|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 58
RESPONDENT No. 33: ... that which is omni- time, space, and form can not but be beyond time, space and form. RICHARD: If its name be Brahma, yes ... if its name be universe, no. RESPONDENT No. 33: I asked you to do this simple experiment: take all possible forms and put them in a container and see what form emerges. RICHARD: You must be referring to the following exchange: [No. 33:]: ‘Try putting all possible forms together in a container and see what form does the container take’. [Richard]: ‘Simple ... the human psyche’. RESPONDENT No. 33: Well, the human psyche, as far as I know, is without a form (form-less). RICHARD: Yes, so ‘form-less’, in fact, as to be amorphous. RESPONDENT No. 33: Good. One issue settled. RICHARD: How is one of the issues ‘settled’? Just because the human psyche is so ‘form-less’ as to be amorphous it does not make this universe formless ... it simply provides an explanation as to why some peoples take the universe to be so (through projection of self upon actuality). This physical universe is exemplified by perpetual form. * RESPONDENT No. 33: Similarly, put all space in a container and leave room for more and see what happens. RICHARD: Similarly, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all space ... this universe is all space (this universe is infinite space). RESPONDENT No. 33: Infinite space has to be beyond space. RICHARD: This does not make sense ... infinite space is simply space without a border. RESPONDENT No. 33: Since all space is space with border ... RICHARD: Oh? And just where is the border to this universe’s space located? RESPONDENT No. 33: ... that which is without a border is not space. Elementary, my friend. RICHARD: I take it that this is a logical conclusion? * RESPONDENT No. 33: Also, let you container have all the time, past, present and future and tell me what is the time of existence of your container. RICHARD: Also, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all time (be it past, present or future) ... this universe is all time (this universe is eternal time). RESPONDENT No. 33: Which makes it time-less, dear one. RICHARD: No ... it makes it everlasting, limitless. RESPONDENT No. 33: In eternity, time must cease. RICHARD: No ... in eternity time is beginningless and endless. RESPONDENT No. 33: That is the definition of eternity ... that which is beyond time. Again, from W-M on-line: eternal = valid or existing at all times: timeless. RICHARD: That is one of the meanings ascribed to the word, yes ... however, it is not the meaning I was conveying (as well you know). This is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had to say on the subject: (snip quotes). RESPONDENT No. 33: Is Jiddu Krishnamurti your authority by which you judge what timeless means? RICHARD: Of course not – I am my own authority – it is simply a case of responding to you previously stating that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr. Shankara, and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti all spoke from the same ‘state of mind’ by providing an example of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti meant by the word ‘timeless’ vis-à-vis ‘eternity’. Vis.: [No. 33:]: ‘B, S, and K, spoke from that state of mind’. [endquote]. All of the three peoples, whom you use as examples of other people having spoken in a similar fashion to what you do about your timeless ‘god as truth’, made it perfectly clear that the timeless they were referring to meant ‘without time’ ... that is, something metaphysical which is beyond this physical universe. * RESPONDENT No. 33: To me it is simple: that which has /all/ time, can not be confined to /a/ time. RICHARD: Yet I have never said that this physical universe is ‘confined to /a/ time’ ... I have repeatedly said ‘eternal time’ (beginningless and endless time). RESPONDENT No. 33: Hence, it is timeless. RICHARD: If its name be Brahma, yes ... if its name be universe, no. Vis.: [No. 33:]: ‘All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. (...) Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time ...’. * RESPONDENT No. 33: Universe, as defined by you, and whatever else may someone call his or her absolute, have to be the same. RICHARD: How? Look, several times recently you have posted the Hindu ‘Creation Hymn’ to this mailing list (Rig Veda 10, 129) which asks the question who or what was before the creation of this physical universe. Vis.: [No. 33:]: ‘The Creation Hymn: ... The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? (...) That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else’. [endquote]. Therefore, your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but is something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’) ... because ‘that’ alone is what is, prior to the universe. (...) Which all goes to indicate that you are a panentheist, non? RESPONDENT No. 33: You and I are staring at the same inky darkness betwixt stars my friend ... with one difference: occasionally you start comparing shades of your inkiness with mine. RICHARD: It is the other way around ... you have been doing nothing else but trying to make my original discovery into being the same as what the many and varied saints, sages and seers down through the centuries have been saying. Vis.: (snip examples). The only question which remains is how much longer are you going to keep this charade going? RESPONDENT No. 33: As long as you want to keep making things up. RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have been ‘making things up’ I will be only too happy to address each and every one of them ... until then this unsubstantiated comment amounts to being nothing but rhetoric. RESPONDENT No. 33: I have demonstrated beyond doubt that /all time/ = timeless, /all space/ = beyond space and /all form/ = formless. RICHARD: You have demonstrated no such thing ... let alone ‘beyond doubt’. RESPONDENT No. 33: Why do you keep insisting that it is otherwise, my friend? RICHARD: Mainly because it is otherwise: all time = eternal time; all space = infinite space; all form = perpetual form. RESPONDENT No. 33: Why not accept what is obvious? RICHARD: Because what you want me to accept ‘as obvious’ is that this physical universe is ‘timeless’ (without time) and ‘spaceless’ (without space) and ‘formless’ (without form) when it is patently obvious that these characteristics are applicable only to your ‘god as truth’. Vis.: [No. 33:]: ‘Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time, space, or form’. RESPONDENT No. 33: Why be a No. 28? RICHARD: As whatever issue it is that you have with another co-respondent has no correlation to what you and I are discussing (specifically the characteristics of this physical universe versus the characteristics of your ‘god as truth’) I fail to see the relevance of this question. ‘Twould be more productive to stay with the issue at hand would it not? RESPONDENT: This really is the most laughably anal conversation I've ever seen. RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to substantiate just where exactly you find it to be ‘anal’ (let alone ‘laughably’ so)? Vis.:
Otherwise your ... um ... your appraisal amounts to being nothing but debatable rhetoric. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it great that these characters are so concerned with the problems of daily living and an ending to all wars and misery? RICHARD: Yes ... I certainly appreciate that some concerned peoples have applied themselves to personally investigating the ins and outs of what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. May I ask? Just what is your contribution towards peace on earth (other than re-posting the hoary ‘Horrors Of Bread’ gag which has been doing the rounds of the internet for years and re-posting the lyrics to Mr. Leonard Cohen’s ‘God Is Alive, Magic Is Afoot’ poetry)? RESPONDENT: Mental masturbation, eh? RICHARD: Ha ... that is a rather cute comment considering it comes from a person writing under the nom de guerre of ‘Apollonius Tyana’ (whose entire life-story reads like being a wanker extraordinaire from beginning to end).
RESPONDENT: [quoting from a World Health Organisation article]: The truth is that one out of every two long-term smokers will ultimately be killed by tobacco. RICHARD: I too have read similar claims – a quit-smoking pamphlet I have to hand, printed by an official cancer fund, states that ‘one in two lifetime smokers will die from their habit’ – yet when I looked at the official statistics for Australia, so as to find out what is actually happening (aka the fact) as contrasted to what they say will happen (aka the truth), I see that not even one out of one hundred tobacco users are dying of [alleged] smoking-related diseases. The figure is 0.47 out of 100 ... and even that figure is questionable. (for more on this subject click this link)
RESPONDENT: The World Health Organization figures are based on ‘the largest study ever done on smoking deaths’. [quote]: ‘Researchers from China and the U.K., led by Professor Liu Boqi of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, investigated the smoking habits of one million Chinese people in 99 rural and urban areas who died between 1986 and 1988. Results from this and from studies led by Professor Niu Shiru and Dr Yang Gonghuan, both of the Chinese Academy of Preventive Medicine, show that there are already about three-quarters of a million deaths a year in China from smoking and most of these are men’. [endquote]. (www.who.int/archives/inf-pr-1997/en/pr97-61.html). Please read carefully without attempting to disfigure the facts. RICHARD: I appreciate your advice to read something carefully and without attempting to disfigure ‘the facts’ ... so much so that I must ask just what the facts are which you are referring me to in this instance? As far as I have been able to ascertain the (possibly SAMMEC-generated) figures relating to alleged smoking-related deaths contained in the article you posted – and the other article you posted less than an hour later – are based upon epidemiological correlations interpreted as being indicative of a causative association between tobacco use and various cancers and cardiovascular diseases ... yet any epidemiologist worthy of their salt knows that correlation does not equal causation. Which is why I remarked in my initial post that the method of determining smoking-related causes of death (physicians filling in death certificates) is a questionable practice. Furthermore the assumptions and speculations regarding the correlations are predicated upon the theory that there is a chemical cause – such as the human body being susceptible to certain carcinogenic substances – to the cancers and cardiovascular diseases in question and not a microbial cause ... and I say ‘theory’ because even after 50-odd years of multibillion-dollar research into locating the precise biological cause-effect evidence in regards tobacco smoke no conclusive evidence has been found to date. Meanwhile, under-funded research into a microbial cause has already produced some startling results, with promising avenues for similarly fruitful research in the pipeline, such as stomach cancer, for instance, no longer being regarded as a smoking-related (chemically-caused) disease but bacterially-caused ... specifically by a bacterium named Helicobacter Pylori. And instead of providing some other examples of a microbial cause, such as for liver cancer and cervical cancer, I would rather suggest that you first peruse the pages at the following URL’s so as to gain a taste of what biological cause-effect evidence looks like: http://vianet.net.au/~bjmrshll/features2.html http://www.helico.com/index.html If you access the following US Government URL you will see that stomach cancer is no longer listed as being a smoking-related disease (look under the heading ‘Malignant Neoplasms’): http://apps.nccd.cdc.gov/sammec/help/icd_codes_hp.asp Whereas the quit-smoking pamphlet published by a cancer fund I have to hand has this to say about stomach cancer:
Which goes to show just how tenacious a factoid http://www.forbes.com/global/1999/1115/0223102a.html http://www.annals.org/issues/v131n12/full/199912210-00101.html What is now needed of course is some of those billions of research dollars, currently being spent on turning tobacco users into social pariahs, being shifted to the areas of fruitful research – after all these diseases affect all peoples and not just those that entertain certain habits considered by some as being bad habits – so that everybody can benefit from practical scientific research. However, human nature being as it is, I will not be holding my breath whilst waiting for that to happen. (for more on this subject there is a book available for free at the following URL): https://web.archive.org/web/20140401071139/http://www.lcolby.com/ and https://lcolby.myvtoronte.com/
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 |
