|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RESPONDENT: Hello, I checked this subject [Is there a condition beyond enlightenment?] because I say there is something beyond enlightenment, something that enlightenment may be a opening to, however I see no conversation about the subject. Have I missed something?RICHARD: I would be very interested in what you have to say about there being something beyond enlightenment. You write that it is ‘something that enlightenment may be a opening to’ ... could you expand a little on what you understand. It is a subject that I am very interested in. And I would say yes ... you do appear to have missed something. I have been presenting this topic for weeks now. If you wish to catch up, there are the archives you can access ... or you can go to my Web Page and click on ‘Mailing List B’. There is enough material there to keep you busy for quite a while.
RESPONDENT: To this interesting list, I wonder if any of you are complete, actualised, perfect, if so you may indeed see that the secret of life is to join and be joined by another and all of what you did and said would be to move towards this happening in order for it to happen. No. 10, Moving with and towards Sharon. RESPONDENT No. 12: If there is completeness, is there a movement to join or unite with some thing or someone else ‘out there’? By the way, No. 23 is relieved that you are not moving in on him. RESPONDENT: No not moving in on you, or any other, just seeing if a new way of being can be brought forth. If one becomes complete with themselves (perfect) a discovery may be made, we are a world of two, male and female, until we find a way (which is of what I speak) to join and become as one, this world will remain a violent, and ever deadening place. RICHARD: Surely you do not mean to imply that no matter what one does about eliminating one’s own malice and sorrow, that arises out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with, there can be no peacefulness and liveliness until one attains union with a member of the other gender? You do say that until one does ‘this world will remain a violent, and ever deadening place’. That means that one’s own achievements can be nullified by the intransigence of another ... hardly a recipe for successfully living life freely according to one’s own honest endeavours. Why, it puts one at the mercy of another’s predilection and proclivity! And even if one were to achieve this oneness with one other, would the entire world then be miraculously transformed? If so, do it, man, do it ... No. 23 has been waiting for ages for someone like you to act. And other people, too ... I watched the BBC ‘Hard Talk’ interview with Mr Robert McNamara (US Secretary for Defence during the Vietnam War) a couple of nights ago. He estimated that 160,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century. I have always understood it to be 100,000,000 ... which was bad enough. I would suggest that you and Sharon better get your act together sooner rather than later if Peace On Earth depends upon your joining and becoming as one ... there are 29 wars going on at this moment. All joking aside – for it is all somewhat pathetic rather than amusing – you came onto this list trumpeting a new ‘Transformation’ that lay ‘Beyond Enlightenment’. You said it was what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s Enlightenment ‘pointed to’ ... yet all I have seen written by you is ‘quantumised’ rehashes of the ‘Tried and True’ spiritual and metaphysical hocus-pocus which has been demonstrated to be the ‘Tried and Failed’ through thousands of years of appalling suffering by all who applied the revered and sacred ‘Teachings’ of ‘The Ancients’. Just what is so new and efficacious about oneness?
RESPONDENT: Richard, You are correct as to my failure on this list, and so far in the world as well, at Transforming anything (except myself). This however will not deter me one iota. I say there is such a happening as Transformation that is indeed beyond enlightenment, not as in better, just beyond, and while they are different enlightenment may well be a doorway to transformation, I have no proof. RICHARD: Your ‘Transformation’ has all the hall-marks of the age-old ‘Tried and True’ ... not something different or beyond. There is indeed something beyond enlightenment ... and I make no bones about it being vastly better. It is so superior that the chief characteristics of enlightenment – which your Transformation so far seems to have – are totally redundant. Attributes like Oneness, Love Agapé, Beauty, The Truth, Goodness, Universal Compassion, Timelessness, Spacelessness, Aloneness, Pacifism, Surrender and Trust and so on. RESPONDENT: Your comment about if two would ever join would this cause a Transformation of our world, I say it is possible that, ‘That’ just might be true. RICHARD: Hey, I was only joking ... ‘That’ is the stuff of folk-lore and fantasy. RESPONDENT: For sure at this point this is a lost, violent, confused world and something is needed soon. RICHARD: Not so ... it is only the real world – as manifested by normal human beings – that is ‘a lost, violent, confused world’. The real world is an illusion pasted over the top of the actual world. This actual world – which is apprehended sensately when there is no ‘I’ present in any way, shape or form – is clean and clear and pure and perfect because there is no good or evil here. In this actual world of sensual delight one then lives freely in the magical paradise, which this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe, actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending. Thus nothing ‘is needed soon’. It is, as it always has been, already perfect. You see, peace-on-earth already is here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: Thanks for your message, Interesting. RICHARD: I have noticed that the comment ‘Interesting’ is your way of deflecting anything that might impinge on your carefully crafted and quantumised paradigm.
RESPONDENT: Richard, You are correct as to my failure on this list, and so far in the world as well, at Transforming anything (except myself). This however will not deter me one iota. I say there is such a happening as Transformation that is indeed beyond enlightenment, not as in better, just beyond, and while they are different enlightenment may well be a doorway to transformation, I have no proof. RICHARD: Your ‘Transformation’ has all the hall-marks of the age-old ‘Tried and True’ ... not something different or beyond. RESPONDENT: Yes I have seen that as well it has been spoken of by many and in many different ways, this does not take away from the truth however . RICHARD: Of course it does not ‘take away from the truth’. This is because ‘the truth’ is not actual ... therefore it can be whatever one thinks that one feels it to be. Feelings are notoriously unreliable in determining facticity. * RICHARD: There is indeed something beyond enlightenment ... and I make no bones about it being vastly better. It is so superior that the chief characteristics of enlightenment – which your Transformation so far seems to have – are totally redundant. Attributes like Oneness, Love Agapé, Beauty, The Truth, Goodness, Universal Compassion, Timelessness, Spacelessness, Aloneness, Pacifism, Surrender and Trust and so on. RESPONDENT: Do not use most of those words, just oneness (being whole, perfect). RICHARD: Of course my list of spiritual words was not meant to be all-encompassing ... or all-exclusive, for that matter. I simply typed out a grab-bag of commonly used metaphysical words as a demonstration only. But upon closer examination of some of your previous posts one finds that you use more than ‘just oneness’. For example:
You see, what gives the impression of your ‘Transformation’ being nothing other than a quantumised re-hash of the ‘Tried and True’ is when you write things like:
Thought is perhaps the most useful tool ever to emerge on this planet ... and you castigate it like all the enlightened beings do. You wrote recently:
Where is your ‘Transformation’ different to enlightenment? Even this following phraseology is very, very familiar to New Age people:
And more to the point, that hoary one about ‘He who is truly wise knows nothing’ is trotted out by you ad infinitum:
It has now getting to the ridiculous stage in the West that one who actually knows something and can speak clearly about it is dismissed for wordiness. A recent post of mine received the supposedly well-considered condemnation that it was: ‘full of the anguish of thought’. It behoves us to understand what is going on, because Western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural ... as the Eastern mystical thought that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people is becoming more and more widespread. * RESPONDENT: Your comment about if two would ever join would this cause a Transformation of our world, I say it is possible that, ‘That’ just might be true. RICHARD: Hey, I was only joking ... ‘That’ is the stuff of folk-lore and fantasy. RESPONDENT: Richard, your joke is 100% serious to me. RICHARD: Oh dear, then you must be far more deeply mired in love and compassion and truth than I had realised. All is not lost, however, for it is never to late to wake up from the transformational delusion that one has inveigled oneself into. It was an understandable attempt to escape from the secular illusion of being but a thought-bound entity by taking a ‘quantum leap on the other side of thought’ ... that ‘dimension beyond thought’. One can effectively vanish in ‘my’ entirety. Just as thought can stop, so too can the ‘thinker’ disappear ... and the ‘feeler’. ‘I’ and ‘me’ cease to be, period. Then what I am (what, not ‘who’) is this flesh and blood body as an actuality. No sense of identity, no feeling of being whatsoever ... no psychological or psychic entity anywhere at all within or without the body to need to ‘bring forth a new world’. Needless to say, one has no need of aspiring to ‘join and become as one’ with a member of the other gender. * RESPONDENT: For sure at this point this is a lost, violent, confused world and something is needed soon. RICHARD: Not so ... it is only the real world – as manifested by normal human beings – that is ‘a lost, violent, confused world’. The real world is an illusion pasted over the top of the actual world. This actual world – which is apprehended sensately when there is no ‘I’ present in any way, shape or form – is clean and clear and pure and perfect because there is no good or evil here. In this actual world of sensual delight one then lives freely in the magical paradise, which this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe, actually is. Being here at this moment in time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending. RESPONDENT: Yes agreed we seem, at least to me to be speaking with different words of the same thing. RICHARD: Not so ... words like ‘Oneness’, ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’, ‘Openness’ and so on have no place here. Nor what those words ‘point to’, as you are also fond of saying. Here all can be described cleanly and with clarity ... and with no ambiguity whatsoever. Here thought and thinking, knowledge and knowing, seeing and understanding all have their place because the ‘thinker’ has vanished ... not thought. Thus it is entirely possible, throughout the vast majority of one’s time, for there to be no thoughts running at all ... none whatsoever. If thought is needed for a particular situation, it swings smoothly into action and effortlessly does its thing. All the while there is an apperceptive awareness of being here ... of being alive at this moment in time and this place in space. No words occur in the brain – other than when necessary – for it is a wordless appreciation of being able to be here now. Consequently, one is always blithe and carefree, even if one is doing nothing. Doing something – and that includes thinking – is a bonus of happiness and pleasure on top of this on-going ambrosial experience of being alive and awake and here on this verdant earth now. * RICHARD: Thus nothing ‘is needed soon’. It is, as it always has been, already perfect. You see, peace-on-earth already is here – here in this actual world – and no one needs to invent it. It is all a matter of entering into it; making it apparent; allowing it to emerge; watching it unfold ... or whatever description. Everyone is either rushing about trying to make an imitation peace ... or sitting back moaning and groaning about the inequity of it all. I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: Here we differ only slightly I was born into what you call perfect, or a perfect world. RICHARD: Methinks you were born into the same grim and glum real world that all sentient beings are born into ... or are you now claiming to be an Avatar? For you have written:
Also, what has happened – all of a sudden – to that ‘lost, violent, confused world’ that you say you have to do something about? Do you remember writing:
* RESPONDENT: Thanks for your message, Interesting. RICHARD: I have noticed that the comment ‘Interesting’ is your way of deflecting anything that might impinge on your carefully crafted and quantumised paradigm. RESPONDENT: The ‘interesting’ comment was given you replied to my message and that you put all of yourself onto the reply, therefore I saw it as interesting. RICHARD: In what way is it ‘interesting’? To say that is interesting because I ‘put all of myself onto the reply’ means nothing as the most notorious dictator puts all of themselves into their trip. In common usage, that word is non-committal ... which is why I see it in the same way as you have written to others who scratch a bit closely at your carefully-crafted ‘Transformation’. Things like: ‘Hum, yes’ and: ‘Hum okay’ and so on. When someone questioned you on this you replied with words to the effect that if that was what they thought then that was okay by you. Non-committal once again. Please, be bold – be daring – and take a stance in what you do know. One must start from where one is at now.
RICHARD: Please, be bold – be daring – and take a stance in what you do know. One must start from where one is at now. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have no bold, daring inside of me, only Love, (not its mirror image which is of knowledge). RICHARD: Such a self-effacing stance does you no credit at all ... all your posts to this List (quite a few of which I quoted in my last post) show that you have a lot of knowledge. My point was that your knowledge was of the ‘Tried and True’ variety and not something different. This is not me merely harping, for it is an important point to establish. Why this is important is because you go on to say that the status quo is not working. Viz.:
Agreed. Is this not because people know of nothing better than the ‘Tried and True’ solutions that have been promulgated ad nauseam for centuries?
Yes indeed. Such destruction can be observed all around. A recent estimate puts the number of people killed in wars this century alone at 160,000,000 people. Not to mention whole cities destroyed.
This so-called ‘root cause’ is what I am asking people to question ... and question deeply, thoughtfully, considerately.
Unfortunately you have rushed to a conclusion already. Where is the evidence that this is the solution? For thousands of years – maybe tens of thousands of years – humankind has known of no alternative manner of living life on this verdant planet. The passing parade of Masters and Sages have failed abysmally to deliver their oft-promised ‘Peace On Earth’ ... in fact, with their much-vaunted love and virtue, they have left in their wake much hatred and bloodshed, the likes of which beggars description. Millions of well-meaning followers have diligently put their Teachings into practice, prostrating and belittling themselves like all get-out in a hopeful attempt to live the un-liveable. Yet no-one, it seems, dares to question the Teachings themselves; instead the humiliated penitents obligingly blame themselves for failing to achieve release from the ‘Human Condition’. To seek freedom via profound and lofty thought or sublime and exalted feelings is to blindly perpetuate all the horrors and sufferings that have plagued humankind since time immemorial. The time has come to put to an end, once and for all, the blight that has encumbered this fair earth for far too long. It behoves one to question all of the received ‘wisdom’ of the centuries, all of the revealed ‘truths’ ... all of the half-baked inanities that pass for understanding. Then, and only then, there is a fair chance that one can come to an actual freedom ... a freedom the nature of which has never been before in human experience. The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who,
although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable.
Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an
ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless. In spite of the glamour and the glory of the Altered State Of
Consciousness, closer examination reveals that these ‘Great’ persons had – and have – feet of clay The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. My writing is both heretical and iconoclastic ... it is a fact that I make no apology for. The wars and rapes and murders and tortures and corruptions that curse this globe are far too serious a matter to deal with for me to spend time in mincing words. The Divine Beings have been peddling their snake oil for centuries to no avail. Their time has come to either put up or shut up ... how much longer than these thousands of years do peoples need to further test the efficaciousness of their failed Divine Message? If Love Agapé and Divine Compassion, for example, were the way to go, then there would already be global peace, as they have had two to three thousand years to demonstrate their effectiveness as being the ultimate solution. There is no ‘Peace On Earth’ ... nor has there ever been; there has only ever been a truce from time to time between warring parties. To call these periods ‘peacetime’ is to misuse the word and make it mean something it does not.
RICHARD: The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. RESPONDENT: Richard, agreed as to the death of the ego not being sufficient, it takes the death of the entire person and a new birth to create a new way of being. RICHARD: Why a ‘new birth’? Were not the calamities caused by the presence of the old identity warning enough for you to avoid any new identity – with all its spurious solutions – as if it were the plague? And what ‘new way of being’ are you referring too? Is it not but a re-hash of the ‘Tried and True’? With all the Glamour and Glory and Glitz that accompanies any ‘new way of being’, is one blind to the consequences of re-applying what is obviously the tried and failed? Does not even a cursory study of history show the connection between the religious wars that have inevitably followed the latest outbreak of ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’ and ‘The Truth’ and the person who lives this ‘new birth’? Has this not been happening, in the form of those rare few who have managed the transmogrify their self via a ‘new birth’, for thousands of years now? When, do you think, anyone will learn from the mistakes of the past? * RICHARD: The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: Living in the unknown means to not know what to do at any mini second of one’s life, is just doing. RICHARD: Yes, it is this ‘not knowing’ that has caused so many problems to be perpetuated. Amazingly, it has become a virtue to say that one does not know (‘he who is truly wise does not know’). Why do you not want to face up to the appalling results of your ‘not knowing/ just doing’ position? Have you not had at least a glimpse of ‘The Unknowable’?
RICHARD: The death of the ego is not sufficient: the extinction of the identity in its entirety is the essential ingredient for peace and prosperity to reign over all and everyone. RESPONDENT: Richard, agreed as to the death of the ego not being sufficient, it takes the death of the entire person and a new birth to create a new way of being. RICHARD: Why a ‘new birth’? Were not the calamities caused by the presence of the old identity warning enough for you to avoid any new identity – with all its spurious solutions – as if it were the plague? And what ‘new way of being’ are you referring too? Is it not but a re-hash of the ‘Tried and True’? With all the Glamour and Glory and Glitz that accompanies any ‘new way of being’, is one blind to the consequences of re-applying what is obviously the tried and failed? Does not even a cursory study of history show the connection between the religious wars that have inevitably followed the latest outbreak of ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’ and ‘The Truth’ and the person who lives this ‘new birth’? Has this not been happening, in the form of those rare few who have managed the transmogrify their self via a ‘new birth’, for thousands of years now? When, do you think, anyone will learn from the mistakes of the past? * RICHARD: The blame for the continuation of human misery lies squarely in the lap of those inspired people who, although having sufficient courage to proceed into the Unknown, stopped short of the final goal ... the Unknowable. Notwithstanding the cessation of a personal ego operating, they were unwilling to relinquish the Self or Spirit ... and an ego-less Self or Spirit is still an identity, nevertheless. RESPONDENT: Living in the unknown means to not know what to do at any mini second of ones life, is just doing. RICHARD: Yes, it is this ‘not knowing’ that has caused so many problems to be perpetuated. Amazingly, it has become a virtue to say that one does not know (‘he who is truly wise does not know’). Why do you not want to face up to the appalling results of your ‘not knowing/ just doing’ position? Have you not had at least a glimpse of ‘The Unknowable’? RESPONDENT: Richard, You speak as if a person who has Transformed them self is responsible for the violence of this world. RICHARD: No, I do not say that your ‘Transformation’ causes violence ... I say that it perpetuates violence. RESPONDENT: The violence has been here forever and I for one am bringing forth a new world, void of violence. RICHARD: Yet the world that you are bringing forth is full of ‘Love’ ... and ‘Truth’ and ‘Compassion’ and so on. There is nothing new about this ... it has all been tried before. As for being ‘void of violence’ ... please look carefully at the nature of Love and Compassion.
RESPONDENT: As to others being reborn, to be reborn is to be the same old same old, once again, given the person was reborn. RICHARD: But nowhere did I say ‘reborn’ ... I used your phraseology. Viz.: ‘new birth’ (see above). I took particular care to ask: ‘Why a ‘new birth’ ... why any new identity (which is what a ‘new way of being’ is)? RESPONDENT: To be born new is something 100% different. It means and is ‘new’, new being: ‘not having been here before’. RICHARD: It initially appears to be that way, yet a closer examination reveals that this ‘new way of being’ that you refer to has the same characteristics as the ‘Tried and True’ ... ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’ and ‘The Truth’ and so on. What is 100% different about that? This has all most certainly been here before ... so how can you so blatantly say ‘not having been here before’ and yet not see the obvious? RESPONDENT: As to the results of my not knowing, just doing, they are not in yet completely. RICHARD: I was asking you to look at the lessons of history ... those results are well and truly in! RESPONDENT: The results so far however show a large failure on my part. RICHARD: Well, maybe there is a chance yet for you to go beyond the ‘Tried and True’. RESPONDENT: As to ‘The Unknowable’ for 18+ years now I have been the unknowable. RICHARD: Oh dear ... the ‘Unknowable’ is not something that you can ‘be’. Do you not see that ‘being’ is the root cause of all the anguish and animosity that has been the hall-mark of humanity for aeons? RESPONDENT: And for most I am invisible. RICHARD: You say ‘for most’ and ‘invisible’? To live the ‘Unknowable’ extinction must occur ... which means total annihilation. Not being ‘invisible’ ... and certainly not ‘for most’. When there is no ‘new birth’ (which is not possible where there has been a total annihilation) then there is no need for ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’ and so on, for then there is peace-on-earth ... here and now. It is already here ... it has always been here and always will be.
RESPONDENT: Richard, You speak as if a person who has Transformed them self is responsible for the violence of this world. RICHARD: No, I do not say that your ‘Transformation’ causes violence ... I say that it perpetuates violence. RESPONDENT: Hum, Ok, as you see it. RICHARD: Yes, but I do not need you to tell me that that is how I see it because I already know that this is the way that I see it ... this is born out of my experience. What is important is whether you see it or not. Do you even want to look? RESPONDENT: The violence has been here forever and I for one am bringing forth a new world, void of violence. RICHARD: Yet the world that you are bringing forth is full of ‘Love’ ... and ‘Truth and Compassion’ and so on. There is nothing new about this ... it has all been tried before. As for being ‘void of violence’ ... please look carefully at the nature of Love and Compassion. What fuels Love? Where does it get its energy from if not from malice? And what fuels Compassion? Does not Compassion thrive on sorrow? RESPONDENT: The truth no matter how often discovered will always be the same. RICHARD: So why are you trumpeting your ‘Transformation’ as being something new? RESPONDENT: Compassion needs no thing to thrive on, and Love needs no fuel, are you a fool? RICHARD: No ... but I was a fool for eleven years ... yet during that time I was somehow aware that both Love and Compassion were being fuelled. My question was: By whom? Obviously you are blinded by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz and cannot see the malicious and sorrowful undercurrent that your ‘Transformation’ sits upon ... the diabolical down-side of the exalted ‘new way of being’. I can demonstrate by asking one question:
RESPONDENT: As to others being reborn, to be reborn is to be the same old same old, once again, given the person was reborn. RICHARD: But nowhere did I say ‘reborn’ ... I used your phraseology. Viz.: ‘new birth’ (see above). I took particular care to ask: ‘Why a ‘new birth’ ... why any new identity (which is what a ‘new way of being’ is)? RESPONDENT: Big Smile. I wondered if you would catch this mistake of mine, Perfect! As to a new identity no, just a new Human with a New consciousness, bring forth a New World. RICHARD: Yet with the same old ‘Truth’, ‘Love’ and ‘Compassion’ and so on. Methinks there is a new identity in there that is producing these attributes. RESPONDENT: To be born new is something 100% different. It means and is ‘new’, new being: ‘not having been here before. RICHARD: It initially appears to be that way, yet a closer examination reveals that this ‘new way of being’ that you refer to has the same characteristics as the ‘Tried and True’ ... ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’ and ‘The Truth’ and so on. What is 100% different about that? This has all most certainly been here before ... so how can you so blatantly say ‘not having been here before’ and yet not see the obvious? RESPONDENT: What stops you from seeing the obvious? RICHARD: Answering a question with a counter-question – especially the same one – is such a petty debating trick that I wonder that you use it. This is not a debate I am engaged in here ... but perhaps that is all it is for you? Yet I will answer your question: nothing stops me from seeing the obvious because a closer examination revealed that this ‘new way of being’ that you refer to has the same characteristics as the ‘Tried and True’ ... ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’ and ‘The Truth’ and so on. So let me re-ask the question: ‘What is 100% different about all that? This ‘Love’ and ‘Compassion’ and ‘Truth’ and so on most certainly have been here before ... so how can you so blatantly say ‘not having been here before’? RESPONDENT: As to the results of my not knowing, just doing, they are not in yet completely. RICHARD: I was asking you to look at the lessons of history ... those results are well and truly in! RESPONDENT: The results so far however show a large failure on my part. RICHARD: Well, maybe there is a chance yet for you to go beyond the ‘Tried and True’. RESPONDENT: As to ‘The Unknowable’ for 18+ years now I have been the unknowable. RICHARD: Oh dear ... the ‘Unknowable’ is not something that you can ‘be’. Do you not see that ‘being’ is the root cause of all the anguish and animosity that has been the hall-mark of humanity for aeons? RESPONDENT: Hum, Ok, expert as you wish! RICHARD: This is so silly, this kind of non-answer. It does not become you at all if you are as you say that you are: ‘Transformed’. If so, then what is so wrong with being an expert? Why is expertise so ill-regarded by you? When I want to find out about something I do not know, I go to an expert on that subject ... not an ignoramus. RESPONDENT: And for most I am invisible. RICHARD: You say ‘for most’ and ‘invisible’? To live the ‘Unknowable’ extinction must occur ... which means total annihilation. Not being ‘invisible’ ... and certainly not ‘for most’. RESPONDENT: Yes again as you say, most knowing of all. RICHARD: But your ‘yes’ means nothing, for you will not look at what is going on for you. You are being questioned about something rather vital and you brush it away with a repetitious and childish debating ploy. * RICHARD: When there is no ‘new birth’ (which is not possible where there has been a total annihilation) then there is no need for ‘Love’, ‘Compassion’, ‘Truth’ and so on, for then there is peace-on-earth ... here and now. It is already here ... it has always been here and always will be. RESPONDENT: Hum! RICHARD: If you are wishing to convey something other than the impression that you are dogmatically stupid you are going to have to explain what ‘Hum!’ means to you. It is apparently an important part of your ‘Transformation’ because you use it a lot ... usually when someone comes close to the bone. Your avoidance of any genuine two-way discussion creates the impression that you cannot back your words with anything substantial. Your ‘Transformation’ is starting to look like something less than enlightenment ... not something beyond.
RESPONDENT: The one thing that your redundant messages say more than any other thing is ‘Tried and True’. RICHARD: In what way do you mean ‘redundant’? Do you mean my messages are exceeding what is necessary or normal ... in other words: they are superfluous? Or do you mean containing an excess ... as in using more words than necessary? Or do you mean characterised by similarity or repetition? Or do you just mean that they are of no use to you? If it is the last meaning then you can always simply ignore my posts and utilise the ‘delete’ button ... but I would remind you that you started this thread by asking for comments. Viz.: ‘To this interesting list, I wonder if any of you are complete, actualised, perfect, if so you may indeed see that the secret of life is to join and be joined by another and all of what you did and said would be to move towards this happening in order for it to happen. No. 10, Moving with and towards Sharon’. RESPONDENT: What these two words mean to me is ‘Tried’ an excuse for having failed before any action is taken. ‘True’ a truth that many have seen and then they ‘tried’ to convey it, and failed. RICHARD: Whilst that may be what they mean for you as separate words, what those words mean as a phrase has something more to say than their individual meanings ... either yours or someone else’s. It is simply an English expression like ‘Time-Honoured’ or ‘Stood The Test Of Time’ or ‘Open And Shut Case’ or ‘Taken As Proved’ or ‘Tested And Proved’ and so on. My use of the words was in a phrase (which I emphasised by capitalisation and enclosing them in quotes) and that phrase-meaning is what I am describing. And I am saying that your ‘Transformation’ has all the hall-marks of Spiritual Enlightenment. And Spiritual Enlightenment is something which, if anything does, most certainly qualifies as being the ‘Tried and True’. My point is that Spiritual Enlightenment has failed ... again and again. It has been hawked around for thousands of years ... and there is still no Peace On Earth as it is claimed it would bring. Hence I say that it is the ‘Tried and Failed’. However, your ‘Transformation’ is starting to look like something less than enlightenment even ... most certainly not something beyond. No wonder you say you are not effective. RESPONDENT: While I have not succeeded as yet, I am not trying to. RICHARD: Yes, I can see that by what you write. Tell me ... do you ever read your posts back to yourself before you send them? Just curious.
RESPONDENT: If all of you will I need feed back from each of you. I have posted many messages to you and with each I ‘Hold Back’ given I do not care to ‘touch your ego’ (hurt you). If permission is given me to speak as needed with no concern as to feeling it would be perfect. RICHARD: If you see that ‘concern as to feeling’ is a factor to take into consideration in your dealings with others ... then why can you not see that feelings are the root cause of mayhem and misery? Other people’s precious feelings do not rule me.
RESPONDENT: If all of you will I need feed back from each of you. I have posted many messages to you and with each I ‘Hold Back’ given I do not care to ‘touch your ego’ (hurt you). If permission is given me to speak as needed with no concern as to feeling it would be perfect. RICHARD: If you see that ‘concern as to feeling’ is a factor to take into consideration in your dealings with others ... then why can you not see that feelings are the root cause of sorrow and malice? Other people’s precious feelings do not rule me. RESPONDENT: Richard, With a Huge Smile I say I see it. RICHARD: I think not. If you do see that feelings are the root cause, then why do you advocate Love and Compassion as the cure? It is like throwing petrol on a fire to put it out. RESPONDENT: If another’s feelings are not taken into consideration, you will be speaking with and to yourself only. RICHARD: There speaks he who says that he has been failing for nineteen years. There are people here where I live – and at other places in the world – who both listen and speak with me with more than a passing interest. There are some who are fascinated with life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in this world as it is with people as they are. There are, in fact, some people in this world who have not lost the plot so completely as to turn away when someone points out that feelings are the bane of humankind. If I were indeed ‘speaking with and to myself only’ then I would have packed my bags long ago and gone to live on some tropical island paradise to watch the fish leap in the lagoon. RESPONDENT: All people are conditioned to reject truth. RICHARD: Au contraire ... they seek it like all get-out. They are blinded by the Glamour and the Glory and the Glitz of ‘The Truth’ and cannot see its diabolical underpinnings. RESPONDENT: You included. RICHARD: I reject it because I see it for what it is ... not because I am conditioned to reject it. ‘The Truth’ is rotten at its very core.
RICHARD (to No. 31): How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with
people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: Hum, Richard, you can’t. RICHARD: Indeed not ... such a simple statement, non? RESPONDENT: And what need is there for ‘happily and harmlessly’. RICHARD: What need is there for me to be living happily in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? The need to put an end to all the sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ... that is what need is there for me to be living happily. What need is there for me to be living harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? The need to put an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse ... that is what need is there for me to be living harmlessly. RESPONDENT: If there is ‘malice and sorrow’, the malice and sorrow will overcome the ‘happy and harmless’ in an instant or less! RICHARD: Yet you have already agreed (above) that whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom I cannot live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... did you not? Therefore there is no ‘happy and harmless’ to be ‘overcome in an instant or less’ with ‘malice and sorrow’ ... this sentence of yours is nothing but an entirely pointless observation. Was it not such a simple statement after all?
RICHARD (to No. 3): Therefore I ask, just how much longer will a ‘Tried and Failed’ system
continue to be so highly revered despite its abject failure to produce the goods? Is it because these attitudes and attributes
form a ‘web’ of solace and succour wherein ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul can be comforted, stroked, endorsed and
perpetuated? Is this why nobody will put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous
scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean? RICHARD: Off-limits. (Oxford Dictionary: sacrosanct: exempt from criticism; inviolable, sacred; secured from violation or infringement (as) by religious sanction). RESPONDENT: As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any). RICHARD: As you are on record as defining ‘Intelligence’ as being ‘love in action’ then am I to take it that you, too, are not going to put it under the microscope? I guess not ... given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through, eh? RESPONDENT: Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie! (No. 10, being non knowledgeable). RICHARD: Aye ... and to think that all this while you have been busily being an ‘empty vessel’ for something that is ‘not real’ to come through. Is this because Love and/or Truth is sacrosanct?
RICHARD (to No. 3): If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ...
why not feelings? Are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean? RICHARD: Off-limits. (Oxford Dictionary: sacrosanct: exempt from criticism; inviolable, sacred; secured from violation or infringement (as) by religious sanction). RESPONDENT: As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any). RICHARD: As you are on record as defining ‘Intelligence’ as being ‘love in action’ then am I to take it that you, too, are not going to put it under the microscope? I guess not ... given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through, eh? RESPONDENT: Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie!! (No. 10, being non knowledgeable). RICHARD: Aye ... and to think that all this while you have been busily being an ‘empty vessel’ for something that is ‘not real’ to come through. Is this because Love and/or Truth is sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: Hum. Please tell me anew, what does sacrosanct mean to you, Richard, perhaps using one word? No. 10, an empty vessel, for something that is ‘not real’ (or real) to pass through, unencumbered! RICHARD: Is it because ‘off-limits’ is hyphenated that it does not constitute one word for you? Why is it important that it be a single word? But, okay then ... how about these: ‘unchallengeable’, ‘untouchable’, ‘unalterable’, ‘interdicted’, ‘exempt’, ‘precluded’, ‘taboo’, ‘forbidden’, ‘prohibited’, ‘banned’, ‘proscribed’, ‘vetoed’, ‘outlawed’, ‘embargoed’, ‘excluded’, and/or ‘inalienable’? How about that, eh ... not a hyphen in sight? Now, what about two words? Viz.: ‘sacred cows’, ‘ruled out’, ‘not permitted’, ‘not acceptable’, ‘frowned on’, ‘beyond the pale’ and/or ‘it is not the done thing’ (oops, more than two words). So, to re-run the question: ‘Why will nobody put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings ‘off-limits’ as in being unchallengeable and untouchable and unalterable and interdicted and exempt and precluded and tabooed and forbidden and prohibited and banned and proscribed and vetoed and outlawed and embargoed and excluded and inalienable ‘sacred cows’? Are feelings ‘ruled out’ of scrutiny as in being not permitted and not acceptable and frowned on and beyond the pale to examine because it is not the done thing to be iconoclastic?’ In a word: are feelings sacrosanct?
RICHARD: Why will nobody put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings ‘off-limits’ as in being unchallengeable and untouchable and unalterable and interdicted and exempt and precluded and tabooed and forbidden and prohibited and banned and proscribed and vetoed and outlawed and embargoed and excluded and inalienable ‘sacred cows’? Are feelings ‘ruled out’ of scrutiny as in being not permitted and not acceptable and frowned on and beyond the pale to examine because it is not the done thing to be iconoclastic?’ In a word: are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: No, feelings are not sacrosanct. RICHARD: Good. May I ask? Now that over a week has gone by, what have you discovered in regards to the original question that prompted you to ask ‘Hum Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean?’ and tell me that ‘As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any)’? Viz.:
Now, I only ask this because you are on record as defining ‘Intelligence’ as being ‘love in action’ and I took it that you, too, were not going to put it under the microscope (given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through) because you then thought that ‘Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’. So, now that you have unambiguously told me that feelings are not sacrosanct (even to the point of examining the word twice) I am very interested to hear of your examination of, say, love and compassion and beauty? I do look forward to your considered response.
RICHARD: Why will nobody put love and compassion and beauty under a microscope? If thought can get such rigorous scrutiny as the Mailing List gives it ... why not feelings? Are feelings sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: No, feelings are not sacrosanct. RICHARD: Good. What have you discovered in regards to the original question that prompted you to ask ‘Hum Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean?’ and tell me that ‘As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any)’? Now, I only ask this because you are on record as defining ‘Intelligence’ as being ‘love in action’ and I took it that you, too, were not going to put it under the microscope (given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through) because you then thought that ‘Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’. So, now that you have unambiguously told me that feelings are not sacrosanct (even to the point of examining the word twice) I am very interested to hear of your examination of, say, love and compassion and beauty? RESPONDENT: Okay Richard, here it is: Love: has no feelings; is eternal; cannot be ‘perfectly’ described. RICHARD: If Love ‘has no feelings’, as you say, is it because it ‘cannot be ‘perfectly’ described’ that it cannot be perfectly examined? If you cannot put it into words satisfactorily (cannot think about it thoroughly) then how can you understand it ... let alone examine it for its feeling content? To put it another way: if Love is not affective ... what is its disposition? If Love is not cognitive ... what is its constitution? If Love is not sensate ... what is its nature? Because, if Love ‘is eternal’ as you say (and flesh and blood bodies are not), then is Love not immaterial (non-physical)? RESPONDENT: Compassion: something a person needs for themself to themself 100% of the day. RICHARD: If Compassion is ‘something a person needs for themself to themselves’ then it is obviously essential ... especially as you explicitly state ‘100% of the day’. If it is that crucial, then does it stand scrutiny for being impeccable? Is Compassion affective in its nature ... or sensate (surely it is not cognitive)? RESPONDENT: Beauty: I don’t know, it is of thought that beauty is born. RICHARD: Ahh ... but is beauty solely the product of thought? Does it not have an affective component (as in ‘it was so beautiful it took my breath away’)? And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought? RESPONDENT: (No. 10, who lives under a 2000 power microscope of himself 100% of the time). RICHARD: Good. With such discerning power as that we should be able to proceed famously, non?
RESPONDENT: (No. 10, who lives under a 2000 power microscope of himself 100% of the time). RICHARD: Good. With such discerning power as that we should be able to proceed famously, non? RESPONDENT: Proceed with what Richard? RICHARD: Well, silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all? RESPONDENT: Perhaps with your constant need to look smart? RICHARD: No ... I simply wish for my fellow human being to be happy and harmless; to be freed of the malice and sorrow that they nurse in their bosom because all of the Saints and the Sages, the Gurus and the God-Men, the Masters and the Messiahs, the Avatars and the Saviours have all instructed them to revere love and compassion ... and without malice and sorrow to sublimate and transcend (transcend not eliminate) Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are stillborn. If you consider that I am being smart just because I actually care about peace-on-earth, then no wonder there are so many wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides. RESPONDENT: Or your need to look Intelligent? RICHARD: As I am on record as saying again and again that there is no ‘Intelligence’ this is just a silly statement. RESPONDENT: Or your need to control? RICHARD: My ‘need to control’ what? RESPONDENT: All of your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority!! RICHARD: May I ask? Why this hang-up about authority? If I wish to learn to play the piano, I go to an expert piano-player ... I do not invent piano-playing all over again from the beginning. There are two meanings to the word ‘authority’ and the one that causes all the troubles is the one connected with power. (The power of the authority to enforce obedience; the power of the authority to enforce moral or legal judgements; the power of the authority to command or give the final decision; the power of the authority to control; the power of the authority of a governing body; the power of an authoritative holy book; the power of the authority to inspire belief and so on). The second – less used – meaning is: an expert on a particular subject. Because I live in an actual freedom twenty four hours a day, I am automatically an expert about what it is like to experience freedom from the Human Condition. I have no power – or powers – whatsoever. It is very simple to be an expert on actual freedom ... one has but to live it and report to others from this on-going experience of being here now. (Expert as in specialist, professional, virtuoso ... or being experienced, proficient, able, accomplished, apt, competent and so on). I freely acknowledge – and delight in – my expertise on all matters pertaining to actual freedom and spiritual enlightenment. This expertise is drawn out of my personal experience on a day-to-day basis, for the last eighteen years ... twenty four hours a day. If you wish to maintain that this makes me an ‘authority’ as in the spiritual meaning of the word ‘master’ then you are entirely missing the point of all I have said, written and demonstrated. Because those otherwise intelligent ‘Enlightened Beings’ have surrendered their integrity to the psychic Power that lies hidden as the ‘Unmanifest Authority’ behind the scenes. This divine entity can go by many names, most of them obviously a god, but the most pernicious is the one usually described as either ‘The Truth’ or ‘The Absolute’. To have surrendered to ‘that which is sacred’ is the root cause of all the religious wars that have beset this planet since time immemorial. Power is what the ‘authority’ of a guru/ master/ sage/ avatar/ messiah/ saint is all about. As they have surrendered to an ‘Higher Authority’, everyone else has to slot into the inevitable hierarchy which ensues. And so the battles rage. The hunger for power – or the subservience to it – is the curse of humanity. Curiously enough, the ‘energy’ that this power manifests as – whilst going under many and varied a nomenclature – is what I call Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. In an actual freedom it is readily experienced and understood that Divine Compassion – which is born out of sorrow – is but a paltry substitute for the over-arching benevolence of the actual world. Similarly, Love Agapé is seen and known to be a pathetic surrogate for the actual intimacy of direct experiencing ... Love Agapé and Divine Compassion are deep feelings which the psychological or psychic identity within creates in order to sustain itself and perpetuate its self-centred existence. Love is born out of malice and is touted as being the cure-all for humankind’s failings because it imitates the intimacy of the actual via a feeling of oneness. The feeling of oneness creates an erroneous impression that separation is ended ... but the self survives triumphant, only to wreak its havoc in the real world once again. Life can be a grim and glum business in the real world, for separation ceases only when the psychological and psychic entity inside the body – the ego and the soul – is extirpated. In actual freedom there is a universal magnanimity which is so vastly superior to petty forgiveness or pardon that any comparison is worthless. Actual intimacy – being here now – does not come from love and compassion, for the affective states of being stem from separation. The illusion of intimacy that love and compassion produces is but a meagre imitation of the direct experience of the actual. In the actual world, ‘I’ as ego, the personality, and ‘me’ as soul, the ‘being’ – both subjectively experienced as one’s identity – have ceased to exist; whereas love and compassion accentuates, endorses and verifies ‘me’ as being real. And while ‘I’ am real, ‘I’ am relative to other similarly afflicted persons; vying for position and status in order to establish ‘my’ credentials ... to verify ‘my’ very existence. To be actually intimate is to be without the separative identity ... and therefore free from the need for love and compassion with their ever un-filled promise of Peace On Earth. There is an actual intimacy between me and everyone and everything ... actual intimacy is a direct experiencing of the other as-they-are. I am having a superb time ... and it is a well-earned superb time, too. Nothing has come without application – apart from serendipitous discoveries because of pure intent – and I am reaping the rewards which are plentiful and deliciously satisfying. Actual intimacy frees one up to a world of factual splendour, based firmly upon sensate and sensual delight. The candid and unabashed sensorial enjoyment of being this body in the world around is such a luscious and immediate experience, that the tantalising but ever-elusive promise of the mystique of love and compassion has faded into the oblivion it deserves. RESPONDENT: No. 10, caring sacrosanctuously. RICHARD: Indeed you do. I guess you do not have any ‘constant need to look smart’ or any ‘need to look Intelligent’ or any ‘need to control’ ... given that you are either saying that you are sacred and holy in character and/or are therefore exempt from criticism and inviolable? (Dictionary Definition): sanctimoniously; (adverb); Holy in character; sacred, consecrated (or affecting piety, pretending sanctity); sacrosanctity; (noun); the position, state or condition of being sacrosanct). Thus, upon closer examination, yet another shining light of the K-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. Oh well, c’est la vie, I guess.
RESPONDENT: All of your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority!! RICHARD: May I ask? Why this hang-up about authority? If I wish to learn to play the piano, I go to an expert piano-player ... I do not invent piano-playing all over again from the beginning. <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Huge Smile Richard, while your answer was long and ever repeating your other messages, I thank you for the intent. RICHARD: Seeing that my intent is to have feelings (like love and compassion and beauty) receive the self-same scrutiny as this Mailing List gives to thought and that seeing that you have adroitly avoided the issue entirely, whilst proclaiming that ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’, by trying to convince me (like you have convinced yourself) that by saying ‘Love: has no feelings; is eternal; cannot be ‘perfectly’ described’ and that ‘Compassion: something a person needs for themself to themself 100% of the day’ and that ‘Beauty: I don’t know, it is of thought that beauty is born’ that it constitutes an exploration, then I would say that you have good reason to have a ‘Huge Smile’ ... albeit a smug, self-satisfied smile. If my answer was indeed ‘long and ever repeating my other messages’ ... what has that to do with your avowal that ‘No [feelings are not sacrosanct]’ yet all the while trying to duck-shove the issue with a bland ‘I thank you for the intent’ response? Why not address the question? Given that you have oft-times proudly explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through, why do you wish to remain ignorant of the constitution, disposition or nature of this miraculous cure-all that you are channelling through to a benighted humanity? Do you actually care about your fellow human? You may think that you are fooling me, but you are only fooling yourself, when all is said and done. RESPONDENT: There was no anger. RICHARD: Why would you feel prompted to say this? As we were talking about love and compassion and beauty and not anger, then what has anger – or no anger – got to do with the issue under discussion? Is this another red-herring ... or ... or mayhap there was some anger, eh? Otherwise, why mention it? RESPONDENT: Just a little throw back at me what I threw towards you, noted. RICHARD: Hmm ... No. 5 has surely started something with this ‘such-and-such noted’ business
(instead of addressing the question). Amongst other mimics, No. 14 has caught this disease as well Anyway, why would you throw ‘what I [No. 10] threw towards you [Richard]’ in the first place ... unless you were avoiding the question with some puerile attack? By writing to a Mailing List, purportedly set-up to explore the appalling mess that is the human condition, I take it for granted that you are genuine about peace as a starting point. Speaking personally, I am not here just to play games, like ‘throwback’, or whatever sport it is that you fondly imagine that you are up to with your sanctimonious ‘Huge Smile’. Why not explore these queries instead of throwing things at me and ‘noting’ my response? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Thanks., what is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect). RICHARD: It means ‘such is life’ as in ‘what else could one expect’ (I use it to ‘note’ that what is happening now is the same-same as what has always been happening and will continue to happen like it has already been happening unless someone does something radical so as to subvert the status quo). Basically I ‘noted’ that you are merely repeating the past.
RICHARD: Why not explore these queries instead of throwing things at me and ‘noting’ my response? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Yes it is and must be thought first then exclaimed. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement:
The reason that I ask is that he seems to be saying ‘it is essential to have that deep feeling for life’ and that it ‘is essential to appreciate beauty’ because beauty ‘is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth’. Furthermore, it is because ‘we do not have that feeling for beauty’ that ‘there is no love’ because ‘love is really the very essence of beauty’. In fact, he says again, ‘it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ and that you must have a ‘sensitive mind’, which is a ‘defenceless mind’, because it is such a ‘vulnerable mind’ that can allow ‘truth to enter’. Yet you say that beauty is solely the product of thought ... and you ought to know because you have oft-times explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through. Now, as you also say that ‘love has no feelings’, because ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’, and that ‘truth cannot be found in beauty nor thought for both are thought’ I therefore take it that you are thoughtless when this ‘empty vessel’ business is happening? If so, what is the difference between your thoughtless mind and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s defenceless mind? He obviously has deep feelings (of love and beauty) and you do not ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. * RICHARD: Does beauty not have an affective component (as in ‘it was so beautiful it took my breath away’)? RESPONDENT: NO, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement:
The reason that I ask is that he seems to be saying that if you do not ‘have a sense of beauty in your life’, which is not ‘sensual, nor sexual’, then your life is ‘mediocre, meaningless, an everlasting struggle from morning until night’. In fact, he says, ‘without beauty in your heart, you cannot flower in goodness’. Having pointed that out, he goes on to explain how to do it by seeing the ‘extraordinary beauty of the earth’ which will ‘make you forget yourself’ (which is what I meant by the ‘it took my breath away’ phrase) and ‘only that grandeur exists’ ... which means that ‘you are not’. And when ‘you’ are not ‘truth is, beauty is, love is’ ... and yet you say that this process of accessing truth via beauty ‘is from thought’. I am really curious. * RICHARD: And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought?’ RESPONDENT: Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’. (‘Freedom From The Known’, ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). The reason that I ask is that he is definitely saying that ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ are all one and the same thing ... with no ifs, buts or maybes. Can all this (truth and/or god) be nothing a product of thought (love and/or beauty) for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti then? Do you see why I wish to put love and compassion and beauty and truth and so on under the same scrutiny that this Mailing List gives to thought? There is quite some cloudiness around this issue which needs clarifying and, seeing that you are channelling this miraculous cure-all through to a benighted humanity, to remain ignorant of the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth would indicate that you actually do not care about your fellow human. And surely you do care, eh? * RICHARD: Silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all? (...) Upon closer examination, yet another shining light of the K-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. Oh well, c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: What is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect). RICHARD: It means ‘such is life’ as in ‘what else could one expect’ (I use it to ‘note’ that what is happening now is the same-same as what has always been happening and will continue to happen like it has already been happening unless someone does something radical so as to subvert the status quo). RESPONDENT: THAT (something radical, given the restrictions added) Richard, is what I have been doing for almost twenty years with a 99.9% failure rate! RICHARD: Ahh ... I see that you, too, have caught that Mailing List malady of jumping on success from a great height and applauding failure like all get-out, eh? * RICHARD: Basically I ‘noted’ that you are merely repeating the past. RESPONDENT: Thanks, perhaps the past can only see the past, and then note it? No. 10, being radical. RICHARD: No ... it is all very simple: I sit here now, at this moment in time and have great fun scrolling back through all yours and my correspondence that I keep in a long document in my word processor. Thus no taxing of the memory banks are required ... I freshen my recollection each time I write and discover anew how much you repeat the past. For example, you have written:
Oops ... that was you talking about the past – and 19 years into the past at that – was it not? And to think that you were just saying to me that ‘perhaps the past can only see the past’, eh? Or were you merely throwing something puerile at me again so that you could ‘note’ my response?
CORRESPONDENT No. 10 (Part Two) 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 |
