Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 33

Some Of The Topics Covered

following posts with interest – questioning everything ... ‘including the speaker’ – questioning one’s elders or one’s superiors – inviting the closest scrutiny – appreciating the honesty – preferring the mailing list format – three levels or stages of understanding – the tremendous energy necessary – ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ in scare quotes – ‘Being’ is any non-becoming metaphysical entity – ‘Being’ has its genesis in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – an actual intimacy rather than a feeling intimacy – the percentage of tobacco users alleged to die – a questionable method of accurately determining causes – the burning of incense and the burning of petroleum – tobacco use is on the decrease/motor vehicle use is on the increase – a storm in a tea-cup – the  parasitic identity – somatising noticeable effects – a rotten illusion and a rotten delusional core – meaning ‘truth’ instead of ‘fact’ – real-world realms are the pits – estrangement is a sickness – Brahma has no presence outside of the human psyche – a dissociated presence – an actual infinitude – a rotten bunch of delusions – its rotten effects – true-colour global imagery – writing e-mails to illusions – the blue light of the oceans – no object has an ‘inherent’ colour – ‘Rayleigh Scattering’ and the ‘Raman Effect’ – writing e-mails to illusions – the oceans absorb light too – the blue of the sky – biased attribution – quantum mechanics and classical mechanics – the Raman Effect is a feeble effect – optical phenomena and optical illusions – illusions denying their creator – the pale blue colour characteristic of water and ice – the pot calling the kettle black – causal thinking is not peculiar to the west – institutionalised insanity – acausal thinking – a pusillanimous volte-face – narcissistically all-pervasive – a trope – a cause-effect revelation – relying upon illusory words – otherwise intelligent westerners – the juggernaut will creak to a halt – the ancient wisdom has finally met its match – a total waste of a paragraph – disorder and chaos is not an illusion – the corporeal solution – a grave abstractional error – cogent ratiocination – prestidigitation – a de jure pundit – never-changing moment/ever-changing materiality – perpetuus mobilis – this eternal moment – where affective feelings happen – not an exercise in futility – the being in the body – affective vibes and psychic currents – seeking power or communion – charismatic leaders – scripture-book heroes being beyond absolutely anything – the epic poem ‘Kamayani’ – ‘Sacred Schizophrenia’ – a rotten font of wisdom – the rotten core writ large ... narcissism reigning supreme – why feelings sans ego are sacrosanct – where any flaw in reasoning originates

May 04 2002:

RESPONDENT: Haven’t heard from Richard in a while.

RICHARD: I have not been doing much writing for some months now (other than posting to my own mailing list) however I am still subscribed to this mailing list.

RESPONDENT: Hope everything is alright with you.

RICHARD: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest).

It is autumn in this part of the world and the weather is particularly balmy at the moment.

May 06 2002:

RICHARD: I have not been doing much writing for some months now (other than posting to my own mailing list) however I am still subscribed to this mailing list.

RESPONDENT: Too bad. Reading your posts was quite a delight. I am not subscribed to your mailing list. May be you should cc: some of your posts to this forum as well.

RICHARD: I think not. I would rather write freshly and in response to an existing thread here ... if I was going to write at all, that is.

*

RICHARD: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest).

RESPONDENT: Life is busy. Posting on this forum is intellectually stimulating. But the quality of interactions here is not the same as it used to be. The forum is infested with second hand K-clones.

RICHARD: I have always appreciated Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s suggestion about questioning everything ... ‘including the speaker’.

May 09 2002:

RICHARD: I have read No 33’s posts for maybe four years now – and when the original archives were on-line I backtracked through to the beginning to find out what had already been published – and I took notice of the general thrust of what he put forward regarding Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’ over the many years that he has been writing. I found that, by and large, he was reasonably consistent (given that it is touchy subject to question and that he received very little support and/or encouragement) and that it is to his credit that he still persists. It is such an obvious thing to do, to establish whether the speaker is living the ‘Teachings’ he promulgates, that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so.

RESPONDENT: Once we were in a meeting with K at Rishi Valley. One person (I do not remember who – probably an old-timer from the Foundation) was sitting in one of the chairs by the wall and he made some comment. Kabir, of the Valley School (Bangalore), was a young teacher who was sitting on the floor and he countered the man in the chair. Krishnamurti was delighted! He said: ‘... don’t stop ... go ahead, pull him down!’

RICHARD: I appreciate your recollection as it reads to me as being quite a clear urging to question what any person has to say ... even one’s elders or one’s superiors in an educational institution. And it is in keeping with what I have read, in some of his talks to students, where he urges them to question what the teachers at the schools have to say ... or question anybody, for that matter.

RESPONDENT: I wonder myself why is there so much opposition to questioning K when the man’s entire philosophy is based upon pulling down all the notions, wherever they may happen to be sitting. :-)

RICHARD: Indeed ... if somebody publicly claims to have discovered the secret to life that will cure humanity of all the suffering that has endured through aeons then they automatically invite the closest scrutiny.

And rightly so.

May 09 2002:

RICHARD: Well, as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is dead that is not an option [asking him point blank where he is coming from] but you could try asking No. 10 ... here is what he had to say, on this very mailing list some time ago, on the subject of experiencing anguish: [Respondent]: ‘What do you mean by she ‘dulled your world’?’ [No. 10]: ‘I was dulled (robotic) for two weeks after it’. [Respondent]: ‘How did you deal (emotionally) with your finding?’ [No. 10]: ‘... I went into our bedroom and for about two hours experienced all of the pain of trust lost, separation of us, and the agony of the worst pain we humans experience, that of infidelity, it has been happening for millions of years and is the deepest pain a human can suffer, even greater than the loss of a person through death’. (Message No. 00152 of Archive 00/07: Subject: Re: Age and Aging; Date: Sun, 02 Jul 2000).

RESPONDENT: One of the most telling exchanges I had on this forum.

RICHARD: Yes, it was very clear, informative and straight to the point ... I appreciate the honesty in his response.

RESPONDENT: The point and the beauty of this exchange (to me at least) was that even an ostensibly Transformed human being is not free from the pains and pangs of human suffering. If that be the case, Transformation is worth nothing: zero.

RICHARD: Exactly. Any transformation, no matter how sublime or transcendental, is worthless if it does not deliver the goods it (supposedly) promises ... freedom from suffering

RESPONDENT: Wonder where is friend No 10 these days. Last I heard from him was when he was pimping his version of Transformation in the red-light area of PalTalk. No. 25 too had a parlour there once.

RICHARD: It is a matter of preference I guess ... I personally prefer the mailing list format as I can take time out to wander away and do something else halfway through and come back (the next day even) and carry on writing where I left of without missing anything.

May 09 2002:

RESPONDENT No. 14: ... there is no suffering here, nor will there ever be.

RESPONDENT: Great!

RESPONDENT No. 14: As the perspective that includes flesh and bone bodies and other such things and events, I am perfectly happy – perfectly content.

RESPONDENT: Good to hear it! I hope and wish that it stays that way for you.

RICHARD: Before you become too effusive in your congratulations you may wish to access the following link so as to view some quotes relevant to the topic:

So as to save you wading through a rather long post I will supply the pertinent quotes here:

• [No. 14]: ‘I have experienced sorrow, and have never made any effort to try and compensate for it. Sorrow feels good.
• [No. 14]: ‘I have been anger and still often choose to be sadness. Yesterday I attended the funeral for a family friend and her son. (...) A very touching and very nicely presented ceremony was shared. I enjoyed crying and crying. After the ceremony I choose to enjoy sharing the very rational grief the husband was choosing to feel.
• [No. 14]: ‘Anger does not exists save for when it is the chosen behaviour.
• [No. 14]: ‘Anger is fine. In many cases it is quite interesting to watch. More, when anger was chosen the behaviour, the results were generally enjoyed. The only problem was the results were temporary.
• [No. 14]: ‘As matter of fact, I could choose to be anger now. Anger is a reaction and a reaction is not a choice. (...) Again, I could choose to be anger as this moment and presently there is recognition of absolutely no-thing to react to.
• [No. 14]: ‘... I have no need to beat the child, I can simply change how I feel about the circumstance I have created as anger. Such things are done here daily’. (May 28 2001; Re: The Instinctual Passions).

It would appear that the ‘perspective’ he refers to at the top of this page is an ... um ... an all-embracing perspective where it concerns suffering.

August 30 2002:

RESPONDENT No. 20: ... fundamentally, Maslow did think in terms of stages of development, which is something that is not consistent with K ‘s statements.

RESPONDENT: Au contraire, K is very clearly on record about different levels of evolution of human beings. He puts himself and Bohm in one category – a level higher than that of ordinary people.

RESPONDENT No. 20: Could you provide a quote to back up your claim?

RESPONDENT: I think he is reported in EOT telling Bohm that he and Bohm are at a different level and understand these things. A similar point comes up in the book that records discussions between K, Bohm, and Shainberg. I don’t have these books with me, so no exact quote. Sorry. Maybe Richard can provide an exact quote.

RICHARD: In the book that records the discussions with Mr. David Bohm and Mr. David Shainberg, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti explicitly details at least three levels or stages of understanding:

1. The person who is ignorant.
2. The person who is free of the image and the image-maker.
3. The person who goes beyond everything, dies to everything.

Here is the passage:

• [B]: ‘What is our relationship with the sacred ...?
• [K]: ‘To the man who is ignorant there is no relationship – right? Which is true. To the man who is free of the image and the image-maker, it has no meaning yet – right? It has meaning only when he goes beyond everything, dies to everything’. (page 134, ‘The Wholeness Of Life’; ©HarperCollins, New York; 1979).

The context of the quote shows that the intermediate level or stage is characterised by the tremendous feeling of compassion, born out of universal sorrow, which level or stage is essential before there be that which is sacred ... and thus meaning.

This is in keeping with his often repeated assertion in many of his books that there must be freedom in the beginning (in this instance expressed as freedom from the image and image-maker) in order for there to be the tremendous energy necessary to find out if there is God or Truth (not the God of the churches, temples, etc.).

The discussions were held in May 1976.

September 01 2002:

RICHARD: ... why do you say that it is ‘quite a mouthful’ when I point out that compassion perpetuates ‘me’ (‘me’ as ‘being’) as various mystical tracts going back many centuries make it quite clear that when the ‘me’ as ‘ego’ dissolves/ collapses/ dies the ‘me’ as ‘being’ is realised (quite often capitalised as ‘Being’)? The whole point of spiritual enlightenment is an awakening into being who you really are ... as was aptly expressed by another subscriber to this Mailing List only recently:

• [Respondent No. 59]: ‘The ‘me’ and ‘suffering/sorrow’ won’t be ‘eliminated’, ever! (...) The ‘me’ is part of Being, it is existence/ life itself. Enlightenment doesn’t ‘kill’ the ‘me’; it only transcends it, and thus it transfigures the ‘me’. [endquote].

It is the extinction of this transfigured ‘me’ (aka ‘Being’) which is essential if suffering (sorrow) is to ever end.

RESPONDENT: By ‘me’ you do not refer to the physical ‘me’, I guess. That physical ‘me’ will remain and will continue until death.

RICHARD: Until physical death, yes ... whenever I put ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ in scare quotes I am not referring to a physical entity (the flesh and blood body) but a metaphysical entity inside the flesh and blood body ... such as self, soul, spirit, atman and so on.

RESPONDENT: ‘Being’ itself has a few different connotations: (a) Being as ‘me’ existing (b) being as ‘me’ merely existing as opposed to Becoming and (c) Being as a Higher Being – which also implies a non-becoming entity. Krishnamurti put forth the same ideas – ‘me’ to him is the Becoming entity; the non-becoming entity is what he called a person who doesn’t exist in psychological time. Deep down he merely reiterated the ancient concepts of Being and Becoming in a more modern metaphor. I am not clear what you are driving at. So, please explain. Thanks.

RICHARD: As a generalisation the capitalised word ‘Being’ can refer to any non-becoming metaphysical entity (such as God, Truth, Self, Brahman and so on). In western literature the use of the term ‘Being’ may have its beginnings per favour of Mr. Parmenides of the Eleatic School in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy in the fifth century BCE (I say may because I have not studied the subject at all) and is popularly used to indicate any Supreme Being that is held to be the source of everything. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say:

• ‘Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (‘Being’), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that ‘all is one’. (...) The only true reality is Eon – pure, eternal, immutable, and indestructible Being, without any other qualification. (...) In Fragment 8, verse 5, Parmenides said that the absolute Being ‘neither was nor will be, because it is in its wholeness now, and only now’. Thus, its presence lasts untouched by any variation in time; for no one can find a genesis for it, either from another being (for it is itself already the totality of Being) or from a Not-Being (for this does not exist at all)’. (© 1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.).

Basically what I am reporting is that ‘Being’ has its genesis in ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) and, as ‘me’ as ‘being’ can be extirpated as well as ‘me’ as ‘ego’, so too does ‘Being’ become extinct ... then, and only then, does sorrow (and malice) come to an end. No sorrow means no compassion (and no malice means no love) ... one can be actually caring, instead of emotionally or passionately caring, for the very first time.

Put simply: there is an actual intimacy rather than a feeling intimacy.

September 10 2002:

RESPONDENT: Richard once mentioned that less than 2% smokers die of smoking related ailments. Let’s seek his input also in this matter.

RICHARD: The latest figures I have are for Australia: the percentage of tobacco users alleged to die, per annum, from smoking-related diseases is 0.47% ... or, to put that another way, 99.53% of the tobacco users do not die (of smoking-related diseases).

I say ‘alleged’ because, as far as I have been able to ascertain, figures such as these are derived from death certificates wherein the cause of death has been written in by the attending physician which, to say the least, is a questionable method of accurately determining causes. For example:

• ‘... a recent (04/19/95) letter to the editor of the San Jose, Ca., ‘Mercury News’ sheds some light on the methods used by the anti-smoking lobby to generate false reports of ‘smoking related’ deaths. The author of the letter, Mary Ellen Haley, reported that a loved one died of adenocarcinoma. Only 17 days elapsed from the deceased’s first visit to the doctor to the day of his death. (...) On the death certificate there was a line for the doctor to insert the immediate cause of death [adenocarcinoma], and then three lines for ‘due to’. The doctor inserted ‘cigarette smoking’ under ‘due to’. [Ms. Haley] questioned the doctor: was he sure the tumour was caused by cigarette smoking? The doctor said he wasn’t sure about that, but there were guidelines issued by the American Cancer Society, and that when a person dies of certain conditions and has smoked, the doctor is instructed to list the ‘due to’ as ‘smoking’. (...) The willingness of the medical profession to blindly observe ‘guidelines’, issued by the Cancer Society generates a continuous stream of death certificates, validating the official line that cigarette smoking causes everything from heart disease to uterine cancer; yet, there is no shred of scientific evidence to validate any of the certificates; they are based on nothing more than official instructions to put down smoking as the cause of death!’ (Chapter 2, ‘In Defence of Smokers’ by Lauren A. Colby; www.lcolby.com/).

Just to stir the possum a little more: in mid-2001 the ‘New Scientist’ magazine reported that the burning of incense ‘exposed people to dangerous levels of smoke laden with cancer-causing chemicals’. The article says that a team of investigators, led by Ta Chang Lin of the National Cheng Kung University in Tainan, Taiwan, collected air samples from the inside and the outside of a temple in Tainan City and compared them to samples at a traffic intersection. The article goes on to say that ‘the total levels of PAH’s (polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons) inside the temple were 19 times higher than outside and slightly higher than at the intersection’. The article also says that ‘benzopyrene, which is thought to cause lung cancer in smokers’, was monitored in the temple at levels which were ‘up to 45 times higher than in homes where residents smoked tobacco’.

Thus it would appear that the burning of incense and the burning of petroleum are potentially much more dangerous activities than the burning of tobacco – if it were ever conclusively evidenced that polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (such as benzopyrene) do cause lung cancer – especially for people who are genetically pre-disposed to developing lung cancer.

Interestingly enough, while tobacco use is on the decrease (in Australia down from 37% of adults twenty years ago to 25% today), motor vehicle use is on the increase (there are twice as many registered motor vehicles in Australia today than twenty years ago). To put that information in some form of perspective the raw data shows that there are currently 12,500,000 registered motor vehicles, as contrasted to 4,000,000 estimated tobacco users, in a total population of 19,500,000. Furthermore, the latest government census shows that 400,000 workers went to work by bicycle or walking, 260,000 workers went to work by train, 200,000 workers went to work by bus ... and 5,500,000 workers went to work by car (these figures are rounded figures).

I would hazard a guess that weaning people off the habit of burning petroleum will be far more difficult than weaning people off the habit of burning tobacco.

Yet it may all turn out to be a storm in a tea-cup: if burning tobacco did cause lung cancer some demonstration of that would show up in a decline in lung cancer deaths corresponding to a decline in tobacco use – whether through quitting or by not starting in the first place – whereas in the USA, for example, whilst tobacco use has drastically decreased over the last 40 years (down by nearly 50% between 1961 and 1986-88) there has not been a comparable decrease in lung cancer deaths ... if anything lung cancer deaths have increased (possibly due to the population aging).

But, then again, the lack of decrease in lung cancer deaths might be due to the increase in motor vehicle ownership.

(for more on this subject click this link)

October 15 2002:

RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated.

RESPONDENT: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion.

RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’).

RESPONDENT: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core.

RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects.

RESPONDENT: There is no core even.

RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche.

October 17 2002:

RESPONDENT: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion.

RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’).

RESPONDENT: ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ is a simple observable fact – observer is the observed!

RICHARD: As the ‘observer’ you refer to is an illusion how on earth can such an identification be observable as a fact? Only further illusions – or delusions such as ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ – can be observable by an illusion.

Maybe you were meaning ‘truth’ and inadvertently wrote ‘fact’ instead?

*

RESPONDENT: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core.

RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects.

RESPONDENT: Within the realms of causality and temporality things are rotten and non-rotten. For example, dependence on chemicals, anger, violence, etc. are rotten while a wholesome, serene and a healthy life are not-rotten.

RICHARD: I am using the word ‘rotten’ in the sense of ‘corrupt’ and/or ‘tainted’, of course, and there is nothing of that description here in this actual world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – as nothing illusional or delusional can get in.

The realms you describe sound like the pits.

RESPONDENT: I am referring to a realm that is beyond causality and temporality – in that realm, there is nothing that is rotten or non-rotten.

RICHARD: As that realm is the projection of a rotten illusion it is a rotten realm ... so rotten, in fact, that it has deluded you into viewing all the wars and deaths and so on as an illusion. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘A true Yogi, in my opinion, will not be bothered by anything – wars, environment, etc. Because all this is but illusion. This message comes out loud in clear in the Bhagavad Gita wherein Lord Krishna advises Arjuna to pick up his arms and destroy the enemy. When Arjuna vacillates, Lord Krishna tells him: ‘you grieve for those who can not be grieved’ (meaning the body is mortal). He urges Arjuna to focus on truth and not be swayed by illusions (birth and death, relatives, loved ones, etc.). Krishna tells Arjuna: ‘Timeless, deathless, I alone am the eternal truth’. That is non-dualism. (www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m32400.html).

To say that ‘all this is but illusion’ demonstrates a blatant lack of engagement in being here on this verdant and azure planet now ... and maybe the best way to show that such estrangement is a sickness would be to suggest that you try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone whose fellow human has just been murdered; try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who has just been tortured; try telling that to someone on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to someone who is the victim of child abuse; try telling that to someone who is sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide.

More specifically: if your daughter or mother or grandmother or sister was being raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘all this is but illusion’?

*

RESPONDENT: There is no core even.

RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: Brahma has no existence outside or inside of the human psyche.

RICHARD: As what the word ‘existence’ can mean is easily equated with what the word ‘ubiety’ means it would be more useful for the purposes of communication to rephrase what I wrote above. Vis.:

No core means that Brahma has no presence outside of the human psyche.

RESPONDENT: That which is beyond existence is Brahma.

RICHARD: As the illusory core is an illusory presence your connotative point is a moot point ... and going beyond an illusory presence and being a delusory presence instead only magnifies its rottenness (as is evidenced by your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on).

A dissociated presence can only deal with abstractions.

RESPONDENT: The core isn’t this infinitude either ...

RICHARD: Oh? What does ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ mean to you, then?

RESPONDENT: ... nor the universe.

RICHARD: As the ‘infinitude’ you speak of is a delusory infinitude this physical universe is certainly not that ... this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is an actual infinitude.

RESPONDENT: The core, like Brahma, doesn’t exist. Try peeling an orange to get to the core. It doesn’t exist! Same with the human beings – there is no ‘core’: just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’.

RICHARD: I am adaptable enough in this instance to use your terminology if doing so will assist communication: in the same way that there is no core – just a bunch of illusions that masquerade as the ‘core’ – there is no Brahma: just a bunch of delusions that masquerade as ‘Brahma’.

And a rotten bunch of delusions they are, too.

RESPONDENT: In summary: the core – like Brahma – is neither rotten nor non-rotten and it doesn’t exist.

RICHARD: Despite your ‘neither-nor’ avowal the evidence of the rottenness of Brahma’s presence is plain to see in its rotten effects ... I am, of course, referring once again to your dissociated ‘all this is but illusion’ way of dealing with all the wars and deaths and so on.

Methinks you might find that facts have a remarkable way of exposing ‘the truth’ for what it is.

October 19 2002:

RICHARD: To say that ‘all this is but illusion’ demonstrates a blatant lack of engagement in being here on this verdant and azure planet now ...

RESPONDENT: Most humbly, the ‘azure’ of the planet itself is an illusion. :-)

RICHARD: Have the photographs of planet earth taken from satellites been colourised then? Vis.: http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/

I only ask because the sub-heading on that web page reads ‘true-colour global imagery’.

*

RICHARD: ... if your daughter or mother or grandmother or sister was being raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘all this is but illusion’?

RESPONDENT: Wars, rapes, etc. happen. Life goes on. The planet remains verdant and azure despite all the commotion. It is all a shadow play. A couple of years back they showed a person who lost his entire family to Pol Pot. The man, after 20+ years, was still in tears when he talked about how his children were murdered. [Respondent] loved his daughter dearly. Many years ago she was snatched away from him by a deranged woman. There are pathos galore in this house of mirrors. Still, the sun rises on a verdant and azure planet and stars wink at it at night. The show goes on. Therefore, O’ Australian Arjuna, do not get perturbed by what your senses tell you. Nor get elated by what your senses tell you at another time. Instead, focus your attention on that which is beyond the senses, beyond time, beyond space.

RICHARD: This is how this thread started:

• [Respondent]: ‘... identity itself is an illusion.

From that simple starting point you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question:

Why do you write e-mails to your illusions?

October 22 2002:

RICHARD: To say that ‘all this is but illusion’ demonstrates a blatant lack of engagement in being here on this verdant and azure planet now ...

RESPONDENT: Most humbly, the ‘azure’ of the planet itself is an illusion.

RICHARD: Have the photographs of planet earth taken from satellites been colourised then? Vis.: (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/BlueMarble/). I only ask because the sub-heading on that web page reads ‘true-colour global imagery’.

RESPONDENT: Dr. C. V. Raman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explained the azure of planet earth as being due to scattering of light by particles in earth’s atmosphere. When light is scattered by particles suspended in earth’s atmosphere, the blue, being at the extreme of the spectrum gets scattered more than red. Hence, the sky – and for similar reason – oceans, appear blue. Check out any reference for the famous ‘Raman Effect’. ‘True-colour’ in the above picture refers to trueness of colour captured by the camera not to an inherent true colour of planet earth. Ref: www.uky.edu/~holler/raman.html (Many more are available on the Web – search for The Raman Effect).

RICHARD: But what is illusory about the blue light radiated back into space by the oceans? If you are going to base your claim, that the azure of the oceans is an illusion, upon the fact that blue is not an ‘inherent’ colour of the oceans then you will also have to claim that the verdancy of the vegetation is an illusion as well ... because green is not an ‘inherent’ colour of vegetation (vegetation deflects green light and absorbs the rest of the spectrum). Furthermore, no object has an ‘inherent’ colour because colour is a property of light ... or, more properly, colour is the sensation caused by wavelength as it interacts with the eye (because it is actually wavelength which is a property of light).

Incidentally the scattering of light by the gases of the earth’s atmosphere which you refer to, resulting in the blueness of the sky, is due to an effect called ‘Rayleigh Scattering’ (named after Mr. John Rayleigh who published a paper describing this phenomenon in 1871) which is a different process to the ‘Raman Effect’ (named after Mr. Venkata Raman who announced his discovery of this phenomenon in 1928). Although I had long known of Rayleigh Scattering I had never heard of the Raman Effect until you brought it to my attention ... consequently I have had a browse around as you advised and one web page, entitled ‘Raman Spectroscopy’, describes Rayleigh Scattering as being [quote] ‘responsible for blue sky and red sunsets as well as blue colour of the sea’ [endquote]. (www.cofc.edu/~deavorj/521/raman.html) .

Be that as it may: being a lay-person in these matters I cannot comprehend how the blue light radiated back into space by the oceans could be called an illusion just because its radiation is the result of scattering (whereas presumably the green light radiated back into space by the vegetation is not an illusion because its radiation is the result of deflection). And, last but not least, is the white light radiated back into space by the clouds, as seen in that NASA photograph, also an illusion because its radiation is the result of scattering (in this case a complex scattering called ‘Mie Scattering’ named after Mr. Gustav Mie who discovered this phenomenon in 1906)?

Maybe you could throw some light upon this matter (no pun intended).

*

RICHARD: This is how this thread started: [Respondent]: ‘... identity itself is an illusion’. [endquote]. From that simple starting point you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question: Why do you write e-mails to your illusions?

RESPONDENT: Oh, that is simple: it is all His Leela! I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my question: why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions?

October 24 2002:

RICHARD: ... if you are going to base your claim, that the azure of the oceans is an illusion, upon the fact that blue is not an ‘inherent’ colour of the oceans then you will also have to claim that the verdancy of the vegetation is an illusion as well ... because green is not an ‘inherent’ colour of vegetation (vegetation deflects green light and absorbs the rest of the spectrum). Furthermore, no object has an ‘inherent’ colour because colour is a property of light ... or, more properly, colour is the sensation caused by wavelength as it interacts with the eye (because it is actually wavelength which is a property of light).

RESPONDENT: Well, the subtle difference here is the presence of light absorbing chemicals in vegetation (and other ‘inherently colourful’ objects).

RICHARD: Yet the oceans absorb light too ... vis.:

• ‘This is why the oceans are blue; *they absorb red light* so that only the blue part gets out. [emphasis added]. (www.badastronomy.com/mad/1996/traffic.html).
• ‘Why is the ocean blue? (...) The shorter blue wavelengths scatter more effectively and are *absorbed less quickly than the longer red and orange wavelengths*. [emphasis added]. (http://pao.cnmoc.navy.mil/educate/neptune/quest/seawater/blue.htm).
• ‘As sunlight enters the ocean, it starts to *be absorbed*. [emphasis added]. (www.onr.navy.mil/focus/ocean/water/optics1.htm).
• ‘When sunlight hits seawater, *part of the white light is absorbed* and part is reflected. White light is composed of various shades (all the colours in the rainbow). Seawater does not absorb blue light, so the blue light is reflected outwards. [emphasis added]. (http://mbgnet.mobot.org/salt/oceans/faq.htm).

RESPONDENT: The sky, on the other hand, has nothing ‘inherently colourful’, it merely ‘appears’ blue.

RICHARD: As the subject under discussion is the azure of the oceans – the blue light radiated back into space by the oceans and captured as true-colour imagery by the NASA photograph – the blue of the sky is actually an irrelevancy ... so suffice is it to say for now that the gases, which are the atmosphere (commonly called the sky), do absorb light. The blue frequencies are absorbed more often than the red, orange and yellow frequencies – most of which pass straight through – and the absorbed blue light gets radiated in all directions ... it gets scattered all around the sky.

*

RESPONDENT: There has always been a bias in the West against non-West science and scientists. That’s why, probably, Rayleigh is better known that Raman.

RICHARD: Ahh ... is that why you attributed the scattering of light by the earth’s atmosphere to the Raman Effect then? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Dr. C. V. Raman, Nobel Laureate in Physics, explained the azure of planet earth as being due to scattering of light by particles in earth’s atmosphere. (...) Check out any reference for the famous ‘Raman Effect’.

Whereas, of course, it was Mr. John Rayleigh who explained the scattering of light by the earth’s atmosphere – and 17 years before Mr. Venkata Raman was born even – and this effect became known as Rayleigh Scattering. You may recall that I provided a quote from a Raman Spectroscopy web page in the previous e-mail which states this unambiguously:

• [Richard]: ‘... one web page, entitled ‘Raman Spectroscopy’, describes Rayleigh Scattering as being [quote] ‘responsible for blue sky and red sunsets as well as blue colour of the sea’ [endquote]. (www.cofc.edu/~deavorj/521/raman.html).

As far as I have been able to ascertain the Raman Effect would fall under the category of quantum mechanics – whereas Rayleigh Scattering is clearly classical mechanics – and as I understand it the Raman Effect, being a feeble effect, has little, if any, noticeable effect in the world at large. This is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say in part:

• ‘Raman Effect: change in the wavelength of light that occurs when a light beam is deflected by molecules. (...) When a beam of light traverses a dust-free, transparent sample of a chemical compound, a small fraction of the light emerges in directions other than that of the incident (incoming) beam. Most of this scattered light is of unchanged wavelength. *A small part*, however, has wavelengths different from that of the incident light; its presence is a result of the Raman effect. (...) *The Raman effect is feeble*; for a liquid compound the intensity of the affected light may be only 1/100,000 of that incident beam. (...) Thus, Raman spectra are used in qualitative and quantitative analysis.(...) Gases have low molecular concentration at ordinary pressures and therefore produce *very faint Raman effects*. [emphasis added]. (Copyright © 1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc.).

Thus, at a guess, I would say that the reason why ‘Rayleigh is better known that Raman’ is because the Raman Effect has most, if not all, of its relevance in the world of laboratories.

*

RESPONDENT: Other examples abound: not many know about the mathematical genius Ramanujam but Hardy is well known. It is also alleged that the latter even published some of the former’s work under his own name. Like wise, the West is credited to have invented printing although printing existed in China long before the invention of Guttenberg. There was a lot of science and scientific discoveries in ancient India. For example, Indian scientists reportedly calculated the velocity of light a few hundred years ahead of the West. ‘In particular, I am amazed, as a layman, by the evidence that Sayana, circa 1300 CE, who was prime minister at the court of the Vijayanagar Emperor Bukka I, calculated the speed of light to be 2,202 yojanas in half a nimesha, which does come to 186,536 miles per second. Truly mind-boggling! The speed of light was first measured in the West only in the late 17th century’. For a fascinating account of the scientific achievements of ancient India read: www.rediff.com/news/1999/nov/18inter.htm.

RICHARD: Your biased concern about western scientific bias may very well be worth discussing – in another thread – but it would be more useful if you could stay with the topic at hand for now.

There is a distinction between optical phenomena and optical illusions – a mirage in a desert or on hot tarmac is an optical illusion whereas a rainbow, for an example, is an optical phenomenon (just as the aurora polaris are for another example) – and the blue of the oceans falls under the category of optical phenomena. Vis.:

www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_phenomenon
www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Optical_illusion

Some examples of optical phenomena due to scattering, other than the blue of the sky and the blue of the oceans, are the yellow of the sun, the white of the clouds, the white of mist, the white of fog, the white of salt, the white of sugar, the blue of blue eyes, most of the blue and green of bird feathers and many animal and some vegetable blues. Scattering also causes the blue moon (of the ‘once in a blue moon’ phrase) which is seen when forest fires produce clouds composed of small droplets of organic compounds.

I became particularly interested in the subject of optical phenomena/optical illusions in my youth when, as a sailor on watch on a cargo ship out at sea late one night, I first saw what is known as St. Elmo’s Fire dancing along the rigging.

‘Tis an amazing world we live in!

*

RICHARD: This is how this thread started: [Respondent]: ‘... identity itself is an illusion’. [endquote]. From that simple starting point you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question: Why do you write e-mails to your illusions?

RESPONDENT: Oh, that is simple: it is all His Leela! I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my question: why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions?

RESPONDENT: Brahma doesn’t make anything happen. It is neither caused nor causes anything. That which is beyond cause is Brahma. Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘e-mails happen’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not asking how the e-mails happen but why they happen ... why as in what purpose does it serve to communicate with your illusions when you already know they are your illusions? Or, to put that another way, is it because your illusions do not realise they are your illusions that you write to them to tell them that they are your illusions?

In other words: have your illusions taken on a life of their own, as it were, and are denying that you are their creator?

October 25 2002:

RICHARD: ... if you are going to base your claim, that the azure of the oceans is an illusion, upon the fact that blue is not an ‘inherent’ colour of the oceans then you will also have to claim that the verdancy of the vegetation is an illusion as well ... because green is not an ‘inherent’ colour of vegetation (vegetation deflects green light and absorbs the rest of the spectrum). Furthermore, no object has an ‘inherent’ colour because colour is a property of light ... or, more properly, colour is the sensation caused by wavelength as it interacts with the eye (because it is actually wavelength which is a property of light).

RESPONDENT: Well, the subtle difference here is the presence of light absorbing chemicals in vegetation (and other ‘inherently colourful’ objects).

RICHARD: Yet the oceans absorb light too ... (snip references).

RESPONDENT: My dear friend, do this little experiment (as you are fond of experimenting – polythene bags and all that!): a. take out ocean water in a clear bottle and examine its colour. b. pluck a green leaf from a tree and examine its colour. Let me know what you find.

RICHARD: As the subject under discussion is the azure of the oceans – the blue light radiated back into space by the oceans and captured as true-colour imagery by the NASA photograph – what a bottle of water looks like is actually an irrelevancy ... suffice is it to say for now that it is a faint, virtually imperceptible, pale blue.

This is because a compound of H2O has a vibration frequency as a result of chemical bonding (the bonding is stronger in liquid water than in an isolated compound resulting in a corresponding increase in vibration frequencies) which allows some absorption at the red end of the spectrum and produces the pale blue colour characteristic of water and ice ... more readily seen when in bulk.

Not that this blue is the blue of the Rayleigh Effect, of course, but as you wanted to discuss yet another irrelevancy I have responded in kind once again.

*

RICHARD: ... you have expanded this illusion theme into including everything as being an illusion – other than Brahma – which leaves me with but one question: Why do you write e-mails to your illusions?

RESPONDENT: Oh, that is simple: it is all His Leela! I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them.

RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my question: why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions?

RESPONDENT: Brahma doesn’t make anything happen. It is neither caused nor causes anything. That which is beyond cause is Brahma. Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘e-mails happen’.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I am not asking how the e-mails happen but why they happen ... why as in what purpose does it serve to communicate with your illusions when you already know they are your illusions?

RESPONDENT: I can understand your failure to understand what I wrote because of the ‘strong effect’ of causal thinking of the Western tradition on you.

RICHARD: Hmm ... is this not a case of the pot calling the kettle black in a vain attempt to gain some delusory high moral ground? I asked why, as in what purpose does it serve, you write e-mails to your illusions when you already know they are your illusions (which is somewhat akin to a child conversing with imaginary friends) and you replied that you do not write the e-mails because Brahma makes you write them; that you later changed your mind and said that Brahma does not make anything happen – and that the correct statement ought to be ‘e-mails happen’ – only goes to show how your first thoughts operate quite differently to how your second thoughts operate.

For another example: you have recently told me that you do not write these e-mails ... yet just look at this sentence I am responding to:

• [Respondent]: ‘I can understand your failure to understand *what I wrote* because of the ‘strong effect’ of causal thinking of the Western tradition on you. [emphasis added].

Now contrast that to this response when it was me that said you were writing the e-mails:

• [Respondent]: ‘*I do not write* these e-mails – He makes me write them. [emphasis added].

Which then became, on second thoughts, this in the next e-mail:

• [Respondent]: ‘Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘*e-mails happen*’. [emphasis added].

But !Lo! and !Behold! you were writing the e-mails all along:

• [Respondent]: ‘I can understand your failure to understand *what I wrote* because of the ‘strong effect’ of causal thinking of the Western tradition on you. [emphasis added].

Last, but not least, I know from first-hand experience of the east that ‘causal thinking’ is not peculiar to the west ... as you have just so ably demonstrated.

RESPONDENT: Whenever you ask a ‘why’ question, you are trying to establish causality.

RICHARD: Okay ... but just to make sure I have not again failed to understand what you write, particularly the all-inclusive ‘whenever’ part of your advice, maybe you could run your acausal eye over the following and let me know whether I have misunderstood something after all? Vis.:

• [Respondent]: *Why* do you do that? (Mon 7/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* can’t Hanuman be as popular as Mickey Mouse? (Mon 7/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* on earth are you writing to me? (Mon 7/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* on earth are you responding to my posts? (Mon 7/10/02).
• [Respondent]: I can understand *why*. (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: I can understand *why*. (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* would you do that? (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: Is that *why* No. 23 called you a low life form at one time? (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* confine yourself to savouring a menu? (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* not have the courage to taste the real thing ...? (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* not listen to him and learn from him instead of reacting to what he says? (Tue 8/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That is *why* people like Socrates and Krishnamurti attracted attention. (Wed 9/10/02).
• [Respondent]: I explained in another post *why* people react to truth with vulgarity. (Wed 9/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* pressure him in to responding? (Thu 10/10/02).
• [Respondent]: If yes, *why*? If no, *why* not? (Thu 10/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That is *why* I said that K’s choice of words was not very good. (Fri 11/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That is *why* the original Krishna (Lord Krishna) walks one step ahead of Krishnaji. (Sat 12/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That K and B indulged in narcissistic nonsense is no reason *why* you should do that. (Sat 12/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* did Krishnamurti urge his readers to think? (Sat 12/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That’s *why* people more astute than your hero Krishnaji never said anything definitive about truth. (Sat 12/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* not accept that you are angry, instead of trying to repress it? (Wed 16/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* on earth are you knocking on it so desperately? (Sat 19/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That is *why* I said that you have to believe in reason. (Sat 19/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* can’t you write correctly and creatively? (Sat 19/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* did he end up a ‘rather sad, pathetic figure, as dependent on his followers’? (Mon 21/10/02).
• [Respondent]: *Why* bother to spend any time in following one who eventually deteriorated massively? (Tue 22/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That’s *why*, probably, Rayleigh is better known that Raman. (Tue 22/10/02).
• [Respondent]: That’s *why* K talked about a stream of sorrow that manifests itself in human beings. (Tue 22/10/02). [all 28 instances with emphasis added].

This is my query: what is the difference between a causal use of the word ‘why’ (aka when I use it) and an acausal use of the word ‘why’ (aka when you use it)?

RESPONDENT: Brahma, on the other hand, is uncaused. As I clearly stated a few times now: ‘that which is beyond cause is Brahma’.

RICHARD: Aye, I got that the first time around ... in fact I got it years ago when I first came across that institutionalised insanity which passes for wisdom (which is not to imply that other cultures do not exonerate their god too).

RESPONDENT: So, ‘why do e-mails happen?’ is an irrelevant question – they just happen! Elementary, isn’t it?

RICHARD: It is indeed ... and as all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on ‘just happen’ too – according to acausal thinking – it is also elementary that the only way to deal with it all is to do a pusillanimous volte-face whereupon the unreal identity becomes real and the real world becomes unreal.

Which brings this discussion back to where it started: the illusory identity.

As the identity is an illusion it involuntarily creates an illusory ‘inner-world’ reality by its sheer presence, and thus an illusory ‘outer-world’ reality, which is so narcissistically all-pervasive that this paradisaical actual world is nowhere to be found. The solution is so simple that it has been overlooked for thousands of years: altruistic ‘self’-immolation, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... or to put that in the form of a trope:

Step out of the real world into this actual world and leave yourself behind in the Land of Lament where you belong.

October 30 2002:

RICHARD: As the subject under discussion is the azure of the oceans – the blue light radiated back into space by the oceans and captured as true-colour imagery by the NASA photograph – what a bottle of water looks like is actually an irrelevancy ... suffice is it to say for now that it is a faint, virtually imperceptible, pale blue ... (snip details).

RESPONDENT: Swami Richard, it is very simple – it is all His Leela. He wishes the planet earth to appear blue and it appears blue.

RICHARD: Ahh ... this cause-effect revelation of yours throws considerable light on an earlier issue. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: I do not write these e-mails – He makes me write them.
• [Richard]: Why does Brahma make you write e-mails to your illusions?
• [Respondent]: Brahma doesn’t make anything happen. (...) That which is beyond cause is Brahma. Hence a correct statement ought to be: ‘e-mails happen’.

As Brahma does not make anything happen, but wishes things to happen instead, another correct statement might look something like this:

• [example]: I do not write these e-mails – He wishes me to write them.

Anyway, so much for Brahma being beyond cause ... ‘twas just a different way of causing things to happen that confused the issue for a while. Therefore this is as good an opportunity as any to enquire why Brahma wishes you to write to your illusions and tell them that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are ‘all His Leela’ (aka dance, play, sport, diversion)?

Or, just in case that ‘why’ word gives you yet another opportunity to avoid addressing the query itself, I can put it this way: what will be achieved by telling your illusions that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are happening because Brahma wishes them to happen?

*

RESPONDENT: Regarding the rest of your post, a few days back I got this realization that everything is His Leela. He makes things happen and man is utterly helpless.

RICHARD: But I understood you as being quite particular that Brahma does not ‘make things happen’ – you even told me that my failure to understand what you wrote was because of the strong effect the causal thinking of the western tradition had on me in order to drive that point home – and you emphasised that very point when Brahma wished you to write the following only three sentences later:

• [Respondent]: ‘As I clearly stated a few times now: ‘that which is beyond cause is Brahma’.

Yet here you have Brahma, not only wishing things to happen, but making things happen as well.

RESPONDENT: In Bhagwad Gita Krishna tells Arjun to wipe away his illusions and see reality for what it is. A very powerful message indeed.

RICHARD: Has it never occurred to you that, as everything is an illusion except Brahma, the entire contents of the Bhagavad Gita are an illusion as well? If not, does it also not occur to you that you are relying upon illusory words, in an illusory book written by illusory people, to substantiate ‘the very powerful message’ that everything is an illusion?

Furthermore, it is that illusory book which is telling you that Brahma alone is real.

RESPONDENT: The West scoffs at Indian fatalism. They think that India fatalism has landed them in the pot-hole of lethargy and chaos. But, deep down, this fatalism serves a very powerful psychological/ spiritual need. Sure their roads are terrible, corruption is rampant, and there is a state of disorder almost everywhere you turn in Prabhu’s India. Still, in my opinion, people there have connected with God in a unique way.

RICHARD: You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there ... what is weird though is that there be so many otherwise intelligent westerners who want to connect with the same god and thus have the west turned into a pothole of lethargy, chaos, corruption and state of disorder as well.

After all ... it is Brahma that ‘makes things happen and man is utterly helpless’ is it not?

RESPONDENT: Buddhists borrowed this idea of ‘Prabhu Ki Leela’, got rid of ‘Prabhu’, and talked about ‘whatever is – is, i.e., ‘suchness’’. If you pay attention to Zen and Taoists philosophies, they are basically reiterating ‘Prabhu Ki Leela’ minus a formal God.

RICHARD: Aye, I have often made the observation that the ancient wisdom is well on its way towards taking over the human world ... and this creeping takeover is one of the main reasons that I discuss these matters on mailing lists such as this.

When the otherwise intelligent peoples cease greasing its wheels the juggernaut will creak to a halt.

*

RESPONDENT: So, ‘why do e-mails happen?’ is an irrelevant question – they just happen! Elementary, isn’t it?

RICHARD: It is indeed ... and as all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on ‘just happen’ too – according to acausal thinking – it is also elementary that the only way to deal with it all is to do a pusillanimous volte-face whereupon the unreal identity becomes real and the real world becomes unreal. Which brings this discussion back to where it started: the illusory identity. As the identity is an illusion it involuntarily creates an illusory ‘inner-world’ reality by its sheer presence, and thus an illusory ‘outer-world’ reality, which is so narcissistically all-pervasive that this paradisaical actual world is nowhere to be found. The solution is so simple that it has been overlooked for thousands of years: altruistic ‘self’-immolation, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body ... or to put that in the form of a trope: step out of the real world into this actual world and leave yourself behind in the Land of Lament where you belong.

RESPONDENT: All that you say can be summed up in three words: ‘Prabhu Ki Leela’ – His Play.

RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes ... the ancient wisdom’s previous practice of subsuming everything under its all-embracing umbrella can in no way transpose all that I say here into meaning what its institutionalised insanity means.

Nor all that I say elsewhere either ... the ancient wisdom has finally met its match.

RESPONDENT: Man will never fathom it out.

RICHARD: As I fathomed it almost a decade ago now you are way behind the times with this choice bit of the ancient wisdom ... try re-reading what I write with both eyes open.

RESPONDENT: Surrendering unto Him and His wishes is the only option.

RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is now a third alternative.

November 02 2002:

RESPONDENT: The West scoffs at Indian fatalism. They think that India fatalism has landed them in the pot-hole of lethargy and chaos. But, deep down, this fatalism serves a very powerful psychological/ spiritual need. Sure their roads are terrible, corruption is rampant, and there is a state of disorder almost everywhere you turn in Prabhu’s India. Still, in my opinion, people there have connected with God in a unique way.

RICHARD: You ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there ... what is weird though is that there be so many otherwise intelligent westerners who want to connect with the same god and thus have the west turned into a pothole of lethargy, chaos, corruption and state of disorder as well.

RESPONDENT: My dear friend, the West has its own potholes that you so eloquently talked about for many years now. For example: [Richard]: ‘It is indeed ... and as all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on’. [endquote].

RICHARD: As wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are global in their spread they are not the west’s ‘own potholes’ at all and, as I have never said they were either, this is a total waste of a paragraph.

RESPONDENT: Anyway, since you and I have been down this rose garden a few times now, I will be brief. Sure, there is an illusion of disorder and chaos in the world.

RICHARD: No, there is not ‘an illusion’ of disorder and chaos ... all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are actually happening (and this means even as you read these words).

RESPONDENT: Social reformers like Buddha, K, and yourself focus attention on that disorder as do many others. I have no problem with it.

RICHARD: Please include me out of your list of sages and seers because, unlike them, I know what the corporeal solution to all the ‘disorder’ is.

RESPONDENT: However, to think of the world as real is to commit a grave logical error.

RICHARD: Humph ... to think of the world as an illusion is a grave abstractional error (resulting not only in an active indifference to all the misery and mayhem but a passive condonation of its continuance as well).

RESPONDENT: As you and Respondent discussed under these cyber trees, like two friends, that which changes invariably pre-supposes that which is beyond change, i.e., Brahma, aka Foo. Take care and be well.

RICHARD: Okay, if you want logic I will try my hand at it (of course not being a logician I will have to be sensible instead): if ‘that which changes’ did not exist in the first place then ‘that which is beyond change’ could not be supposed (let alone presupposed). In other words, in order for it to be cogent, ratiocination insists that one must start reasoning from the known (the basic premise) which, you assert, is an illusory known. Therefore your basic premise, an illusory ‘that which changes’ known, can only yield an illusory ‘that which is beyond change’ unknown ... or, as I prefer to put it to emphasise its genesis, a delusory ‘that which is beyond change’ unknown.

To then claim that the delusory unknown is the only reality is in further defiance of all reason – it amounts to prestidigitation – or is it simply the case that, if one can mentalise an unknown into somehow negating the known that spawns it (perhaps with the logical copula breathlessly gripping the steering wheel) without blinking an eye then one is, de jure, a pundit?

Meanwhile, here on earth in this never-changing moment, this ever-changing materiality keeps right on keeping on – ever-dynamic/never static, ever-fresh/never-stale, ever-new/never-old, ever-novel/never-hackneyed – being the veritable perpetuus mobilis it is.

Have you really never noticed that this moment is eternal (aka beyond change)?

November 02 2002:

RESPONDENT No. 39: I do understand about minimising both the good and bad feelings as I have been down the road of trying to eliminate the bad while maximising the good. It is clear that I can’t have the good without the bad.

RICHARD: Exactly ... and thus the way is cleared to be launched upon the adventure of a lifetime.

RESPONDENT: ‘Good’ and ‘bad’ feelings happen.

RICHARD: They do not happen here in this actual world: they only happen in the human world and, to a certain extent, in the animal world.

RESPONDENT: Any attempt to eliminate, minimize or to do anything else to those feelings is an exercise in futility.

RICHARD: As it was not ‘an exercise in futility’ for the being inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago you are now mistaken twice over.

RESPONDENT: A wise person sits on the shore and watches the ebb and flow of these waves.

RICHARD: Yet, as ‘a wise person’ is a being residing inside the body, irregardless of whether the being persuades the body to physically act or not, the being involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ – these emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) – into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore the being is not harmless even when the being refrains from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.

There is nothing that can stop other beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional beings – all emotional and passional beings are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one being can either seek power over another being or seek communion with another being by affective and/or psychic influence.

For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that a charismatic leader rides to power on such ‘energies’.

A charismatic leader such as ‘a wise person’ usually is, for example.

November 06 2002:

RESPONDENT: A wise person sits on the shore and watches the ebb and flow of these waves [the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings].

RICHARD: Yet, as ‘a wise person’ is a being residing inside the body, irregardless of whether the being persuades the body to physically act or not, the being involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ – these emotional and passional vibes (to use a 60’s term) – into the human world in particular and the animal world in general: therefore the being is not harmless even when the being refrains from inducing the body into physical action ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution. There is nothing that can stop other beings picking up these vibes and/or picking up what are sometimes called psychic currents. This is because there is an interconnectedness between all the emotional and passional beings – all emotional and passional beings are connected via a psychic web – a network of invisible vibes and currents. This interconnectedness in action is a powerful force – colloquially called ‘energy’ or ‘energies’ – wherein one being can either seek power over another being or seek communion with another being by affective and/or psychic influence. For example, these interconnecting ‘energies’ can be experienced in a group high, a community spirit, a mass hysteria, a communion meeting, a mob riot, a political rally and so on ... it is well known that a charismatic leader rides to power on such ‘energies’. A charismatic leader such as ‘a wise person’ usually is, for example.

RESPONDENT: That’s why a true Yogi is beyond all disturbance – physical, psychic, or of any other flavour.

RICHARD: So what? Even if they were ‘beyond all disturbance’ (which they are not) what I am pointing out is the effect that ‘a true Yogi’ has on other beings by involuntarily transmitting ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’ ... and not the effect other beings’ ebbing and flowing waves have on them.

And, if I may further point out, that you heedlessly overlook this very relevant factor, with your fixation upon having your scripture-book heroes be beyond absolutely anything that might disrupt their practiced detachment, is a further demonstration of your disregard for your fellow human beings.

But, then again, as you see your fellow human beings as being your illusions, instead of being the living people they are, why would you have any regard.

RESPONDENT: Such a person is a true ‘Sthitapragya’ – one whose being has become still.

RICHARD: It matters not how still the ‘being’ feels it has become: until the ‘being’ ceases to exist (ceases being a presence) the ‘being’ involuntarily transmits ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’ ... which is why pacifism (non-violence) is not a viable solution.

And it is the ‘being’ itself I am referring to when I say that the identity is rotten to the core.

*

RESPONDENT: Great Hindi poet Jai Shankar Prasad in his timeless Kamayani wrote: ‘From the indomitable heights of the Great Himalayas, the Purusha watched the ebb and the flow of Prakriti at his feet’. [endquote]. Purusha is a roughly translated as The Essence; Prakriti is roughly translated as The Manifest (Nature). While Prakriti changes, evolves, transforms, transmutes, turns, twists, and warps ... the Purusha remains still.

RICHARD: As the epic poem ‘Kamayani’ is a fictional work about a mythical person called manu, or the first man, who finishes where he began – staring down at the world from a small mountaintop in the Himalayas – you are referencing a fantasy and not a living, breathing, flesh and blood human being. However, as Mr. Shankar Prasad himself insisted that the ‘Kamayani’ was based on various Sanskrit epics such as the Puranas, it may be worth pointing out that a sage or seer displaying anger and anguish – oft-times disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees and/or followers and/or readers – has long been a subject of interest in mystical circles as it is indicative of the fragile and elusive link between ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’ (known by some as ‘Sacred Schizophrenia’).

For example: ‘Two birds, inseparable companions, are perched on the same tree; one eats the sweet fruit and the other looks on without eating’. (Rig Veda I.164.20). This vision, deemed to be meaningful, is duplicated in Mundaka Upanishad (I.III.1) and in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (IV.6). In the same way as the two birds are inseparable, a human being is not thought complete and whole without both the aspect of ‘Prakriti’ (which experiences the domain of time and space and form) and the aspect of ‘Purusha’ (which is timeless and spaceless and formless). Mr. Ishvarakrishna (compiler of ‘Samkhyakarika) pointed out: ‘Purusha without Prakriti is lame and Prakriti without Purusha is blind’.

In other words: a sage’s or seer’s spiritual essence is counter-poised with their human nature. Those ancient scriptures (Rig Veda I.164.20; Mundaka Upanishad I.III.1; Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV.6) clearly show that the sages or seers some thousands of years ago were the same as the current sages or seers in that they exhibited the same dichotomous qualities in their ‘Divine Nature’ as the ‘human nature’ they have transcended (because transcended does not mean extinguished). Which shows that nothing has changed over those thousands of years ... yet they are either revered and venerated or otherwise looked up to as the font of wisdom.

A wisdom which, upon close inspection, is as rotten as the core it springs from.

RESPONDENT: Hence, O’ Australian Rishi, despite all the murders, tortures, rapes, child abuse, sadness et al, the Essence remains still.

RICHARD: Again, it matters not how still the ‘Essence’ (the core of ‘being’) likes to think it remains as the result is still the same ... the involuntary transmission of ‘these waves’ that ‘ebb and flow’.

RESPONDENT: Some view that Essence as an azure and verdant planet; others as a timeless now; still others say: ‘not this either’ and quietly fade into an inky darkness.

RICHARD: Just in case your allusion to ‘an azure and verdant planet’ is yet another impotent attempt to subsume my words under the ancient wisdom’s all-embracing umbrella I will take this opportunity to point out that I do nothing of the sort ... as I know perfectly well what that ‘Essence’ is I have no need to have a view about it.

It is nothing other than the rotten core writ large ... narcissism reigning supreme.

January 13 2003:

RICHARD: ... if the thinking self can get such rigorous scrutiny as the mailing list gives it why not the feeling self? Is the feeling self sacrosanct?

RESPONDENT: The answer depends upon the locus of feeling. If the feeling is re: one’s own self, then the answer is negative; if not, then the answer is in the affirmative. K, from whatever I have read of him, emphasized feelings that are sans the ego: he repeatedly talked about feeling for others, nature, etc. The flaw in your reasoning is that you are assuming all feelings to be rooted in the self while K talked about self-less feelings. Likewise, thinking can be personal (i.e., rooted in the self) or impersonal (self-less). K never discounted thinking that takes one away from the ego. His one statement sums it all: where the I is, the other is not (meaning there is no truth, sacredness, where the ego exists). Hope this helps.

RICHARD: It most certainly does ... you make it quite clear, not only that the ‘self-less feelings’ (feelings sans ego) are sacrosanct, but why they are.

As for the flaw in reasoning: I am not ‘assuming all feelings to be rooted in the self’ at all as I am saying quite the opposite ... that the ‘self’ is rooted in all feelings.

Assuming that the ego is all there is to the ‘self’ is where any flaw in reasoning originates.


RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity