|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 32
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 22): Speaking personally, I cannot believe anything. The ability to believe – believing in itself – has vanished out of me.
RESPONDENT: Does this qualify as a belief? RICHARD: No, not at all. If one examines that question – if one observes the thought process involved in the examination – one will see the inherent contradiction in asking: ‘does this qualify as a belief?’ For it is being suggested that someone is saying: ‘I believe that I cannot believe’. I would just ask how someone – anyone – could successfully achieve what amounts to a monumental exercise in futility. Does not the mind boggle when it regards the ramifications of someone being able to do this impossible feat of believing that they do not believe, twenty four hours a day, year after year? Does one stop to consider, before one taps out those six short words and clicks ‘send’, precisely what is entailed in someone – anyone – believing that they do not believe? Does one not ask themselves: ‘Now, why would some unknown person subscribe to a mailing list and say that the ability to believe has vanished?’ I would look at the sentence: ‘The ability to believe – believing in itself – has vanished out of me’. I would ask myself just what this means. I would wonder whether this is possible ... whether this faculty that is common to all humans can indeed vanish. I would look into myself to observe and examine my own believing faculty ... I would watch it in action. I would do this because this person could be saying something that might – just might – break through the stranglehold that the ‘I’ has on me. For is it not a fact that ‘I’ am nothing but a belief? Do ‘I’ not arise out of the act of believing in itself? The action of believing is to emotionally imagine something to be real that is not actual. When one observes oneself in action, ‘I’ seem to be real – very real at times – but am ‘I’ actual? Am ‘I’ actual, as in tangible, corporeal, material, substantial, palpable? No? Then does it not behove one to look at the very activity of believing?
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 13): With ‘I’ in ‘my’ entirety extinguished, the instinctual
fear and aggression that blind nature endows all creatures with at birth vanishes. RESPONDENT: Have you never observed the spontaneous joy and intense awareness in the environment an infant displays in the early months of life before socialisation sets in and the self develops? Certainly fear and anger are there as protective instincts in the infant, but they are not crystallised into patterns of behaviour until the self begins to develop at about 14 months of age, due to the demands of culture which encourage acquisition and social power rather than the expression of bliss, curiosity, and creativity. So in a sense, we are getting back to this inner freedom within us but hopefully coupled with the wisdom that comes with adult awareness. I afraid your scenario paints the picture of humans born as monsters to be tamed. RICHARD: I am the father of four children and have seven grandchildren It is a popular misconception that ‘we are getting back to this inner freedom within us’ as there never was an ‘inner freedom’ to start off with. Something entirely new can emerge that has nothing to do with the so-called ‘freedom’ of infants and young children. To search back into one’s past for a ‘lost freedom’ or a ‘golden age’ or an ‘age of innocence’ is to look in the wrong direction. One never had it to start with. It is unfortunate that a matter-of-fact description of actuality is received only as a ‘picture of humans born as monsters to be tamed’. The seeing of a fact is actual wisdom, and out of that direct experience of the actuality of the Human Condition there is action. This action is the beginning of the ending of the ‘self’ one was born with. ‘I’ cannot stand exposure to the bright light of awareness for too long without crumpling like a leaky balloon. ‘I’ survive only by being able to lurk around in the shadows of inattention ... obfuscation and adumbration is ‘my’ game-plan. After all, ‘I’ was born with the instinct to survive, and ‘I’ will do anything to stay in existence, for it is in ‘my’ nature to do so. To be actually free of the Human Condition, ‘I’ do something very un-natural. ‘I’ commit psychological suicide for the good of oneself and humankind. * RICHARD: Thus, for the one who dares to go all the way, there is individual peace on earth for the remainder of one’s
life. RESPONDENT: Dare I ask if this is you? Or are you hypothesising? RICHARD: This is indeed me ... I talk only out of my own on-going experience. RESPONDENT: You are saying that one is enlightened (saved) once and for all? No shades in-between or backsliding into self-centred behaviour? RICHARD: No, I am not saying that one is ‘enlightened (saved)’ ... most definitely not. I am stressing that unless one rids oneself of ‘being’ ... that sense of ‘presence’ within ... one will never achieve peace-on-earth. To be enlightened or saved is to still ‘be’, only now in some metaphysical ‘other dimension’ ... a ‘dimension’ which is not actual. Not only the ego is dissolved, but the soul is as well. Then there can be no ‘backsliding into self-centred behaviour’ for there is no ‘self’ at all to slide into. Especially the capital ‘S’ self ... The ‘Higher Self’, the ‘True Self’, the ‘Real Self’, the ‘Eternal Self’ and so on. There is an actual freedom here on earth, available in this life-time, as this body. * RICHARD: This peace-on-earth is immediate and actual. RESPONDENT: Yes, but the for ever and ever thing sounds conceptual. RICHARD: For ever and ever indeed sounds conceptual ... because it is but a concept. However, I never wrote ‘for ever and ever’. I wrote: ‘for the remainder of one’s life’ ... which, actually, you quoted. I am this body; this body will die; I am mortal. Death is the end. Finish. There is no ‘Immortal Being’. If one does not become free now ... in this life-time ... one never will. * RICHARD: This ongoing experience is ambrosial, to say the least. RESPONDENT: Yes, when open to ‘what is’ it is quite ambrosial. RICHARD: I would ask myself: ‘why am ‘I’ being ‘open’? Is it not a last-ditch ploy to remain in existence ... only ‘open’ now instead of closed? To be ‘open’ is to be impressionably vulnerable for to be vulnerable is to invoke the affective. To be affective is to invite Divinity – in whatever form – to enter into one’s being and take over the living of one’s life. Then, if successful, ‘I’ will be one of the rare few Enlightened Beings existing for All Eternity. ‘I’, apprehending ‘my’ demise, seek Immortality in some other dimension ... a metaphysical dimension. In other words: anywhere but here-on-earth and anytime but now-in-time. Whereas I am the physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being at this moment in time and at this place in space. This is the ongoing experience that is ambrosial.
RICHARD: The fabled innocence of children is just that – a fable. It is a popular misconception that ‘we are getting back to this inner freedom within us’ as there never was an ‘inner freedom’ to start off with. Something entirely new can emerge that has nothing to do with the purported ‘freedom’ of infants and young children. To search back into one’s past for a ‘lost freedom’ or a ‘golden age’ or an ‘age of innocence’ is to look in the wrong direction. One never had it to start with. RESPONDENT: Richard, I doubt that there is a popular misconception of getting back to this ‘inner freedom within us’. Few people seem to even have the intuition that it is there. I am referring to what is here right now. Not as lost freedom, a golden age, or an age of lost innocence to which we seek to return. I am referencing a human’s innate capacity to experience love, joy, and enthusiasm for exploring what is in life. This capacity is clearly observed in infants during their first months of life as I indicated above. You have elsewhere spoken similarly of the individual as being able to be ... ‘benevolent and carefree ... happy and harmless’. RICHARD: Oh yes, indeed I did write that ‘the individual is able to be ... benevolent and carefree ... happy and harmless’, but infants and children are not as happy and harmless and benevolent and carefree as is so often made out to be the case ... and have never been so. They have malice and sorrow firmly embedded in them, for one is born with instinctual fear and aggression. Just watch a one month old baby bellowing its distress at being alone; just watch a one year old pinching its sibling in spite for taking its toy; just watch a two year old stamping its foot in a temper tantrum; just watch a three year old child fighting with its peers for supremacy. In the interests of having a sincere dialogue, I must ask: where in all this is the fabulous ‘inner freedom within us’ ... a freedom which must have peace and harmony and tranquillity in it for there to be peace-on-earth? The imposition of social mores – moral virtues, ethical values, honourable principles, decent scruples and the like – are essential to curb the instinct-born spiteful anger and vicious hatred that are part and parcel of the essential traits of being ‘human’. To repeat: a ‘Golden Past’ has never existed at any period, or at any stage, of development. To achieve a truly golden age, something entirely new must come into existence. All peoples must cease being ‘human’. To change ‘Human Nature’, they must give-up, voluntarily, their cherished identity ... the self they were born with. RESPONDENT: However, this capacity also exists along side the innate defence capacity to develop self severing, security oriented views of oneself and life that result in the operation of strategies for self aggrandisement, aggression, destruction, materialistic acquisition, longing, fearful avoidance, and squelching joy and loving. For reasons we do not understand, perhaps for factors related to the survival of the species, humans seem to be overly endowed with the latter defensive capacity which is seen to begin crystallising into definite patterns of behaviour as the child reaches the so called age of self awareness at 14 months or so and is influenced by social influences which further stimulate this defensive nature. RICHARD: Okay, so we can now see that an actual freedom from fear and aggression has never existed, then. What you have just described above does not jell with what you wrote before: ‘I afraid your scenario paints the picture of humans born as monsters to be tamed’. It is not my ‘scenario’, it is a fact that all sentient beings are born with fear and aggression ... this is blind nature’s way of ensuring the survival of the species. This is commonly called the ‘Human Condition’ and most people will sagely tell one that ‘you can’t change human nature’. To say that, or to pretend that humans are not ‘born monsters’ is to shut the door on investigation. The inhumanity of humankind is legendary, by now, and to not be able to see it in infants and children is but a denial of the actuality. The seeing of a fact is actual wisdom, and out of that direct experience of the actuality of the Human Condition there is action. This action is the beginning of the ending of the ‘self’ one was born with. RESPONDENT: Apparently it is only with a great deal of pain, fear, and diligent attentiveness to our inner attitudes, opinions, predispositions, feelings, and overt behaviour that we can begin to be aware of the magnitude of this inner defensive structure. For some it is a lengthy journey. For others it is a rather rapidly developing ‘dark night of the soul’ whereby this structure is experienced in depth, abandoned and the world experienced through the eyes of bliss, beauty, love, and carefree enthusiasm where everything appears beautiful just as it is. RICHARD: One’s ‘pain, fear ... inner attitudes, opinions, predispositions, feelings, and overt behaviour’ are humanity’s ‘pain, fear, inner attitudes, opinions, predispositions, feelings and overt behaviour’. For ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. It is a fact that ‘I’ am not as unique as ‘I’ would like to think and feel that ‘I’ am. ‘I’ am but a carbon copy of ‘everybody else’ and ‘everybody else’ is but a carbon copy of ‘me’. Seeing this is the beginning of the end of ‘me’ ... and the ending of ‘me’ is the ending of ‘humanity’. The ‘dark night of the soul’ is only experienced by religious and spiritual seekers, who
wish to perpetuate themselves for all eternity. I suggest that this is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth – something that
all religiosity and spirituality is guilty of. The quest to secure one’s place in ‘Eternity’ is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is
readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul after physical death. So much for the humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness,
altruism All this gets played out in the human psyche – and not in this actual world. For those rare few who succeed, their reward for enduring the ‘dark night of the soul’ is bliss, ecstasy, euphoria, love, compassion, beauty, truth and a few other glittering baubles ... which also only have an existence in the human psyche. But they do not get a ‘carefree enthusiasm’, for they are driven to ‘save the world’ and to ‘set mankind free’. Nor do they get an actual freedom from the Human Condition ... and certainly not peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: Is this ‘freedom’ neurological? Apparently both capacities are related to neurological functioning with the latter involving a more totally involved cerebral activity like the whole brain were charged up, excited, and alive. Is this necessary information? No. But it does indicate the brain structure is involved in whatever ultimately ‘awareness’ is insofar as humans are involved in it. It seems to me that too often (not referring to you, Richard) people tend to think of the brain as only the seat of concepts and destructive behaviour whereas ‘spiritual awareness’ must come from some other place – perhaps ethereal space. RICHARD: Too true ... yet ‘spiritual awareness’ does indeed come from an ethereal space. This ‘ethereal space’ is located in the human psyche, wherein all matters metaphysical originate ... both ‘good’ and ‘bad’. The human brain, super-charged with a veritable cocktail of chemicals, hormonally stimulated by the basic emotions of fear and aggression in the ‘reptilian brain’, creates the entire psychic realm wherein gods and demons forever play out their titanic battle betwixt good and evil. These super-entities are but a product of the self. The self is what one is born with – it equates with being ‘Born in Sin’, or being ‘Born of Samsara’ – and can be dispensed with by an irrevocable occurrence, which eliminates the entire psyche, is triggered by an intense urge to evince and demonstrate what the universe was evidently capable of manifesting: the utter best in purity and perfection which all humans could have ever longed for. Blind nature, which endows all creatures with the instinct for survival, can be superseded, which paves the way for a truly edified species of fellow human beings to live together in complete peace and harmony. There is no good or evil in this actual world. RESPONDENT: But even pausing to try to figure out the brain is a form of identification. Beyond any form of trying to ‘figure it out’ which is the operation of this fearful, defensive, security/ survival oriented mentality, is just, this ‘direct experience’ you mentioned. Things arise and pass away in this ‘shifting montage of what-is with clarity, and spontaneous acts with corresponding intelligence’. RICHARD: I have the greatest respect for the human brain. When allowed to use its native intelligence – which can only operate optimally when ‘I’ take a back seat – it can figure anything out. However, ‘I’ insistently interfere in the smooth running of contemplative thought, with ‘my’ self-centred opinions and selfish demands, and try to figure things out for ‘myself’. And the way that ‘I’ always figure things out is inevitably self-serving. Getting in touch with one’s in-built naiveté is the first step towards sagacious reasoning. RESPONDENT: Thank you for your recent contributions to the mailing List. I am relatively new to the line but do not recall seeing postings by you previously. Are you new to it? RICHARD: Thank you for your thoughtful response. I subscribed to the list four-five weeks ago and watched what came into my E-Mailer ... until I gained the drift of what was the paramount area of interest being discussed. I only started posting about six or seven days ago, which is why you cannot recall seeing any postings by me before this! I am thoroughly enjoying myself.
RESPONDENT No. 20: When we look at these fears, we see they are irrational, meaning the causal object is not actually a substantial danger. Having insight into the irrational nature of this sort of fear does dispel it irrevocably. But this has to do with the nature of irrational beliefs. What would happen to a person who says they overcame the fear of heights where the danger was real and present, say in mountain climbing? RICHARD: Where the danger is real and present ... what then of the insight into the nature of irrational fear, eh? You seem to be saying: What use is that insight where rational fear is concerned? No use whatsoever. So, can one have an insight into the nature of a rational fear? RESPONDENT No. 20: When we investigate an insight into the human condition it seems to me that we are bringing up not simply irrational beliefs, but the habits, dispositions, in-built emotional structure. It is the conditioning of perhaps one hundred thousand years. RICHARD: It is more than the ‘conditioning of perhaps one hundred thousand years’, for sincere investigation
strikes at the very basis of the ‘self’. The ‘self’ is the product of the instincts that one was born with ... and fear is but one of these
basic instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: In that you both seem to be in agreement on this rational versus irrational fear business I would appreciate your defining rational fear. RICHARD: ‘Rational fear’ is a term commonly ascribed to the fear that is the instinctual response to an obvious and actual threat to life and limb ... as contrasted to an imagined danger. This origin of this fear is located in the ‘reptilian brain’ at the top of the brain-stem and hormonally secretes chemicals – mainly adrenaline – into the blood stream. This causes the heart to pump faster, sending the adrenaline coursing through the body, galvanising the muscles in preparation for ‘freeze, fight or flight’. RESPONDENT: To me if there is such a thing as rational fear it would be like crossing a street and seeing a Mack truck bearing down on you. The instinct of preservation would dictate that you would immediately jump out of the way. Then the adrenaline would subside and the whole thing would be over (unless you subsequently developed an ‘irrational fear’ phobia for crossing streets or being near trucks). RICHARD: The instinct of preservation, yes. This is why blind nature endowed all sentient beings with the instinctual fear ... yet not only for self-preservation, but so as to continue the species through the individual surviving long enough to procreate. However, as blind nature does not favour one species over the other, competition is the inevitable outcome as the different species vie with each other for supremacy ... because all sentient beings also come equipped with instinctual aggression. The success of this vying is called the survival of the most fitted to survive. So far so good, one might say ... nevertheless, there is a down-side to all of this. The very life-preserving instincts of fear and aggression cause untold suffering and death. To wit: humanity’s notorious inhumanity. Therefore, the very thing supposedly designed to preserve life, also works to destroy life. The package handed out at birth by blind nature is a very rough and ready programme ... and it is up to human beings to do something about it. Humans have already improved on nature so much in the areas of technology, animal breeding and plant cultivation, for instance, that there is no reason why one cannot continue this fine work of overcoming the limitations imposed by blind nature and eliminate fear and aggression from oneself. Then – and only then – will one have peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: A fear, say, of foreigners that is learned from your parents may be a pattern handed down through the millenniums by your subgroup and be tied in with your self image, as for example as WASP, an Aryan, a Jew, whatever. I would not see this as a ‘rational’ fear but one with fear based elements just like phobias. Thus, if you used the term irrational to describe such fears, they would both seem to be ‘irrational’. RICHARD: The recently ended civil war in Bosnia would disprove your theory ... for those concerned. In that situation it was considered rational to fear foreigners or those from another sub-group. What is considered rational by some is seen as irrational by others ... and vice-versa. However, the use of the phrase ‘rational fear’ is nothing but the self-centred justification for the continued existence of ‘me’. Because, as long as fear exists, ‘I’ exist. And as long as ‘I’ exist, fear exists. The elimination of self in its entirety is the elimination of those instincts. It is possible to be entirely free from all instinctive impulses ... one has no furious urges, no inherent anger, no impulsive rages, no inveterate hostilities, no evil disposition ... no malicious tendencies whatsoever. Now that a thinking, reflective brain has developed over the top of the primitive ‘lizard brain’, one has the ability to trace back through the emotional-mental line to the rudimentary instinctual self ... and eliminate it along with its instincts. One does not need instincts to function and operate in this world of people, things and events ... they may have been necessary in the wild but with a now civilised world they are detrimental to peaceful and harmonious co-existence. The 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone testify to this. Until then, humanity’s inhumanity will continue to flourish.
RESPONDENT: I have overcome the fear of heights – I mean the irrational fear – but I still have a healthy respect for height and if, for example, a particular ladder or structure does not look safe I feel (rational) fear and will not climb the structure. Much can be done with rational fears relative to insight. One can learn techniques and skills that one can automatically plug into when a real crisis develops rather than to panic. However, most all of our automatic, ‘instinctual’ appearing responses as adults are activated by learned conceptual templates (unconsciously) held deep within this structure you mention, are they not? Thus, the whole discussion of rational fears, irrational fears and instincts is a little misleading because these are concepts of linguistic convenience but not separate processes in reality. Is there any reason this state of freedom from all instincts could not be achieved through expanded awareness which would tap our already present potential to be loving, blissful, and enthusiastically aware of ‘what is’? Correct me if I am wrong but your words sound a little like biological human engineering. Even Freud, the father of psychoanalysis, believed that ‘insight therapy’ could only do a limited amount of good. I doubt it that instincts will be eliminated in their entirety. Those neurological instincts for conceptually identifying something to be protected or achieved will continue to be hard wired into the brain. They are activated anew whenever the individual finds him/herself in a threatening situation. Unless, of course, you plan to perform lobotomies on the whole human race. Perhaps through awareness the individual can learn to deal with these impulses. There are still many dangers out there for which I need my instincts (danger alert programs). I don’t know where you live but I can use my instincts on the roadways around Washington, DC, every day. But humanity’s inhumanity does not need to flourish in us as individuals in the meanwhile. Stay carefree. We need more of you in this adrenaline-saturated world! RICHARD: Basically, the points you raise are either psychological attempts to cope with the
Human Condition through techniques of management of the problem, or spiritual endeavours to deal with the same Human Condition through awareness of
transcendence of the situation itself. These are the ‘Tried and True’ methods that have kept the human race in the appalling subjugation of
integrity When one categorically states that something or another is impossible, it is all over before they even start. They close off from exploring and uncovering; they shut the door on investigation and discovery; they stop seeking and finding. My attitude, all those years ago was this: ‘I’ am not interested in stress management skills; ‘I’ am not interested in having to ‘cope with life’; ‘I’ am not interested in lobotomies; ‘I’ am not interested in eugenics; ‘I’ am not interested in medications; ‘I’ am not interested in genetic engineering; ‘I’ am not interested in Freud’s theories; ‘I’ am not interested in loving, blissful states of being; ‘I’ am not interested in social planning; ‘I’ am not interested in changing the world. ‘I’ was only interested in changing ‘myself’ fundamentally, radically, completely and utterly. This entailed finding the source of ‘myself’ ... and one discovers that ‘I’ am born out of the instincts that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth. This rudimentary self is the root cause of all the malice and sorrow that besets humankind, and to eliminate malice and sorrow ‘I’ will have to eliminate the fear and aggression that this self is made up of ... the instincts. But as this self is the instincts – there is no differentiation betwixt the two – then the elimination of one is the elimination of the other. One is the other and the other is one. In fact, with the elimination of the instincts, ‘I’ will cease to exist, period. Psychological self-immolation is the only sensible sacrifice that ‘I’ could make in order to reveal whatever is actual. And what is actual is perfection. Life is bursting with meaning when ‘I’ am no longer present to mess things up. ‘I’ stand in the way of the purity of the perfection of the actual being apparent. ‘My’ presence prohibits this ever-present perfection being evident. ‘I’ prevent the very purity of life, that ‘I’ am searching for, from coming into plain view. With ‘my’ demise, this ever-fresh perfection is manifest.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 33): Malice and sorrow are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human
Condition’. The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find
themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures.
There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good
and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to
control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where
morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of malice and
sorrow involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human
beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is:
is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I
live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: The ending of sorrow is love. RICHARD: If I may point out? The ending of sorrow is not love ... sorrow is essential for compassion to flourish; without compassion, love has no genesis. Therefore, the ending of sorrow would result in love being stillborn ... and love is the antidote for malice. Without malice, love has no raison d’ętre.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 33): Malice and sorrow are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human
Condition’. The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find
themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures.
There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good
and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to
control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where
morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of malice and
sorrow involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human
beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is:
is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I
live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: The ending of sorrow is love. RICHARD: If I may point out? The ending of sorrow is not love ... sorrow is essential for compassion to flourish; without compassion, love has no genesis. Therefore, the ending of sorrow would result in love being stillborn ... and love is the antidote for malice. Without malice, love has no raison d’ętre. RESPONDENT: Are you writing about your experience or just assuming? RICHARD: I started to empirically encounter this towards the end of 1987 and by about mid 1988 the unfolding of experience came to its inevitable realisation ... but my investigation into compassion had begun in India in 1984 with the Buddhist ‘metta’ (loving-kindness) and ‘karuna’ (pity-compassion). Strangely enough, it was the disclosure of the intrinsically manipulative nature of love in 1987 – and ‘unconditional love’ at that – that triggered the expansion of comprehension and experiential understanding of the composition of the affective faculty ... with the concomitant growth of awareness. It was with Love Agapé being such a ‘sacred cow’ that there had initially been considerable uneasiness about a direct investigation ... hence there was a three year-long gestation period before the fact could be faced squarely. Nevertheless, it was not until 1992 that it all came to fruition ... there is a vast difference between ‘realisation’ and ‘actualisation’.
RESPONDENT No. 31: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time. Again, I admit is also one of my faults for bringing in ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Purusha’ without first asking you what is your central point. RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong
direction. RESPONDENT: It is as if they are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. Just turn it around and you will see the love, compassion, beauty, delight and joy that comes from using the instrument correctly. RICHARD: By saying that ‘they’ are ‘looking through a telescope from the wrong end’ are you telling me that you are not going 180 degrees in the wrong direction? If so, why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and beauty? If I may suggest? Discard your telescope and use a microscope instead ... and put love and compassion and beauty under examination.
RICHARD: Why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and beauty? RESPONDENT: ONLY love, compassion, beauty, order will do! RICHARD: By saying that ‘ONLY love, compassion, beauty, order will do!’ are you saying that you know that the ‘Tried and True’ is effective in curing all the ills of humankind? Are you saying this despite the fact that the Gurus and the God-Men; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Masters and the Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to demonstrate the effectiveness of ‘ONLY love, compassion, beauty, order’ ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found? I must ask you: just how much longer will a ‘Tried and Failed’ system continue to be so highly revered despite its abject failure to produce the goods? Is it because ‘love, compassion, beauty, order’ form a blanket of solace and succour wherein ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can be comforted, stroked, endorsed and perpetuated? Is this why nobody will put ‘love, compassion, beauty’ under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings sacrosanct? * RESPONDENT No. 3: Excuse me if this sound rude. What do I know? Nothing to speak of. RICHARD: You can be as rude as you wish ... I never take offence. As for your query ‘What do I know?’ and your NDA answer ‘Nothing to speak of’ ... for one who professes to know nothing to speak of, you spoke plenty already. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Now you see how hard it is to break beings from conditioning. RICHARD: Yes, it took me eleven years to break free from the institutionalised insanity that reveres the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and beauty. Then I realised that ‘being’ itself was the problem ... not just love and compassion and beauty. RESPONDENT: But, since we have the brains, the technology, the Internet Meeting of Minds (IMM), we should be able to break this conditioning. RICHARD: Indeed ... speaking personally, the Internet is my chosen means of correspondence and communication for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. RESPONDENT: [We should be able to break this conditioning]. I know how, do you? RICHARD: Okay ... but just so that there is no confusion, could you specify what this conditioning is that you say ‘we should be able to break’? I was referring to putting feelings under the microscope.
RICHARD: There is a third alternative: this actual world that the real world is pasted over as a veneer. RESPONDENT No. 34: Yes. The localised mind of man creates an inner self, an inner centred known observer, that superimposes an imaginary world over the actual. I would say: ‘the elimination of a centred known observer that becomes in time ...’ RICHARD: Why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’
really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred
known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). RESPONDENT: The ‘centred known observer’ is ‘EGO’. RICHARD: Yes, ego ... sometimes referred to as ‘self’ (with a lower-case ‘s’ so as to distinguish it from ‘Self’ with an upper-case ‘S’) RESPONDENT: Eliminate sorrow and you have rid yourself of the self-motivated centre (selfishness). This is where love begins. RICHARD: Not so ... the elimination of sorrow is not where love begins ... sorrow is essential for compassion to flourish; without compassion, love has no genesis. Therefore, you must sublimate sorrow so that transcendence can result ... then love begins. Incidentally, the question was: what is the primary cause of ego ... is it really just a product of ‘becoming in time’ or is there a more fundamental cause? * RESPONDENT No. 34: The fundamental cause in time, seems to be the survival of the species. RICHARD: Thus the ‘centred known observer’ has, fundamentally, a biological cause genetically inherited.
Therefore, any move to trigger the elimination of this fundamental self is to go against nature and nature’s drive for survival. A betrayal, in
other words. RESPONDENT: Must eliminate the past (no-ledge). RICHARD: Am I to take it from this that you hold to the theory that ego is solely a product of ‘becoming in time’? Otherwise why must one ‘eliminate the past’ (as if to do so is to remove the genesis of ‘I’) which you indicate by calling this elimination ‘no-ledge’ to stand on? RESPONDENT: Ignore the program (software / default / start-up / boot). RICHARD: Surely you are not advocating putting one’s head in the sand? An ignored problem – contrary to popular belief – does not miraculously go away through being disregarded. This software program that you encourage overlooking (the default / boot / boot program) is the instinctual passions, is it not? Are you seriously advocating that people not examine their feelings? Why is this? Are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: And learn (understand/ attention) how to use the tool (instrument/ brain). RICHARD: But will learning be 100% effective if one cripples that learning with ignored (suppressed and/or sublimated) feelings? Because you did say (in another post):
Microsoft have signalled their intention to abandon ‘Windows 95/98’ (prone to crashing) because of insoluble problems inherent in the boot section of the OS and are proposing to base their ‘Windows 2000’ on the ‘Windows NT’ OS (less prone to crashing). They realise the futility of continuing to upgrade if the upgrades are based upon an unstable root. Modifying or enhancing a program (human behaviour) based on an unstable root (the instinctual passions) will give you the same problems as the earlier model ... but nevertheless dazzling to the eye because it is jazzed-up with pretty images (‘GOD’ and/or ‘TRUTH’) to make it look good to sell to the public. * RESPONDENT No. 34: All is immersed, contained in emptiness. RICHARD: This is a mystical concept (emptiness is another word for universal mind). RESPONDENT: The emptiness is the space in the mind where ‘what-is/TRUTH’ exist. Infinite space. RICHARD: Obviously you are not talking of the material infinite space of this physical universe (a bit tricky packing all that into the human skull) when you say ‘infinite space’, eh? Therefore you must be indicating a non-material ‘infinite space’, and seeing that you equate ‘what is’ with the ‘TRUTH’ (in upper-case), then this ‘mind’ that you speak of must be a non-material ‘mind’ as well? Is this non-material ‘mind’ dependent upon the physical brain for its existence?
RICHARD: Why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’ really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). RESPONDENT: The ‘centred known observer’ is ‘EGO’. RICHARD: Yes, ego ... sometimes referred to as ‘self’ (with a lower-case ‘s’ so as to distinguish it from ‘Self’ with an upper-case ‘S’). RESPONDENT: Which being are you? Richard, No. 34 or ? RICHARD: Could you clarify what it is that you are wanting to explore with this rather odd question? * RESPONDENT: Eliminate sorrow and you have rid yourself of the self-motivated centre (selfishness). This is where love begins. RICHARD: Not so ... the elimination of sorrow is not where love begins ... sorrow is essential for compassion to flourish; without compassion, love has no genesis. Therefore, you must sublimate sorrow so that transcendence can result ... then love begins. Incidentally, the question was: what is the primary cause of ego ... is it really just a product of ‘becoming in time’ or is there a more fundamental cause? RESPONDENT: Conflict, distortion, confusion. RICHARD: What is the primary cause of conflict ... with its resultant distortion and confusion? * RESPONDENT No. 34: The fundamental cause in time, seems to be the survival of the species. RICHARD: Thus the ‘centred known observer’ has, fundamentally, a biological cause genetically inherited.
Therefore, any move to trigger the elimination of this fundamental self is to go against nature and natures drive for survival. A betrayal, in
other words. RESPONDENT: Must eliminate the past (no-ledge). RICHARD: Am I to take it from this that you hold to the theory that ego is solely a product of ‘becoming in time’? Otherwise why must one ‘eliminate the past’ (as if to do so is to remove the genesis of ‘I’) which you indicate by calling this elimination ‘no-ledge’ to stand on? RESPONDENT: Ignore the program (software/default/start-up/boot). RICHARD: Surely you are not advocating putting one’s head in the sand? An ignored problem – contrary to popular belief – does not miraculously go away through being disregarded. This software program that you encourage overlooking (the default/boot/boot program) is the instinctual passions, is it not? Are you seriously advocating that people not examine their feelings? Why is this? Are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: And learn (understand/attention) how to use the tool (instrument/brain). RICHARD: But will learning be 100% effective if one cripples that learning with ignored (suppressed and/or sublimated) feelings? Because you did say (in another post):
Microsoft have signalled their intention to abandon ‘Windows 95/98’ (prone to crashing) because of insoluble problems inherent in the boot section of the OS and are proposing to base their ‘Windows 2000’ on the ‘Windows NT’ OS (less prone to crashing). They realise the futility of continuing to upgrade if the upgrades are based upon an unstable root. Modifying or enhancing a program (human behaviour) based on an unstable root (the instinctual passions) will give you the same problems as the earlier model ... but nevertheless dazzling to the eye because it is jazzed-up with pretty images (‘GOD’ and/or ‘TRUTH’) to make it look good to sell to the public. RESPONDENT: As I look at human history, it appears that we are trying to read ‘MAC’ files from a ‘PC’. Very hard to translate! RICHARD: Yet when one reads the ‘MAC’ files on a ‘Macintosh’ it reads the same (no need for translation). So, I will ask again: how will learning be 100% effective if one cripples that learning with ignored (suppressed and/or sublimated) feelings? * RESPONDENT No. 34: All is immersed, contained in emptiness. RICHARD: This is a mystical concept (emptiness is another word for universal mind). RESPONDENT: The emptiness is the space in the mind where ‘what-is/TRUTH’ exist. Infinite space. RICHARD: Obviously you are not talking of the material infinite space of this physical universe (a bit tricky packing all that into the human skull) when you say ‘infinite space’, eh? Therefore you must be indicating a non-material ‘infinite space’, and seeing that you equate ‘what is’ with the ‘TRUTH’ (in upper-case), then this ‘mind’ that you speak of must be a non-material ‘mind’ as well? Is this non-material ‘mind’ dependent upon the physical brain for its existence?
RESPONDENT No. 10: Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. RESPONDENT: Seems to me that beauty is order. A sunset can be so beautiful that thought ends (briefly), as we perceive the order. RICHARD: Yes, this is what I meant by the ‘it took my breath away’ phrase. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says it well in ‘Unconditionally Free; Part One’ where he points out: ‘What takes place when you look at something which is actually marvellously beautiful ... ? What actually takes place when you see the extraordinary beauty of ... ? At that moment, the very majesty makes you forget yourself (...) then you don’t exist, only that grandeur exists. Truth is, beauty is, love is, where you are not’. Is this not what you mean by ‘seems to me beauty is order’? RESPONDENT: Everywhere we look in nature, this order exists. RICHARD: Okay, would you say that the beauty of nature, when it is really seen, dissolves the petty ‘I’, as it were, and there is only that order in which the observer is the observed? RESPONDENT: It is only in our relationships to order that we are confused by the disorder. RICHARD: Why is that, would you say? RESPONDENT: When you see the disorder, the order remains. Beauty, love, compassion, order ... RICHARD: Okay. And to take it further, would you say that it goes ‘beauty, love, compassion, order ... truth’?
RESPONDENT: Seems to me that beauty is order. A sunset can be so beautiful that thought ends (briefly), as we perceive the order. RICHARD: Yes, this is what I meant by the ‘it took my breath away’ phrase. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says it well in ‘Unconditionally Free; Part One’ where he points out: ‘What takes place when you look at something which is actually marvellously beautiful ... ? What actually takes place when you see the extraordinary beauty of ... ? At that moment, the very majesty makes you forget yourself (...) then you don’t exist, only that grandeur exists. Truth is, beauty is, love is, where you are not’. Is this not what you mean by ‘seems to me beauty is order’? RESPONDENT: Exactly. RICHARD: And the order revealed by beauty is the order of truth, is it not (which is not an imposed order through discipline)? * RESPONDENT: Everywhere we look in nature, this order exists. RICHARD: Okay, would you say that the beauty of nature, when it is really seen, dissolves the petty ‘I’, as it were, and there is only that order in which the observer is the observed? RESPONDENT: Yes, this state of the ‘observer is the observed’ is easy for us to obtain among nature. It’s our nature to love Mother Nature. RICHARD: So love and beauty are inextricably entwined, would you say? And it is a natural and nurturing ‘deep feeling’ (as suggested by your use of ‘Mother Nature’) to come upon truth through love and beauty ... and thence compassion? (Given that ‘nurture’ and ‘compassion’ are virtually synonymous as deep feelings of caring)? RESPONDENT: It becomes more difficult to create this state in a relationship with beings. But, quite possible. RICHARD: Why is that, would you say? * RESPONDENT: It is only in our relationships to order that we are confused by the disorder. RICHARD: Why is that, would you say? RESPONDENT: Order is my framework, being the only reliable frame that can never collapse. RICHARD: By ‘order’ you mean the truth (as accessed through love and compassion and beauty)? Thus, is ‘truth’ your non-collapsible framework? RESPONDENT: If we want to find order, then we must see the disorder. As the disorder is revealed the order remains. RICHARD: What is the disorder that must be seen so that when disorder is revealed the order remains? * RESPONDENT: When you see the disorder, the order remains. Beauty, love, compassion, order ... RICHARD: Okay. And to take it further, would you say that it goes ‘beauty, love, compassion, order ... truth’? RESPONDENT: Of course. RICHARD: Is there any other way to truth than through the deep feelings of beauty, love and compassion?
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 |
