because of entanglement with the physical (as a generalisation).
RICHARD: This assumption [the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality] is because of its focus (‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English) on the real-world (samsara or prakriti) and when there is the recognition of its total difference from it – and non-involvement in it – such enlightenment (Moksha) is the freedom from the fettering power of these reincarnational bonds.
RESPONDENT: Samsara is that interaction among/between Prakriti and Purusha. In the Bhagwad Gita Chapter 13, which delves on the Field and the Knower of the field, the spirit is ‘defined’ as the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain and matter is defined as the cause of generation of pleasure and pain. Spirit seated in matter uses the qualities of matter (which are termed as ‘gunas’). Attachment to the qualities(gunas) is the cause of re-incarnation.
RICHARD: The ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (and its ‘Chapter 13’) is but one of many, many spiritual texts loosely collected under the umbrella term ‘Hinduism’. The word ‘prakriti’, in Sanskrit, is a compound consisting of the prepositional prefix ‘pra’, meaning ‘forwards’ or ‘progression’ and ‘kriti’, a noun-form from the verbal root ‘kr’, ‘to make’ or ‘to do’. Therefore ‘prakriti’ means literally ‘production’ or ‘bringing forth’ or ‘originating’ and by an extension of meaning it also signifies the primordial or original state or condition or form of anything as being primary or original substance.
However, in mysticism, ‘prakriti’ is also to be considered with ‘vikriti’ ... ‘vikriti’ signifying change or an alteration of some kind or a production or evolution from the ‘prakriti’ which precedes it. Thus ‘prakriti’ may be called nature (the ‘real-world’), in general, as the ‘great producer’ of entities or things. And through this nature acts the ever-active ‘Brahma’ or ‘Purusha’ (‘Purusha’ also sometimes stands as an interchangeable term with ‘Brahma’, the ‘evolver’ or ‘creator’). The word ‘Purusha’, in Sanskrit, is a word meaning ‘man’ (as the ‘Ideal Man’) the primordial entity of space containing with and in ‘prakriti’ (as nature) all the scales of manifested being. But, mystically, ‘Purusha’ has significance in a number of different forms: in addition to meaning the ‘Heavenly Man’ (or ‘Ideal Man’), it is frequently used for the spiritual person in each individual human being ... therefore it is a term for the spiritual self (as is ‘Atman’). Consequently, ‘Purusha’ is spirit and ‘prakriti’ is its productive veil or sheath. Essentially and fundamentally the two are one and whatever ‘prakriti’ produces – through and by the influence of ‘Purusha’ – is the multitudinous and multiform ‘vikritis’ which make the immense variety and diversity in the universe around.
And in one or more of the Hindu philosophies ‘prakriti’ is the same as ‘sakti’ , and therefore ‘prakriti’ and ‘sakti’ are virtually interchangeable with ‘maya’ or ‘maha-maya’ (‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’). ‘Prakriti’ is often spoken of as matter in very common usage but this is considered inexact as matter is rather the ‘productions’ or phases that ‘prakriti’ brings about: the ‘vikritis’. Furthermore, in the Sankhya philosophy, ‘pradhana’ is virtually identical with ‘prakriti’ and both are often used to signify the producing element from which (and out of) all illusory material manifestations or appearances are evolved.
Do you really want to go further into this ... or shall we stick with a very brief précis of mysticism as being sufficient for the purpose of contrast with my discovery?
RESPONDENT No. 45: Why are they reincarnational?
RESPONDENT: Answered above according to Mr. Lord Krishna as composed by Mr. Vyasa.
RICHARD: Yet, as I have already said as a generalisation, it has been traditionally held that karma, born of the craving for physical existence, is the reason for re-birth. Hence ‘maya’ (which translates as ‘only apparently real’) is the manifestation of ‘samsara’ (which translates as ‘the running around’) which metempsychosis is the result of ‘karma’ (which translates as ‘act’ or ‘deed’). Thus, samsara describes the vocation of the soul which – once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self’ (by Whatever Name) – is born as a creature and continues through transmigration until ‘moksa’ (which translates as ‘release’).
To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘samsara is that interaction among/between Prakriti and Purusha’ is not qualitatively different from my description (that ‘samsara’ describes the vocation of the soul which, once it has fallen from its original state of ‘Self’ by Whatever Name, is born as a creature and continues ‘the running around’ through transmigration). To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘the spirit is ‘defined’ as the cause of the enjoyment of pleasure and pain’ does not address what is being discussed ... other than to offer yet another facile explanation as to why the ‘Self’ (by Whatever Name) would do all this in the first place. To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘matter is defined as the cause of generation of pleasure and pain’ is not qualitatively different from my description (that the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality is because of its focus, in that ‘ahamkara’ translates as ‘I-Maker’ in English, on the real-world, or samsara or prakriti). To say that the ‘Bhagavad Gita’ (in its ‘Chapter 13’) states that ‘spirit seated in matter uses the qualities of matter (which are termed as ‘gunas’) and that ‘attachment to the qualities (gunas) is the cause of re-incarnation’ is not qualitatively different from my description that the mistaken assumption of personality or individuality is because of its focus on the real-world, or samsara or prakriti.
What you do seem to be doing is introducing levels of complexity into what is essentially a simple issue: ‘spirit’ as opposed to ‘matter’ ... and the part ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul, by whatever names, play in it.
RICHARD: The whole point of this Mailing List is to discuss together each others’ experience so as to clarify what oneself understands. There is enough written by enough people to find similarities that may be reliably taken as a prima facie case for investigation without having to believe anyone. It is called ‘establishing a working hypothesis’ ... and can further human knowledge and thus experience. One can read one saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – and cross-reference them with other saint’s, sage’s or seer’s words – so as to gain a reasonable notion of what they are describing (pointing to). This is the whole point of communication: to share experience so that another does not have to travel down the same-same path and find out for themselves what others have already discovered.
RESPONDENT: The above text was snipped and so I forgot to respond to that. I feel your last statement somewhat goes against the vein of self-discovery and exploration, very drastically. Cross references give a feeling of similarity and confirmation of one’s beliefs, and may be OK for scholastic purposes. But this has nothing to do with discovery.
RICHARD: Then why did you see fit to introduce scholastic levels of complexity into a very brief précis of what is traditionally held ... and not respond to my ‘discovery’?
RESPONDENT: This is very responsible for ‘mass beliefs’ where nothing is questioned. For example, in India, very few questions or understands the Vedas. All they do is to sit and chant without self-reflection or meditation. They say that just chanting would be enough as the work was already done by the originator of the Vedas and all we have to do is to just ‘follow’. This is what K questioned intensely. There is thus mass spiritual poverty too, in India. It is the individual that matters, no matter what.
RICHARD: Then why did you leave off (let alone not respond to) the latter part of this E-Mail wherein I detailed my ‘discovery’ and wherein I clearly indicate it being the ‘individual’ (this flesh and blood body) which matters and not ‘the mass beliefs’?
RESPONDENT No. 12: To discuss experience so others can get a notion of what is pointed to without having to find out or experience for themselves makes sense in terms of technical knowledge. But seeing is not from thought but rather from silence which is impersonal. Silence can not be shared verbally. There must be direct contact.
RESPONDENT: Thank you, excellently stated. I was hunting for the above text, which I wanted to respond to.
RICHARD: As neither of you ceased writing to this Mailing List (immediately this wisdom was posted) then apparently both of you are but sharing ‘technical knowledge’ in each and every E-Mail you write ... and un-examined ‘technical knowledge’ at that.
This is how this thread started:
RESPONDENT: ... Ramana Maharshi said that if you point out wrong in others, it is a greater wrong.
RICHARD: Who did he say that to?
RESPONDENT: ... Ramana Maharshi said that if you point out wrong in others, it is a greater wrong.
RICHARD: Who did he say that to?
RESPONDENT: Please refer to (www.ramana-maharshi.org/publish/julaug01.htm) and the article there appears below: [quote]: Right and Wrong. Q.: ‘If it is a question of doing something one considers wrong, and thereby saving someone else from a great wrong, should one do it or refrain?’ Bhagavan: ‘What is right and wrong? There is no standard by which to judge something to be right another to be wrong. Opinions differ according to the nature of the individual and according to the surroundings. They are again ideas and nothing more. Do not worry about them. But get rid of thoughts. If you always remain in the right, then right will prevail in the world’. (The devotee was not satisfied with this answer and asked for further elucidation). Sri Bhagavan then pointed out that to see wrong in another is one’s own wrong. The discrimination between right and wrong is the origin of sin. One’s own sin is reflected outside and the individual in ignorance superimposes it on another. The best course for one is to reach the state in which such discrimination does not arise. Do you see wrong or right in your sleep? Be asleep even in the wakeful state, abide as the Self and remain uncontaminated by what goes on around. Moreover, however much you might advise them, your hearers may not rectify themselves. Be in the right yourself and remain silent. Your silence will have more effect than your words or deeds.
RESPONDENT No. 54: I think that was Richard’s emergent sense of humour at work.
RESPONDENT: Am I supposed to make any assumptions about the questioner and the context in which the dialog was conducted?
RESPONDENT No. 54: I’m not sure I understand the question. Is that your sense of humour at work?
RESPONDENT: No actually I was darned serious. After I read what you said about Richard’s humour, I realized the possibility of it. Anyway, sorry for the confusion. What I was saying is that on reading Richard’s question, about ‘who did he say to’, I went ahead and posted the references, thinking that Richard would like that, as is evident in his posts where he gives long references. Perhaps accuracy was needed here. Also I am not making any assumptions about the questioner who was speaking to Ramana and the context. So I posted the extract anyway, and readers can interpret whatever they want. As to Richard’s re-emergent humour, there is really nothing like ‘emerging’ humour, except that it can manifest at certain times. Perhaps that humour need not be searched in a haystack full of explanations and difficult dictionary words. So in a nutshell, I had an image of Richard as a man who stresses the accuracy and the source of words and I failed to see the humour.
RICHARD: Good ... speaking personally I do not find it funny at all as I am entirely sincere. Another co-respondent noticed the discrepancy:
160,000,000 people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by their fellow human beings – and an estimated 40,000,000 people suicided in the same 100 years – and a revered sage sits there and pontificates about not pointing out wrong in others (all the whilst doing the exact same thing himself)? Yet when I explicate the blatant discrepancy with six short words it is seen as either my ‘emergent’ humour or me being ironic?
‘Tis wisdom such as this which shows why no god can save the human race ... only humans can save themselves.
RESPONDENT No. 28: ... Does the observation imply that ‘real teacher’ would have none of these ‘aberrations’? Is this a fact?
RICHARD: Perhaps the following words may answer your very valid query? Vis.: [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd).
RESPONDENT: What is the context of the above quote?
RICHARD: The context of the above quote is of the non-existence of ‘me’; of being related; of love; of consciousness; of going beyond matter; of order; of the ending of conflict in relationship; of total relationship; of the absence of illusion. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Does the quote really answer the question?
RESPONDENT: What is the living that K talks about whose context you have not provided?
RICHARD: Certainly not the kind of living that was being discussed whence the ‘does the observation imply that ‘real teacher’ would have none of these ‘aberrations’?’ reply came from. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Is K living that observation at that moment?
RICHARD: Of course not (seeing as he was talking there obviously was consciousness and content operating).
RESPONDENT: At the instance when a dialog is going on?
RICHARD: At that very instance, yes.
RESPONDENT: Was the questioner moving with K when the dialog is on?
RICHARD: The reports I have come across mostly have upwards of a thousand people listening to his talks in Saanen ... you will have to ask them if any one of them was ‘moving with K when the dialog is on’ as clairvoyance is totally non-operative here.
RESPONDENT: Of course K is immaterial, but since you provided the quote, I am bringing K into the picture.
RICHARD: Seeing that he is dead, cremated and his ashes scattered he is as ‘immaterial’ as any body can get ... but neither you nor I brought him ‘into the picture’ as he already was. Vis.:
I will say this much: it is fascinating to get some kind of an example of something of how your mind somehow works ... in this e-mail, at least.
RICHARD: This could be the quote you asked me for in another thread: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘The discovery of truth, or God demands great intelligence, which is not assertion of belief or disbelief, but the recognition of the hindrances created by lack of intelligence. So to discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’. (from: ‘The Book Of Life: Daily Meditations With J. Krishnamurti’, December Chapter (December 21). Published by Harper, San Francisco. Copyright © 1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America. All Rights Reserved).
RESPONDENT: There cannot be a discovery of truth or God. For then that discovery would be dualistic.
RICHARD: This quote may very well clarify the matter:
He clearly says ‘I have found this Truth, which is limitless, without beginning or end’ ... and the word ‘found’ and ‘discovery’ amount to the same thing. Furthermore, if you take note of the words ‘I am Life’, in conjunction with ‘I am not going to use the word God ... I prefer to call this Life’ (aka ‘I am God’), you will see that your concern about ‘then that discovery would be dualistic’ is dissolved ... there is no dualism when one is That (‘Tat Tvam Asi’).
RESPONDENT: There cannot be ‘seeing’ of ‘that’, except for the uncovering of blockages or hindrances. It seems perhaps very few have questioned what K meant by ‘Truth or God’ and perhaps most of us would have been taken that as the final word. Perhaps by K’s statement ‘such a thing exists’ K would have been hinting at the process of discovery (or uncovering) and not necessarily the finality of truth or God. Note the words ‘To discover truth or God – and I say such a thing does exist’, there is no indication as what exists.
RICHARD: Here is that first quote in full:
The words ‘... if you knew what truth is, what God is ... in that awareness belief is unnecessary’ are quite explicit.
RESPONDENT: Going by K’s vein of pointing, I would take ‘such a thing exists’ as the ‘process of discovery’. It is also strange that K uses Truth or God in quite a few places, together and not God in itself. So K would have taken to mean something like pointing to truth and not necessarily to God.
RICHARD: Here is a quote stating that ‘I am ... the ... Truth’ (same-same as ‘I am Life’ aka ‘I am God’) from the ‘Truth is a Pathless Land’ speech:
Just different words pointing to the same thing (no separation).
RESPONDENT No. 12: To say that I am the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body is to imply that I partake of that immortality. How could I not?
RICHARD: Indeed ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am the very stuff of this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe: the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen.
RESPONDENT No. 12: Otherwise, I would have no basis in experience from which to make that assertion.
RESPONDENT No. 12: And that very realization is what ‘Thou Art That’ points to.
RICHARD: No ... what ‘Thou Art That’ points to is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahman’ (Consciousness). I will re-post the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism I posted earlier, to another, for your perusal: 1. ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ (Consciousness is Brahman). (Aitareya Upanishad). 2. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). 3. ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art). (Chhandogya Upanishad). 4. ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ (Atman is Brahman). (Mandukya Upanishad). And ‘Brahman’ (or any other god or ground of being by whatever name) has no existence outside of the human psyche.
RESPONDENT: Did you read the above four books cover to cover or did you extract those 3 word phrases for convenience of proving your point?
RICHARD: I have never read any scriptures pertaining to any god by whatever name ‘cover to cover’ – I have far better things to do with my time – and as there are 1200-odd gods, that different tribes around the world and down through the ages believe in, no one person could ever live long enough to read all the trillions and trillions of words ascribed to them ... or to learn all the many different languages they are written in.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps those phrases may mean different things in different contexts ...
RICHARD: By all means then please inform me what they mean in these ‘different contexts’ that you refer to ... I am always ready to learn something new.
RESPONDENT: ... and also dependant on the strong knowledge of Sanskrit ...
RICHARD: I am only too happy to learn what they mean according to your ‘strong knowledge of Sanskrit’.
RESPONDENT: ... and Sanskrit is known to be a very deceptive language if not understood to the root.
RICHARD: Okay ... in what way are these phrases ‘deceptive’ according to your root understanding of Sanskrit?
RESPONDENT: I am not suggesting that one must be an expert on theology or an erudite.
RICHARD: What are you suggesting then?
RESPONDENT: In fact some of those phrases appear in other texts as well.
RICHARD: Good ... what ‘other texts’ do these phrases appear in?
RESPONDENT: Again I am not suggesting that one read books for self-knowledge.
RICHARD: I do not have to ‘read books for self-knowledge’ as I lived that/was that which those phrases point to, night and day, for eleven years ... thus I have an intimate knowledge (which is a knowledge not dependant upon any of the conditions you mention above).
A knowledge direct from the source, in other words.
RESPONDENT No. 19: Feelings and thinking are inextricably linked where there is re-action.
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... and feelings come first in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first) anyway. This has been scientifically demonstrated under strict laboratory conditions, again and again, by Mr. Joseph LeDoux, for example. It takes 12-14 milliseconds, from the first sensate contact, for the nerve signal to reach the amygdala (where the passions are triggered) and a further 12-14 milliseconds for the signal to then reach the cerebral cortex (where the thoughts are triggered).
RESPONDENT: What was the instrument used to measure all this?
RICHARD: In the article I read three or so years ago implanted tungsten electrodes were used.
RESPONDENT: How is thought measured and how is it determined as arising from that source?
RICHARD: There are many methods of determining thought activity ... apart from implanting electrodes as already mentioned there are surface receptors that can be attached to the scalp to detect up signals as well as 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).
There are literally hundreds of books on the various fields of neuroscience and thousands upon thousands of articles. Speaking personally, I did not know of any research on this subject when I started to actively investigate the human condition in myself 20 or more years ago: as I intimately explored the depths of ‘being’ it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the source of ‘self’ – were the root cause of all the ills of humankind ... it was the journey of a lifetime!
Thus I found out for myself ... I only provide examples (such as above) so that nobody has to take my word for it.
RESPONDENT No 42: Richard, I did read your responses, but found them a bit unmanageable, and so I delayed. As I’ve mentioned before, I have an aversion to long threads. At the same time, I don’t want to withdraw from the discussion. So I’ll just select a few items from memory to respond to. It seems to me that we have come across an number of semantic differences. Our definition of intelligence is different. You seem to see it as a faculty we have, and animals don’t have – not to mention an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. That quality to me is not to be confused with pantheism, etc. Then there is this bit about my ‘anthropomorphism’ I am not projecting human intelligence on animals. Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected. It operates in our brain absent thought. It operates in plants, animals, things, according to the laws of their nature. It operates in our instinct when there is no suppression. I hope you can accept my approach and, if I’m omitting something that you would like to put back on the table, please do so.
RICHARD: You can have any approach you wish as far as I am concerned as all my ‘unmanageable’ responses are encapsulated in the very first sentence I wrote to you at the beginning of this thread anyway: [Richard]: ‘A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in the absolute was’.
RESPONDENT: Why are you interested in this question of ‘absolute’?
RICHARD: Mainly because ‘the absolute’ (otherwise known, in this context, as intelligence or truth or god) is said to be the origin or source of all matter ... and thus all life.
RESPONDENT: There has been several threads on this. Yet you seem to pursue this.
RICHARD: Yes ... I wished to ascertain the nature of that intelligence, or truth or god, which creates or gives rise to malicious and sorrowful human beings (thus requiring love and compassion to be applied as antidotes) rather than creating or giving rise to happy and harmless human beings in the first place.
It did not strike me as being an intelligent act.
RESPONDENT: Are you seeking a literal, dictionary meaning of absolute?
RICHARD: No ... in fact I provided a dictionary definition earlier on in this thread (on the 18 November 2001) which I find quite apt. Vis.:
That easily fits as an appropriate description of this physical universe.
RESPONDENT: I mean the meaning of the word ‘absolute’?
RICHARD: Well, it has a physical meaning and a metaphysical meaning ... in the current e-mail exchange it is the metaphysical meaning that is being addressed (further above). Vis.:
When the metaphysical meaning starts to lose its grip the physical meaning becomes more and more obvious as being actual.
RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the any movement contradicts that definition of absolute that you have in mind?
RICHARD: No ... that it the point which a previous co-respondent was making to me. I even provided some quotes back then to provide a basis for the enquiry into that movement ... I will re-post a particularly relevant one from 25 November 2001:
This is quite explicit ... both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ have their being in that movement.
RICHARD: I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’ .
RESPONDENT: You mean someone had laid out that ‘heart-felt’ conviction? Or is it your conviction?
RICHARD: Both. Virtually every tribe or nation has institutionalised a metaphysical absolute (otherwise known as intelligence or god or truth) ... and at the time I started my enquiry it was also an experiential state.
RESPONDENT: Do you have a heart, Richard?
RESPONDENT: I mean not the human heart of course. We all have that human heart.
RICHARD: Of course.
RESPONDENT: Are you seeking a literal meaning of anything that is stated here?
RICHARD: I am, as always, only interested in facts and actuality.
RICHARD: Regards, Richard.
RESPONDENT: What does that word ‘Regards’ point to, Richard?
RICHARD: The same as the dictionary definition:
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.