|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 4
RICHARD: I really do not see how I can put this any differently ... I ask how it is that there be this ‘brief movement’ in the first place and, when you reply that nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens, I can do nothing other than reply that what I get from you is that the nature of that which you say is ‘not-worthless’ is remarkably unforthcoming in the song you sing (and I can only say this because you said it cannot be known by anybody). Therefore, to confirm what you are saying (so as not to assume it be what you are saying) I ask for confirmation whether what I am understanding, from the words you sing, is an adequate understanding or not. And then away you go with all the put-downs that it is my ‘opinion’, my ‘conclusion’, my ‘belief’, my ‘self-belief’ and so on and so on (which results in all that ‘zilch’ business). Can we not keep this simple? If nobody knows ‘how’ it all happens then does that not include you? Therefore, is it not so that the song which you sing has nothing in its singing regarding the nature of that which is not-worthless? I am asking ... I not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: You are quite right. I don’t know what it is, but it can definitely use my words to sing of itself. Part of the action of insight, or what is not known, is that it can certainly affect what is material, what is known. But it doesn’t work the other way around. Yes. Nothing in my singing reveals a thing about non-material energy. RICHARD: I appreciate your honesty, directness and clear communication. RESPONDENT: But if another is capable of listening to the words without the interference of his ego, he may discover for him/herself that energy which is the source of that song, those words. The words are only indicators, signs that say, ‘look, watch, see yourself as you are’. It’s up to the other then to meet that challenge and discover for himself what is actual which the words represent. RICHARD: Of course, listening to the words of the song you sing without the interference of ego will indeed ensure that the listener may discover the energy that is the source of the words. Now, is it possible to proceed in such a way as to actually discover what is actual about ‘that energy which is the source of that song’ and to actually discover what is not actual about ‘that energy which is the source of that song’ ? RESPONDENT: Let’s go into the first part first. What does it mean to listen without ego? That’s the first question. To listen without ego is to listen as the energy, the awareness, that is already the source of that song. RICHARD: Obviously ... and is it not equally obvious that, to listen ‘as the energy, the awareness’ (to listen as the ‘non-material consciousness’), is what prevents the nature of ‘that energy which is the source of that song’ being revealed? Which would go towards clarifying why you said ‘I don’t know what it is (...) Nothing in my singing reveals a thing about non-material energy’ would it not? RESPONDENT: Ego can’t discover it. Ego can only discover that it, itself, is ‘in the way’. And that discovery is the end of ego. Of course, it isn’t so simple as that because ego is a biologically driven force. So, for ego to discover itself as ‘in the way’ requires the constant ‘watching’ – for lack of a better word – by ego of its every reaction throughout the day and night. The very watching of it requires an energy that is different from that which keeps the ‘ego-program’ running. Before, ego didn’t doubt itself as an actual, living entity. Now, in watching itself constantly, its nature as a program is revealed. RICHARD: Okay, so as the nature of ‘ego’ cannot be revealed by listening or watching as ‘ego’, the nature of ‘ego’ can only be revealed by listening or watching ‘as the energy, the awareness’ (as the ‘non-material consciousness’ ) ... but as the nature of the ‘non-material consciousness’ cannot be revealed by listening or watching ‘as the energy, the awareness’ (as the ‘non-material consciousness’), what can the nature of the ‘non-material consciousness’ be listened to, watched as or perceived by? RESPONDENT: Watching itself constantly, it can’t project itself, distract itself as some preoccupation, some system of belief, etc. So what is the source of the song is already arising as the energy it takes for ego to pursue itself to the end of itself. RICHARD: Again ... the ‘very watching’ as ‘the source of the song already arising’ (watching as ‘the energy it takes for ego to pursue itself to the end of itself’) would be what prevents the nature of ‘that energy which is the source of that song’ from being apparent would it not? Would this not be why you say that ‘nobody knows what happens’ in the ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ ? What can the nature of the ‘non-material consciousness’ be listened to, watched as or perceived by? * RICHARD: As it is already been made clear, that just listening to the words of the song you sing without the interference of the ego will not enable such an insight, it would seem that this is the question to consider: what is required to ensure that it is possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ ? RESPONDENT: There is something I feel that is not being perceived in what I said. I’ll try to clarify it. To listen to what another says without the interference of ego is already insight, as ego is that reaction of consciousness which blocks insight from operating unobstructedly. RICHARD: Okay ... as it is already been made clear, that just listening to the words of the song you sing without the interference of the ego (which listening is ‘already insight’) will not reveal the nature of ‘that energy which is the source of that song’, it would seem that this is the question to consider: what is required to ensure that the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ be revealed? RESPONDENT: Nothing then, is required to ensure the possibility of an insight ‘into’ anything. That insight is a ‘by-product’ of the total understanding of what self is, which means that insight is already here. RICHARD: Sure ... and because ‘insight is already here’ then the nature of the ‘non-material consciousness’ obviously cannot become apparent by insight-as-non-material-consciousness would you not agree? RESPONDENT: It’s ego which prevents the comprehension of that fact because ego is time, materiality, change. So without time – i.e., ego – that energy which is not material, not of time, but which is always here/now and is the source of materiality – the energy on which materiality is ‘played out’ – ‘rewires’ the body, eliminating the ‘circuitry’ which supported the ancient, biologically driven reaction that is ego. RICHARD: Aye, but the ‘that energy which is not material’ does not and can not eliminate the ‘circuitry’ which supports the ancient, biological soul (by whatever name). RESPONDENT: But that non-material energy is not a fanciful concept, as energy is actual. It is only the manifestation of energy as materiality that I regard as impermanent and therefore as illusion, as non-actuality. RICHARD: Hmm ... the words ‘that I regard’ seem to be the key words here. If I may point out that you have already told me that ‘I don’t know what it is (...) Nothing in my singing reveals a thing about non-material energy’? Which means that your depiction of ‘that non-material energy’ as being actual and ‘materiality’ as being ‘non-actual’ is not substantiated by the nature of ‘that non-material energy’ having been revealed. Put simply: as the nature of the non-material energy or consciousness (which nature you sing as being actual) has not been revealed then any singing of a song which says that non-material energy or consciousness is actual is you ascribing the property, of it being actual, to it ... rather than deriving the property, of it being actual, from it. Another property you ascribe is ‘timelessness’ ... you cannot say that nobody (including yourself) knows the nature of non-material energy or consciousness and then proceed to describe one of its properties as being timeless. Similarly, any singing of a song which says that materiality is non-actual is you ascribing the property of it being non-actual. I cannot put it more plainly than that. RESPONDENT: Illusion is real, time-bound, ever-changing, arising and vanishing. Actuality is not real, not time-bounding, not ever changing. So it is always here/now, creative. It is the ‘life’ in matter, the intelligence in it. RICHARD: You apparently use the words ‘here/now’ to indicate something other than the normal use of ‘here and now’ (here in space and now in time)? Am I to take it that by the words ‘here/now’ you mean not-here-in-space and not-now-in-time? Is this back-to-front to normal meaning you give to these words in the same order of back-to-front to normal meaning you intend by your use of the word ‘actual’ (‘non-material, forever unmanifest, non-existent’) rather than the normal use of the word ‘actual’ (existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible)? * RESPONDENT: I said what I meant: that for me there is no why or how when it comes to ‘why it happened in the first place?’, as, for me, nothing ‘happened’... RICHARD: Yet what I asked was how is it that this ‘brief movement’ happens ... I never said ‘happened’ . Of course nothing ‘happened’ ... but something happens according to you. Viz. [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. You are clearly saying that the universe is ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy’ ... surely this appearance of energy called the physical universe happens (else we would not be having this conversation)? RESPONDENT: Of course the universe ‘is happening’. It is happening, and it is real, but it is not actual because it is material, impermanent, in constant flux. RICHARD: Is this evidence you provide, for the universe to be not actual (‘it is not actual because it is material, impermanent, in constant flux’), open to examination as to its validity? RESPONDENT: ‘Evidence’ is something thought requires because thought is ignorance – that is, thought believes it is a separately existing force. RICHARD: If you do not wish to have the reasons you give (‘it is not actual because it is material, impermanent, in constant flux’) to be examined ... why not simply say so instead of giving me this subtle put-down? RESPONDENT: Naturally then, as such, a separately existing force is completely shut out, completely isolated from everything but itself. When that isolation is not there, there is nothing to examine, as the ‘evidence’ is one’s own awareness, although, strictly speaking, it is not really ‘one’s’ awareness. It is awareness period. RICHARD: Yes ... and just as ‘ego’ cannot examine ‘ego’ then ‘awareness period’ cannot examine ‘awareness period’, eh? * RESPONDENT: What is actual does not ‘exist’ as some-’thing’. Any-’thing’ can come into being but eventually it de-structures, or what is popularly called ‘death’. RICHARD: Yet surely a rearrangement of matter (the de-structuring, re-structuring, de-structuring, re-structuring and so on ad infinitum of its form, its shape, its appearance) is not the same thing as matter ceasing to exist ... which is what would have to occur for ‘impermanent’ to be a valid reason to say that the universe is not actual? RESPONDENT: It isn’t necessary for the universe to either be, or to be continually. RICHARD: Might I point out that the universe already is? Therefore, why do you say it is not necessary for it to be (let alone not necessary for it to be continually)? As you have already said that nobody knows what happens that the ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ happens anyway, how can you now say that it is not necessary that it happens? Or are you suggesting that there be something going on in the ‘brief movement of energy’ that need not be going on (and thus unnecessarily having to ‘stand out’ as the material universe)? RESPONDENT: E=mc2. Just using this simple model, matter arises from energy, is energy, and can return to energy, that is, lose its mass. The energy is constant, cannot be created or destroyed. But its appearance as mass is impermanent, arising as wave/particle, etc., then dissipating. But this is a simple model and I am not a scientist, so if you see some flaw in it, please let me know. RICHARD: Oh, I am no scientist either ... but one does not need to be a scientist to see that matter changing from its energy state to its mass state and from its mass state to its energy state and from its energy state to its mass state and so on ad infinitum is not the same thing as matter per se ceasing to exist ... which is what would have to occur for ‘impermanent’ to be a valid reason to say that the universe is not actual. RESPONDENT: What I am getting at is that what is actual is not material though it is what gives rise to materiality. RICHARD: Yes, I am well aware of that by now ... and what I am doing is examining whether it be a valid use of the word ‘actual’ (normally meaning existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible) to refer to an ‘energy’ which is ‘non-material, forever unmanifest, non-existent’ . You are aware, I presume, that matter can be either physical mass or physical energy (as in the physical energy from the sun changing into physical mass via the photosynthesis process of leaves, for just one example)? And that the principle behind what is called ‘the splitting of the atoms’ of hydrogen in an atomic reaction is based upon matter as physical mass changing to matter as physical energy? The famous theorem you quoted ( ‘E=mc2’ ) refers to the theory of relativity wherein matter as physical energy is mathematically understood as being equal to physical mass times the speed of light to the power of two ... and not a ‘non-material, forever unmanifest, non-existent’ energy ‘arising as wave/particle, etc.’ and being equal to physical mass times the speed of light to the power of two.
RESPONDENT: Because the universe is vast, infinite, and because the human ego can think of it in terms of eternal, and, indeed, because the universe, from the point of view of time seems very, very old, is no reason to assume that it is more than a present pulsation, a wave/particle materializing presently and which will eventually dematerialise. RICHARD: As nobody has found a beginning to time – and no theory about time beginning can satisfactorily describe when or how and why it did ‘then’ – it is not reasonable to assume it had a beginning. If it is not reasonable to assume it had a beginning it is equally unreasonable to assume an ending. Similarly, as nobody has found an end to space – and no theory about space ending can satisfactorily describe why or how and what it does ‘there’ – it is not reasonable to assume it has an end either. Until a beginning to time and an end to space be either demonstrated or discovered, the universe will go on being what it is: an immeasurable vastness of time and space and matter. * RESPONDENT: All structures of matter are therefore limited, constantly changing. RICHARD: All ‘structures’ of matter are certainly ‘constantly changing’ ... but, rather than this constant flux making matter ‘limited’, it bespeaks instead of matter being not limited to one specific form, shape, appearance or structure does it not? RESPONDENT: Of course. Matter is not limited to one specific form, shape, appearance, etc. But matter itself is limited by definition because it ‘exists’, it is real. RICHARD: How can matter be limited by the definition that it exists? You can only limit matter by the definition of its existence if you first define its existence as being finite, timed and depletable. There is no way an infinite, eternal and perpetual universe can be described as limited by the definition that it exists infinitely, eternally and perpetually. RESPONDENT: Just as a specific form can de-structure, matter as a whole can de-structure. The part is the whole. RICHARD: Where you say ‘matter as a whole can de-structure’ are you conveying that the universe can and will cease to exist? RESPONDENT: Thought, knowledge, as that which is material and in constant flux, is an effect, a limited reaction of the limited material body and cannot, as an effect, know that which is creative and independent of materiality, of non-affectaton. RICHARD: Yet is it not ‘thought, knowledge’ which has decided that, because matter is constantly changing its shape, its form, its appearance, its structure, it is therefore ‘impermanent’ and thus not actual? RESPONDENT: Not unless it is your thought that has concluded that. RICHARD: Pardon me? I am not the one saying that matter is ‘impermanent’; I am not the one saying that matter is not actual ... I am the one saying that the rearrangement of matter (the de-structuring, re-structuring, de-structuring, re-structuring and so on ad infinitum of its form, its shape, its appearance) is not the same thing as matter ceasing to exist. ‘Tis you saying that ‘matter as a whole can de-structure’ ... and if this be not thought knowledge then what is it? RESPONDENT: There is that energy that may use thought to say that, but it doesn’t necessarily follow that the thought that says that is a ‘decision’ of the thought that said it. RICHARD: I see ... it is the ‘non-material energy’ which originates the thought that only it is actual and, as anything material is not-actual it can, as a whole, cease to exist, eh? * RICHARD: Does not observation of the properties of matter show a beginningless and endless de-structuring, re-structuring, de-structuring, re-structuring and so on of its form, its shape, its appearance? The ‘Big Bang Theory’, first proposed by the French Abbé Mr. Georges Lemaitre in 1927 and strikingly similar to the Biblical Creation myth, is shot full of gaping holes ... and is progressively more and more incapable of being forever plugged by mathematicians’ increasingly frantic coefficients. RESPONDENT: Observation of the properties of matter are dependent upon the limitations of the observer. RICHARD: Yet the ‘observation’ (as the awareness of the insight that is non-material energy) of the properties of the ‘non-material energy’ – which originates the thought that only it is actual and anything material is not-actual – is totally non-existent according to you ( ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’). Even so, you keep on insisting that its main property is that it is actual as if you somehow ‘know’ that to be fact. RESPONDENT: Because matter seems to structure/de-structure, ‘ad infinitum’, does not indicate the factuality of its being ‘beginningless’ and ‘endless’. RICHARD: If I might point out? Matter does not ‘seem’ to de-structure/re-structure ad infinitum ... until someone can show otherwise it does indeed de-structure/re-structure ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: The observer himself will not physically persist long enough to validate the notion of ‘beginningless’ and ‘ending’. RICHARD: Yet even if ‘the observer’ were to physically persist eternally it still could not be validated ... therefore this line of reasoning is rendered meaningless before it even starts. Incidentally, although there are still some adherents to Mr. Karl Popper’s conceptual logic, that nothing can ever be known for sure, his abstract theories have, by and large, been refuted and discarded by more than a few peoples many years ago (logically it can never be proved that a One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater does not exist, for example). Yet it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands that logic seeks to impose upon the physical world. An academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ ... whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’. RESPONDENT: A trillion years may be but one, brief pulsation, one brief manifestation of energy as matter, as the material universe itself. RICHARD: Where you say ‘one, brief pulsation, one brief manifestation of energy as matter’ are you meaning that the universe can and will cease to exist? RESPONDENT: I have no concern for either the big band or for religious mysticism. It may also be mysticism and the desire of ego to attain the notion of its own stability and existence, by positing the notion that matter is ‘beginningless’ and ‘endless’. RICHARD: Let me put it this way: this flesh and blood body was born on a specific date; this flesh and blood body lives for x-number of years; this flesh and blood body dies at a particular date. This flesh and blood body did not exist as this particular configuration of matter prior to birth and this flesh and blood body will not exist as this particular configuration of matter after death. Where in all this can it be suggested that ‘positing the notion’ that matter is beginningless and endless provides stability and existence for the animated matter, being conscious as a one-off configuration for x-number of years, known as Richard? RESPONDENT: Why must it be either since it is here/ now? RICHARD: As this universe is currently happening, as time and space and matter, it is either eternal time and infinite space and perpetual matter it is happening as or it is limited time and finite space and depletable matter it is happening as ... it cannot be both or neither. Unless one reasons as Buddhist reasoning reasons:
* RICHARD: You explain that this universe is a ‘brief movement’ (a ‘brief movement’ in the ‘totality of consciousness’ which you have elsewhere sung as being ‘timeless’). So I ask a valid question: [Richard]: ‘How is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens in the first place ...? Is it the ‘in the first place’ phrasing that makes look like a ‘what happened’ rather than a ‘what happens’ question? If so I can re-phrase it as: how is it that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’, happens anyway? Or I could put it this way: how come this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ , happens? Or I could write it thus: What is it in the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ that it happens? RESPONDENT: Put it anyway you like, but if you really want an answer, it will not and cannot be obtained in terms of words, in terms of knowledge. RICHARD: Surely it must be obvious, by now, that I am speaking of an insight into what happens and not a thought-through answer? RESPONDENT: It’s not obvious to me because I am not looking at it from within your point of view, although I see your point of view. Your ‘how can’s’, etc., seem to me to indicate the belief of thought that thought can discover ‘how’, as only thought can ask the question of insight. RICHARD: To repeat: I am not speaking of thought discovering what happens that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ occurs. RESPONDENT: I am asking ‘what’ is there that can receive the answer if not thought? RICHARD: I am not speaking of receiving an answer ... I am speaking of enabling whatever it is that happens, that this ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ occurs in the first place, into becoming apparent or being revealed. From whom or what or where would ‘the answer’ come, anyway? RESPONDENT: I am also proposing that, instead of the question, ‘how can insight be discovered?’, that thought might ask the question, ‘how can I understand what I am completely?’ RICHARD: Okay ... it is still a ‘how’ question not matter which way you put it. RESPONDENT: If that question is pursued to the end, the question of insight becomes meaningless, as the total understanding of self may be what insight IS. RICHARD: Yes ... which is what closes the door on further questions as to what happens that this ‘brief movement of energy’ , in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ occurs. * RESPONDENT: It cannot be obtained in any case. RICHARD: I am aware that you have previously said that an insight, into that which you say ‘can definitely use my words to sing of itself’ , is not possible. I would ask again that you at least allow there may be a possibility ... otherwise you shut the door on the very ‘complete understanding’ which you say (much further below) is essential for ‘the explosion’ out of insanity. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘... there is no choice but to pay attention to everything that one is, does, no matter the ‘cost’, until the totality of insanity is completely understood. And the complete understanding of it is the explosion out of it’. As a lack of insight is ignorance I would put it to you that to allow something, which you say is not knowable, to use your words to sing of itself is to ignorantly allow yourself to be used? RESPONDENT: I would suggest that everything is unknowable. What do you actually ‘know’ about any-thing? RICHARD: I know a lot about some things; a little about many things; and nothing about a lot of things. RESPONDENT: Is your knowledge actually ‘that thing’? RICHARD: Of course not. RESPONDENT: So when knowledge isn’t moving ‘as you’, what is there that is moving is insight. RICHARD: Which, as it is insight-as-non-material-energy which is moving, then whatever it is that happens, that this ‘brief movement of energy’ , in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’ occurs, cannot become apparent. RESPONDENT: Insight isn’t ‘using’ you – in the literal sense that there is a you there that can be used – but that insight is the awareness of the body and of nature itself, which is no ‘your’ insight. RICHARD: Okay ... but either way you cut it, the flesh and blood body is being ignorantly used. RESPONDENT: But the nature of ego is such that it can’t imagine not being in control, not being there to make sure that ‘insight’ is ‘using’ it ignorantly. RICHARD: I am not speaking of ‘the nature of ego’ ... I am speaking of the flesh and blood body being used, ignorantly, by the ‘non-material consciousness’. * RESPONDENT: But the body, free of the contracted, isolated consciousness that is ‘me’ and ‘that’, is directly and always operating from that non-material energy until it de-structures into its component but still material units. What is actual is always here and now, not bound by time and space, and is neither inner nor outer. RICHARD: Hmm ... in other words, the evidence for what is actual is based solely on that which is ‘non-material’ somehow non-verbally informing the song that it, the ‘non-material energy’, is what is actual? RESPONDENT: No. There is no ‘... informing the song ...’. RICHARD: May I refer you to your own words: Viz.:
I can only go by your words. RESPONDENT: How could the song be ‘informed’? RICHARD: As it is you who says that the song you sing has something that informs it then is up to you to answer ... not me. RESPONDENT: The song IS the information that is issuing from the insight, from what is actual. RICHARD: Which means that, as the song is the ‘information’ – and the song is worthless – then the ‘information’ issuing from the insight, ‘from what is actual’, is worthless as well. RESPONDENT: There is no evidence possible. RICHARD: So I have noticed ... yet you keep on insisting that the energy which is ‘non-material, forever unmanifest, non-existent’ is actual (as if you somehow ‘know’ the nature of that which you say nobody knows). RESPONDENT: If the song says, ‘go into yourself completely all the way to the end of yourself’, then the singer has become totally irrelevant from that point on. If you, in fact, go into yourself to the end of yourself, then the ‘evidence’ is your own transformation out of ignorance. RICHARD: If you are referring to me I might point out that I am not in ignorance. RESPONDENT: What is real but not actual is also here and now but is dependent on time and space and the limited order that is its material form. RICHARD: Similarly, the evidence for that which is ‘material’ being that which is not actual is only according to this not-knowable ‘non-material energy’ (the nature of which you have had no insight into) which somehow non-verbally informs a worthless song that this is true? RESPONDENT: Again, for me, the question of the nature of unobstructed energy is not significant as it is always the past, the desire of knowledge, the limited that asks that. RICHARD: Whereas for me, apperceiving the nature of this ‘unobstructed energy’, which non-verbally claims to be the source of everything, is significant because apperceptive awareness is not of the past, not of the desire for knowledge ... and definitely not a limited perceiving. * RESPONDENT: Again, for me, the question of the nature of unobstructed energy is not significant as it is always the past, the desire of knowledge, the limited that asks that. RICHARD: Whereas for me, the insight into the nature of this ‘non-material energy’ which non-verbally claimed to be the source of everything, was significant because an insight is not of the past, not of the desire for knowledge ... and definitely not a limited ask. It became strikingly obvious that an insight can only occur when the question is an open question. RESPONDENT: It is necessary to pay close attention to the limitations of what we propose if we are to resolve these issues. If we proceed from a false perception, then we will arrive at a false perception. For example, your phrase, ‘whereas for me the insight into the nature of this ‘non-material energy’ ...’ is not grasping what I have repeatedly said, which is that there is no insight ‘into non-material energy’ because non-material energy is already what insight IS. RICHARD: I am not speaking about an insight-as-non-material-energy ... I said that it became strikingly obvious that an insight can only occur when the question is an open question. RESPONDENT: There is only insight into what obstructs non-material energy, or awareness – whatever we call ‘it’ – from operating, or, in brief, there is only self-knowledge. To me that is strikingly obvious. RICHARD: I do see that it is ‘strikingly obvious’ to you. Needless to say, it can also become strikingly obvious that an insight can only occur when the question is an open question (not a question as an insight-as-non-material-energy question). RESPONDENT: Death of the limited mind as ‘me’ and ‘that’ is the only ‘answer’. RICHARD: An insight into the nature of this ‘non-material energy’, which non-verbally claims to be the source of everything, may very well show an entirely different ball-game. RESPONDENT: Aren’t your statements about your life, your ‘self-immolation’, etc., ‘claims’ from the point of view of another who isn’t you? RICHARD: Oh yes ... I did not and have not done anything – I have been here for 53 years having a ball – it was an illusory identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body that did the ‘self’-immolating. RESPONDENT: And, assuming that it is so for you, don’t your actions in life proceed from non-verbal awareness even though verbalisation is necessary in order to communicate? RICHARD: Yes ... I call it ‘apperceptive awareness’. For large chunks of my daily life there is no thought at all ... and there is only thought of these matters we are discussing when I am discussing with another. I never have private thoughts such as these words you are reading now ... I take perfection for granted. RESPONDENT: And how can another investigate your state of mind? He can only listen to you and investigate his own mind based on what you say. So it isn’t a matter of ‘evidence’ and ‘claims’, is it? RICHARD: The words I say (as evidence) must stand scrutiny: what another can do is make a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the facts speak for themselves. Then the other will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written (is claimed). RESPONDENT: It’s a matter of self-knowledge, proving to oneself what is so and what is not so. RICHARD: Of course ... once the facticity of what I report about my experiencing is verified by the direct experience of the other then all I can do is offer tips, hints, suggestions, anecdotes, insider information and so on. My words can be a confirmation that what the other is experiencing is valid (that it is an experience common to humans) and an affirmation that a fellow human being has safely walked the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. * RESPONDENT: What is here is ‘what is happening NOW’, and what is happening now as the universe as a manifestation of non-material energy, cannot be reduced to the limited descriptions of thought, although thought is a part of that happening. RICHARD: If I may point out? You have already informed me, that the reason why the nature of that which is not-worthless does not feature in the song that you sing, is because ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’. I am aware of this ... which is why I asked whether it is possible to have an insight into the nature of that which is not-worthless ... RESPONDENT: ‘What’ is going to have an insight into it? Thought? RICHARD: ‘Tis a strange thing to do, is it not, to chop my sentence in half and then ask if thought is going to have an insight? Here is the bit you chopped off (from further below): [Richard]: ‘... (an insight has nowt to do with thought)’. RESPONDENT: What’s strange about it? You do it all the time. I felt that my entering at the point I entered was perfectly appropriate especially because of your repeated proposal that there is the possibility of ‘something’ having an insight into non-material energy. I do not know what could possibly have such an insight since insight, as I am discussing it, is already that non-material energy. The only thing I could come up with is that what is asking the question about such and insight would be thought, even though you say ‘nowt to do with thought ...’. RICHARD: I only say this because an insight indeed has nowt to do with thought ... yet the insight into the nature of that which is not-worthless cannot be an insight-as-non-material-energy insight ... it needs to be an open-ended insight (which comes from asking the question as an open question). If it be this word ‘insight’ which is causing a problem I am only too happy to move on to the part apperception plays in all this. The word ‘apperception’ literally means: consciousness being conscious of being consciousness ... as distinct from the normal ‘self’-conscious way of perception (‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). Viz.:
Apperception happens only when a body is sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: The body is already operating in that insight, but the reactions of ‘thought-as-me’, because it interferes with the energy of the body, prevents the energy of insight from operating unobstructedly. The question is inherently intellectual and therefore impossible to answer. Get rid of selfishness, and the ‘answer’ is the living body moving in the world completely awake, unobstructed by broad daylight dreaming. RICHARD: As this conclusion is based upon mistreating my question it is totally irrelevant. RESPONDENT: Of course you are entitled to feel that way. But since you didn’t explain how, my only alternative is to drop it and move on. RICHARD: Okay ... I will re-phrase my question: you have already informed me, that the reason why the nature of that which is not-worthless does not feature in the song that you sing, is because ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’. I am aware of this ... which is why I am asking whether it is possible for an insight (an insight that is not an insight-as-non-material-energy insight) into the nature of that which is not-worthless to happen. Such an insight would enable an apperceptive awareness (and apperception has nowt to do with thought either operating or not operating). * RICHARD: ... (an insight has nowt to do with thought). I am not interested in what thought thinks about the nature of that which is not-worthless at this stage... I am endeavouring to find out how it is that the song which you sing lacks insight (not how come it lacks knowledge). Because you did say that, although the song that you sing is worthless, that which informs the song is not, right? RESPONDENT: Correct. The song is worthless, but what informs it is not. RICHARD: How can you say that that what informs the song is not-worthless if there has been no insight into its nature? Surely this ignorant statement (‘ignorant’ as in lacking insight) has to be a thought-imposed evaluation? RESPONDENT: What is truly ignorant may sometimes be one’s own intransigent refusal to hear what is being said from a point of view other than one’s own. For example, I keep saying that there can be no ‘insight into what is already insight’, and you keep asking me to provide insight into the nature – non-material energy – of what informs the song. If you can’t, or are unwilling to see even the illogic of your question, all I can do is to suppose that you are attempting to make some strange case, and at all costs, that there is some surreptitious energy that is ‘mis’-using the ‘singer’, as it were. If you’re determined to hold to that theory despite the fact that I’ve gone into this quite openly and thoroughly, there’s nothing I can do about it. RICHARD: Okay, I will re-phrase my question: How can you say that that what informs the song is not-worthless if there is no awareness of its nature? Surely this ignorant statement (‘ignorant’ as in lacking awareness) has to be a thought-imposed evaluation? * RICHARD: Maybe if I put it this way: as worthless and not-worthless are values, either derived from or ascribed to the nature of something, how is it that it can be ascertained that that which informs the song is not-worthless if there be no insight into its nature? Is this not a valid enquiry? RESPONDENT: Worthless, for me, is not a value judgement, although to you it is. RICHARD: Let me see if it is ... consider the statement: ‘The song is worthy, but what informs it is worthless’. Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of the non-value judgement of that which informs the song which you sing? RESPONDENT: Let’s see. Theoretically – which is what your question is – you can twist and turn it any way you like, because it is just thought playing logical games. RICHARD: It is not me twisting and turning it at all – and I am not just playing ‘logical games’ – as I am demonstrating that the word ‘worth’ has a particular connotation that the word ‘worthless’ does not have. If you do not wish to face your own claim to the word ‘worthless’ not being a ‘value judgement’ that is entirely up to you ... but please do not think that you can duck-shove your avoidance off onto me by saying I am just ‘playing logical games’ . I am entirely sincere. RESPONDENT: I’m not interested in that because it is ‘worthless’. But don’t jump right away. By ‘worthless’, I mean, I don’t see it as useful because it is just a logical game. Is that a value judgement? Certainly no, as I am not thinking in terms of ‘value’, but of function. RICHARD: Okay ... let us see it in terms of function: consider the statement:
Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of the non-value judgement of that which informs the song which you sing? * RESPONDENT: It is that which is not-worthless, that which is pure energy, unlimited, that describes the song as worthless. RICHARD: How does that which you have had no insight into the nature of describe the song that you sing as being worthless? Is it a non-verbal intuition? Some form of instinctive knowing? RESPONDENT: Let’s try this one more time, if we may. There is nothing there that can have an insight into anything. What is occurring is already insight, and this insight says through the body and it’s words, ‘words are only descriptive ... they cannot be what they describe ... they can only say, look to yourself, understand yourself. So one says, ‘look to yourself, understand yourself’ – you know, the song that is sung. Now, part of understanding oneself, which another may discover as he looks, given he hears the song and takes it seriously, is the comprehension of the mechanics of intuition and instinct as being also forms of knowledge. RICHARD: Okay, then as ‘intuition and instinct’ are also ‘forms of knowledge’ how does that, which you have had no awareness as to the nature of, describe the song that you sing as being worthless? Is it an extrasensory current? Some form of paranormal knowing? RESPONDENT: In fact, from that state of not-knowing all words are worthless though they may be useful as part of the function of the body. RICHARD: Sure ... yet I am pointing out that this state of ‘not-knowing’ of yours lacks insight as well as knowledge. RESPONDENT: Of course you are pointing that out. How can you not? You are tied to your own belief – knowledge – that what I say must be ignorant because it doesn’t reflect what you believe is so. RICHARD: It is not my own ‘belief – knowledge’ at all. I will re-phrase it: I am pointing out that this state of ‘not-knowing’ of yours lacks awareness as to the nature of ‘that which is pure energy, unlimited’ as well as knowledge. RESPONDENT: And it is implied also that you have the insight that sees this ‘ignorance’, when your own insight may prove in the end to be nothing but those beliefs which you collectively call ‘actualism’. RICHARD: No, insight-as-non-material-energy played no part in displaying the nature of non-material consciousness. RESPONDENT: Naturally you won’t see outside what defines you. You don’t mind me pointing this out, do you? RICHARD: Not at all ... as it is totally inaccurate all it does is make the E-Mails longer than they already are. RESPONDENT: I say words are worthless because it is so widely believed by selves that words are the pinnacle of worth, of value when, in fact, they have no value. They may simply be useful or not. RICHARD: Again I am talking of the worth of insight ... not the worth or worthlessness of words or thought. RESPONDENT: Alright. Now insight may say, ‘insight is worthwhile’. Isn’t it? RICHARD: Not insight-as-non-material-energy ... that is akin to the blind leading the blind. * RICHARD: The song you sing seems to be a song of ignorance (‘ignorance’ as in a lack of insight and not a lack of knowledge). RESPONDENT: <snip> ... Ignorance is, as you say, a lack of insight ...<snip> RICHARD: I will put it this way: Is it possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? RESPONDENT: No. It is not possible to have an insight into non-material energy, as insight is what non-material energy already is. RICHARD: Okay ... then surely it is not possible to derive values, such as not-worthless, from something that it is not possible to have an insight into? Therefore would it not be so that you must be ascribing values (such as not-worthless) to it instead of deriving them from it? Again I am asking ... I am not telling you or giving an opinion or whatever. RESPONDENT: I can use the words worthless and worth without either connoting value. RICHARD: Are you so sure? Again I will put this proposition to you: ‘The song has worth, but what informs it is worthless’. Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of you using the words ‘worthless and worth’ without either of them ‘connoting value’? RESPONDENT: What you’re not hearing is that insight uses the same words as ignorance does, as words are words. But insight does not attribute value to the words that are used. If an insightful mind says to another, ‘stop being stupid!!’, it has nothing to do with value. When an un-insightful mind says to another, ‘stop being stupid’, it has everything to do with value. RICHARD: Okay ... consider this statement (by an ‘insightful mind’ ):
Can you give this statement your tick of approval as being an accurate description of you using the words ‘wise’ and ‘stupid’ with them having ‘nothing to do with value’ ? RESPONDENT: I could just as easily use the words useful and useless. RICHARD: Okay ... then as a lack of insight is, as you agreed (further above) ignorance, surely it is not possible to derive values, such as ‘useful and useless’ , from something that it is not possible to have an insight into? Therefore would it not be so that you must be ascribing values (such as not-useless) to it instead of deriving them from it? RESPONDENT: I explained that just above. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... but if you do not wish to face your own claim to be using the words ‘useful and useless’ without either ‘connoting value’ that is entirely up to you. * RESPONDENT: Insight uses words, makes distinctions. RICHARD: Insight is a direct seeing – an un-mediated seeing – of such immediacy that all is patently obvious. Using words, making distinctions, comes later when describing the nature of what the insight revealed (its properties, the qualities of its properties and the values derived from these qualities). Otherwise one is ascribing properties, qualities and values to that which there has been no insight into. RESPONDENT: Of course insight is immediate. That is obvious. Now part of the action of the immediacy of insight is its incorporation of words, or its unzipping of the pants in order to take a piss. There is no ‘later’ as it is not a matter of time. RICHARD: The sun still describes an arc in the sky (if it be day-time) or the stars wheel across the firmament (if it be night-time). Or, to put it another way, the ‘incorporation of words’ occurs through time (a sentence takes time to say or write) and the ‘unzipping of the pants’ occupies the time taken to complete the manoeuvre. RESPONDENT: There may also be insight and no words or descriptions may be spoken for days, for months, for years, yet whenever the words are spoken from that insight, they are spoken immediately and are consistent with the original insight because it is not a matter of time – i.e. thought. RICHARD: Again I might point out that words cannot be ‘spoken immediately’ as a sentence takes time to say or write. Thus using words, making distinctions, comes later when describing the nature of what the insight revealed (its properties, the qualities of its properties and the values derived from these qualities). Otherwise one is ascribing properties, qualities and values to that which there has been no insight into. * RESPONDENT: That does not mean that insight itself enters the field of psychological duality, which is the reaction of thinking that moves beyond simple distinction to division – the idea of separation. RICHARD: How can you point to a ‘simple distinction’ – not a ‘division’ – seeing that a total lack of insight, into the nature of that which informs the song you sing, has not enabled any distinctions to be revealed to you? RESPONDENT: Again, this twisting of things into what you want to see. I’ll say it yet again: There is no insight ‘into’ anything. Insight is what you ARE when thinking-as-division has seen completely into its own nature and has, therefore, ended. That seeing is already insight, and that insight sings whatever it sings. RICHARD: I am happy to re-configure my question: How can that the seeing that is already insight meaningfully sing a ‘simple distinction’ – not a ‘division’ – seeing that a total lack of awareness, into the nature of that which informs the song you sing, has not enabled any distinctions to be revealed to you? RESPONDENT: There is nothing revealed ‘to’ you. ‘You’ are revealed to ‘yourself’ as what is ‘in the way’. RICHARD: Is it, basically, that you are saying is that the non-material-energy is unseeable, unknowable, ineffable and ... and inviolable (never to be questioned)? Again I am asking ... not telling you. * RESPONDENT: It is possible, however, for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself as its impermanent manifestations. In the case of human beings, that means the transformation of the body out of the disease of ‘personal psychology’ to body awareness only, that is, from being dominated by self-thinking to living as a body which is aware and can use thought. RICHARD: May I come back to this at a latter date as it is not yet established whether this which you sing here in this paragraph ( ‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’ ) can be reliably deduced from something the nature of which you say is not possible to have an insight into? RESPONDENT: Of course. Please take your time. RICHARD: I can come back to it right now because I cannot see how your responses (both above and below) have shown that you are not operating from ignorance (as in a lack of insight) ... which must surely render your thought-deduction ( ‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’ ) null and void? The emergence of ‘body awareness only’ may very well lie in an entirely different ball game. RESPONDENT: Of course you can’t see it. That’s because you aren’t listening. You have an intellectual ‘turf’ to defend at all costs. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I can only go by your words: you say that ‘nobody knows what happens’ in the ‘brief movement of energy’, in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’. Yet here you say that ‘it is possible for non-material energy to complete the evolvement of itself ...’ to ‘body awareness only’ as if you are all of a sudden au fait with the workings of the ‘non-material consciousness’. Where in these words of yours am I having an ‘intellectual ‘turf’ to defend at all costs’? RESPONDENT: You want to believe that materiality is eternal – ‘beginningless’ and ‘endless’: the ultimate materialistic, atheistic trip. RICHARD: Where is my belief? It is up to those who propose an edge or a boundary to space, a beginning, a duration and an ending to time and a depletion of matter, to demonstrate the veracity of their hypothesis. Until then, the universe will go on being what it is: an immeasurable vastness. It is those people, who attempt to disallow this observation of the universe being an immeasurable vastness, that need to satisfactorily explain why they are unnecessarily complicating what is actually a simple issue: they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a finite space ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing a limited time ... and when it came and from what and how and why; they need to satisfactorily explain why they are positing depletable matter ... and where it came from and out of what and how and why. They also need to satisfactorily explain how they can posit a timeless, spaceless and empty nothingness ... because one cannot conceive of a ‘nothing’ unless one acknowledges the actuality of a ‘something’ first to contrast it against (and they say that the ‘something’ – time and space and matter – are a dream, an illusion or only apparently so). Or, as you put it, time and space and matter are ‘real but not actual’ and the timeless, non-material energy is not only ‘actual’ ... but is the ‘non-material consciousness forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative’ energy that this physical universe ‘stands out’ of. Just which one of us is the one that wants to believe? RESPONDENT: And anybody who doesn’t accept that is viewed as ‘spiritualistic’, and his verbal communication is viewed as ‘null and void’. RICHARD: Is there all that much difference between ‘null and void’ and ‘worthless song’? RESPONDENT: You can no more ‘prove’ any of your actualistic ideas as I can prove what I am saying. RICHARD: As I just said: it is up to you to demonstrate the veracity of the song you sing ... which is what these current E-Mails should be providing you the opportunity to do. RESPONDENT: The living is the proof: Nothing else. RICHARD: Aye ... to be living the pristine perfection – totally free of any form of malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers of love and compassion – each moment again is the living proof. There are those peoples, throughout recorded history and currently alive, who are said to be living as without ‘ego’ who have displayed degrees of anger or anguish, for example, from time-to-time. It is indeed as you say ... the living is the proof. RESPONDENT: One aspect of ignorance is not seeing that no words – mine, or yours, or anybody else’s – are anything other than mere words. RICHARD: I demur ... words are essential for communication of one’s experience and understanding to another. If it were not for the words of all those peoples who ventured into that aspect of the psyche sometimes called the unknown I would not be where I am today. Please, do not dismiss words lightly. * RICHARD: Such an insight is fundamental to the issue of misery and mayhem continuing to manifest on this otherwise fair planet. RESPONDENT: Any organism is subject to momentary disease. It is also subject to transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Aye ... this is how it can sometimes happen in the material world with material diseases. We are, however, discussing the nature of a non-material consciousness and a non-material disease ... the ‘cure’ of which may very well be an entirely different ball-game. RESPONDENT: I am not discussing ‘non-material disease’ as to me that is a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: I am going purely by your words here: [Richard]: ‘... if the universe, which includes a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem is, as you say, ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’, then all the misery and mayhem is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? [Respondent]: ‘... Yes. All things are that energy, though that energy is, in itself, no-thing’. You are clearly acknowledging that the source of the disease is non-material. RESPONDENT: Not really. It may seem that way intellectually because I said that non-materiality is the source of materiality and the development of materiality as the various natural systems and ecosystems. RICHARD: I was not, and am not, being intellectual regarding what you said: I took it, and take it, literally that you said ‘yes’ to all the misery and mayhem being sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’ . RESPONDENT: What I also said that part of the creativity of organisms is their ability to adjust, and that sometimes, in the development of that adjustment, there may be periods when there is suffering. RICHARD: Are you now saying that ‘their ability to adjust’ is not sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? Are you also now saying that ‘the development of that adjustment’ is not sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? As well as that, are you now saying that ‘periods when there is suffering’ is not sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’ either? RESPONDENT: Interestingly, it is you who are attributing ‘value’ to those aspects of development which may include pain and suffering. RICHARD: If you could expand upon this a little so that I am cognisant of what you are referring to? I generally say that the only good thing about suffering is when it ends ... permanently. RESPONDENT: To me, these actions are part of the creativity of matter as a manifestation of non-material energy, and are valueless. RICHARD: I can agree that all the misery and mayhem has no value whatsoever ... but that may not be what you are wanting to convey here. RESPONDENT: Only ego ‘stands back’ and assigns value and makes assessments of what is simply here/now, as it is. RICHARD: I do not need an ego (or a soul) to assess all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on ... and say that it sucks big-time. Because ‘what is simply here/now, as it is’ for maybe 6.0 billion peoples can in no way be described as anything other than second-rate or worse. * RESPONDENT: But I am certainly interested in what you mean by non-material disease. RICHARD: The disease (misery and mayhem) which is blighting this otherwise fair earth (the material world) is, as you have already agreed, a non-material disease. Perhaps it would help to re-present an example I have often provided to this Mailing List? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘There is no fear in a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock ... not even disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, let alone anxiety, angst, fear, terror, horror or dread’. Only sentient beings experience fear ... and fear only exists in their ‘inner world’ (the non-material world). RESPONDENT: But you are still evaluating what is happening, comparing one aspect of reality to another. RICHARD: I am giving an example to demonstrate where fear, for example, is to be found ... and where it is not to be found: there is no fear whatsoever here in this actual world ... fear only exists in the ‘inner world’ (the non-material world) of sentient beings. RESPONDENT: That a flower doesn’t experience fear is attributable to the fact that it is not highly neurologically developed. That a human being does experience fear is attributable to the uncompleted state of his neurological development. All of it occurs within the natural order which is characterized by development, adjustment, and/or ‘species death’. But all of it is located and exists within the non-material energy out of which it constantly arises, and which can be no place, but is here and now. There is no non-material disease. But there are the various changes of materiality. Is there any disease that is awareness? Yet awareness can certainly restructure the physiology of disease and render that disease ‘null and void’. RICHARD: It baffles me how you can have ‘a human being does experience fear’ and ‘all of it is located and exists within the non-material energy out of which it constantly arises’ and ‘there is no non-material disease’ all in the same paragraph and still think that it makes sense. * RESPONDENT: When a human being can at least see that part of his reality is a disease – selfishness – if he actually sees that, that seeing itself is already the beginning of the transformation out of disease. RICHARD: Yet is not this very ‘selfishness’ nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing? I only ask because when I wrote, in a prior post, that what you called ‘the creativity of nature’ is nothing other than the ‘standing out’ of the not-worthless nature of that which informs the song which you sing you replied: ‘Yes, that is how I describe it’. RESPONDENT: Again, yes that is how I describe it. Selfishness is part of that which stands out of non-material energy. RICHARD: Therefore, is it not so that, as ‘selfishness’ is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’, then ‘selfishness’ is a non-material disease ... the ‘cure’ of which is an entirely different ball-game to material diseases? RESPONDENT: Only intellectually, conceptually. In actuality, no. RICHARD: Despite what you have to say about intellectual concepts, I am speaking of it actually being an entirely different ball-game. RESPONDENT: Is there any disease in awareness? RICHARD: Yes ... there are those peoples, throughout recorded history and currently alive, who are said to be living in ‘awareness’ who have displayed degrees of anger or anguish, for example, from time-to-time. RESPONDENT: Is there any disease in insight? RICHARD: Yes ... there are those peoples, throughout recorded history and currently alive, who are said to be living ‘in insight’ who have displayed degrees of anger or anguish, for example, from time-to-time. RESPONDENT: Yet insight and awareness are what actuality is, and it is that which changes and develops the limitations of itself as material reality. RICHARD: If it is, as you say, that ‘insight and awareness are what actuality is’ then the ‘insight and awareness’ which ‘changes and develops’ is what has the degrees of anger or anguish, for example, in it. * RICHARD: Therefore is it not vital to ascertain whether it be possible to have an insight into the nature of that (the ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘non-material consciousness’ ) which is ... um ... doing this ‘standing out’ as ‘selfishness’ ? RESPONDENT: What is going to have that insight? Selfishness? RICHARD: No ... only a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can have such an insight. RESPONDENT: I have no concept of a soul, although I do define ‘me’ as the total, ongoing thinking that the body does mechanically. RICHARD: I have no concept of either ‘ego’ or ‘soul’ but I do define the identity parasitically inhabiting an otherwise salubrious flesh and blood body as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... because that is what various people tell me is happening for them. I only ever get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world ... there are no egos or souls in actuality. RESPONDENT: But this mechanical thinking, if I may differ from your point of view, does not have an insight into the nature of anything but itself as mechanical thinking. RICHARD: What ‘mechanical thinking’ are you referring to? * RESPONDENT: That unselfish energy is already here, now as ... um ... the body, as selfishness, and as the body freed of selfishness. All things are that. RICHARD: The insight occurs only as a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (which means that not only is ‘selfishness’ totally absent but that no other non-material disease is present either). RESPONDENT: The body ‘sans’ ‘I’ as ego and whatever you mean by ‘soul’ ‘is already operating as insight. RICHARD: Impossible ... soul is insight-as-non-material-energy (or non-material consciousness by whatever name). RESPONDENT: That is not the point. The point is that the body as ‘I’, as ego, and as whatever you mean by ‘soul’, must first have insight into its own nature as that which obstructs awareness. RICHARD: No ... not the body: it is ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul who do all the having of insights and so on. RESPONDENT: And that can certainly occur because the body that is still ‘I’ as ego, and whatever you mean by ‘soul’ exists already within the field of energy that is awareness. RICHARD: Not so ... the ‘field of energy that is awareness’ has no existence whatsoever in a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: Thought is part of the energy that is awareness. RICHARD: No, not in a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: It’s just that thought discovers it’s limitations as ‘me’. RICHARD: Not in a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. RESPONDENT: Then thought operates as a function of awareness alone, not as the belief in itself as an independent entity. RICHARD: Not the thought, operating episodically as the situation warrants, in a body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RESPONDENT: After that, there is no choice but to pay attention to everything that one is, does, no matter the ‘cost’, until the totality of insanity is completely understood. RICHARD: I agree. This is why I am so persistent in asking these questions. RESPONDENT: I see. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: And the complete understanding of it is the explosion out of it. RICHARD: Indeed a ‘complete understanding of it’ is essential ... therefore I can only ask again: Is it possible to have an insight into the nature of this ‘brief movement of energy’ in the ‘timelessness’ of the ‘non-material consciousness’? Why I am asking this again is because your original statement is this: [Respondent]: ‘The universe is inherently limited, being only an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’. Is it not so, that if the universe, which includes a planet earth peopled with humans epitomised by misery and mayhem, is as you say, ‘an ‘appearance’ of energy, a brief movement within the totality of consciousness’ , then all the misery and mayhem is sourced in that ‘brief movement within the totality of consciousness’? RESPONDENT: Yes. All things are that energy, though that energy is, in itself, no-thing. RICHARD: Is it not odd that nobody has seen how imperative it is to enable an insight into the nature of ‘that energy’ which is ‘in itself, no-thing’? RESPONDENT: I can’t say what ‘nobody’ has or has not seen. That would be presumptuous. RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to your words a couple of E-Mails ago? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I don’t know if anybody can have insight into the nature of ‘that energy which is ‘in itself’, no-thing’ ... RICHARD: Would you not agree that not knowing ‘if anybody can ...’ is more open than ‘nobody knows ‘how’ all this happens’? RESPONDENT: ... but I do feel that anybody can have an insight into him/herself as the prevailing energy that prohibits the full emergence of ‘that energy’ which is itself no-thing. RICHARD: Aye ... yet that has not and does not and will not enable peace-on-earth.
CORRESPONDENT No. 04: (Part Six) 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 |
