Mailing List 'B' Respondent No. 10

Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 10

Some Of The Topics Covered

Altered State of Consciousness – compassion – beauty – Ancient Wisdom – the nature, character, constitution or disposition of Love, Truth and Intelligence? – the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy – a spurious post-mortem reward

July 10 1999:

RICHARD: Is beauty solely the product of thought?

RESPONDENT: Yes it is and must be thought first then exclaimed.

RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP>

RESPONDENT: Well Richard, K is not my guru.

RICHARD: Well, No. 10 ... I never said he was.

RESPONDENT: Nor do all of his words mean anything to me, most do, however.

RICHARD: Could it be that this is why I posted this quote – and the other quotes – to find out where you stand and what you know and what you do not know? I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information.

RESPONDENT: When he says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling.

RICHARD: Okay ... you have already told me this three E-mails ago. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Love: has no feelings’.
• [Respondent]: ‘Beauty: It is of thought that beauty is born’.

What I am endeavouring to ascertain is 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? Do you not 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? It is because 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?

RESPONDENT: The rest of the above is true.

RICHARD: When I delete all references to where he obviously does not support your ‘beauty is of thought and love has no feeling’ stance, so as to ascertain what you see as true, what is left is him bagging the intellect and praising sensitivity. Viz.:

‘Intellect is not the way. Intellect will not solve our problems; the intellect will not give us that nourishment which is imperishable (...<SNIP>...) Sensitivity has no conditioning; it takes you right out of the field of fears and anxieties. The mind that is not sensitive to everything about it – to the mountain, the telegraph pole, the lamp, the voice, the smile, everything – is incapable of finding what is true (...<SNIP>...) We are not in that sensitive state of mind which receives, which sees immediately something which is true. You know, a sensitive mind is a defenceless mind, it is a vulnerable mind, and the mind must be vulnerable for truth to enter’.

So, may I ask why you, too, bag the intellect and yet praise an (as yet unexplained) non-affective sensitivity? I already know that you are anti-thought (like all enlightened people) but they are anti-thought because they favour the affective faculty over the cognitive faculty. As you do not, what do you favour over the cognitive faculty if it be not the affective faculty? Speaking personally, I extol the virtues of both the sensate faculty and cognitive faculty ... and consign the affective faculty to the trash bin (disposing of the entire psyche) by eliminating the instinctual passions all sentient beings are born with ... which means the extinction of self in its entirety.

What is sensitivity (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a vulnerable mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a defenceless mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition?

RESPONDENT: To see the truth in what K says is important, equally important is to see where he missed just a bit.

RICHARD: Indeed so. May I ask? How come you are allowed to have an idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, whereas you tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said? In fact, you go so far as to say that I ‘just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed’. Yet here you are telling me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ... but if I am silly enough to do just this what you tell me to do you will tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said!

Do I have to raise my hand if I wish to leave the room?

RESPONDENT: I was speaking as I speak and doing as I do long before ever reading something K said.

RICHARD: I never said that you were not ... in fact, I remember it well from when you told me this last year.

RESPONDENT: To me he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet!

RICHARD: Arguably he was, yes ... but as he is physically dead he is not now. Where you say ‘was/is’ is it because you had not heard about his demise or do you consider he is still present in bodiless spirit?

RICHARD: 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.

RESPONDENT: The difference Richard, is where he stopped I passed by.

So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment?

If you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate, one can only take you to be a wanker.

RICHARD: Does it 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: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP>

RESPONDENT: Are you holding Mr. J Krishnamurti as my leader, authority? If so please drop it.

RICHARD: No ... I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric.

RESPONDENT: You have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said; you just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed.

What is your secret? Do you have psychic access to the disembodied spirit of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti or something?

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).

RESPONDENT: He was speaking to a large number of people and used words to appeal to them all, for they do not speak in distinctions: they generalize.

RICHARD: Okay ... given that you know what he meant by the words that he used (and that you know that to see the truth in what K says is as equally important as it is to see where he missed just a bit), will you make the distinctions for those who do ‘not speak in distinctions’ so as to clear up this mess that he left behind? You see, peoples like me take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, so it would be of great assistance if you could point out which is which.

RICHARD: 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.

RESPONDENT: To you, yes!

I see that he cared about the plight of humankind.

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). 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:

[Respondent]: ‘Thanks for this message, it took me back about 19 years when an experience I call Transformation took place and Krishnamurti’s problem was understood, in a large way. While it may not be as bad today, I can assure you it was difficult in the beginning for me and still now I do not show all. My message about this was not a guess, it is from personal experience’ and: ‘What I did in 1979, all of what I was died and a new human was born. Transformation is something from which there is no return’ and: ‘I have ended the old me and the old world. A new world is born and I am just bringing it forth’ and: ‘Transformation is the movement (quantum) from insanity all of the way through the vortex and into a new world (Saneness). This is rather impossible to transmit and I have been learning for almost 19 years from my mistakes a way to converse about it’. [endquotes].

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?

RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, perhaps if we can sort all of this out we could find a mental meeting place for actual conversation.

RICHARD: Good. My part of the conversation has been actual all along and I have been enjoying myself immensely. I guess it will be good for you, too, when it becomes mutual. As for a ‘mental meeting place’, I would suggest setting anything that stands in the way of peace on earth on the agenda for exploration, examination and discovery. Who knows, maybe another 160,000,000 million peoples will not have to be killed in wars by their fellow human beings in this coming century?

It is possible.

July 14 1999:

RESPONDENT: I wonder if you could clean this mess up before you (if you do) respond. Whatever software you use I know nothing about and it is hard to find the new messages inside the clutter of the old.

RICHARD: Hmm ... I manage to wade through your posts (like the exchange you are having with ‘No. 00’, for example) without complaining. Different software programmes make for different formats and sometimes strange effects result in the change-over. It sure beats using postal mail or carrier pigeon, though. As for software, I use Microsoft Office 2000 (supposedly the solution to the differing formats) and always indicate my new message with the ‘number’ symbol.

RICHARD: I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information.

RESPONDENT: When he says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling.

RICHARD: Okay ... you have already told me this three E-mails ago. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Love: has no feelings’. [Respondent]: ‘Beauty: It is of thought that beauty is born’. [endquotes]. What I am endeavouring to ascertain is 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? Do you not 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? It is because 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?

RESPONDENT: The rest of the above is true.

‘Intellect is not the way. Intellect will not solve our problems; the intellect will not give us that nourishment which is imperishable (...<SNIP>...) Sensitivity has no conditioning; it takes you right out of the field of fears and anxieties. The mind that is not sensitive to everything about it – to the mountain, the telegraph pole, the lamp, the voice, the smile, everything – is incapable of finding what is true (...<SNIP>...) We are not in that sensitive state of mind which receives, which sees immediately something which is true. You know, a sensitive mind is a defenceless mind, it is a vulnerable mind, and the mind must be vulnerable for truth to enter’.

RESPONDENT: To see the truth in what K says is important, equally important is to see where he missed just a bit.

RICHARD: Indeed so. May I ask? How come you are allowed to have an idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, whereas you tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said? In fact, you go so far as to say that I just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. Yet here you are telling me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ... but if I am silly enough to do just this what you tell me to do you will tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said!

RESPONDENT: I was speaking as I speak and doing as I do long before ever reading something K said.

RICHARD: I never said that you were not ... in fact, I remember it well from when you told me this last year.

RESPONDENT: To me he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet!

RESPONDENT: No as I have been told he is dead, and yet the words he wrote are still here.

RICHARD: Yet when I read the self-same words (and you tell me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’), and take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, you tell me I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said, and that I just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed.

What do you advise me to do?

RICHARD: The reason that I ask what you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP> 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.

RESPONDENT: The difference Richard, is where he stopped I passed by.

RICHARD: Yes, you told me this last year too. Where he stopped (Enlightenment) you passed by (Transformation) and ... and ... then what? You give no more information to show what is the difference betwixt ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Transformation’ ... and you promote being an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to pass through (the same-same as enlightened people do). You say that Love has no feelings and that Truth is not of thought or beauty, right? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that he has ‘deep feelings (of love and beauty)’ and you say that ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’ ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment?

RESPONDENT: Richard I have explained this to you before, and yet you do not hear, so what good would it be for me to explain anew?

RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking the fact that I keep all of your and my E-Mails in a long document in my word processor and it is a simple task to type <transformation> into the search function, refreshing my recollection of what we have conversed about. Upon reading this response of yours I have revisited everything we have covered and nowhere at all have you ‘explained this to Richard before’ ... thus making your response an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do . Viz.:

1. [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’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 11 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].
2. [Respondent]: ‘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. 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, Compassion, Truth, Openness and so on’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 16 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].
3. [Respondent]: ‘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 play 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’.
[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’.
[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 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’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 18 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

4. [Respondent]: ‘Richard, You speak as if a person who has Transformed themself 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?’ (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

5. [Respondent]: ‘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]: ‘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: if there were no sorrow or malice anywhere in the world (5.8 billion people miraculously made happy and harmless overnight) ... what then is the use of your much-prized Love and Compassion?’ (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for No. 10 to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

6. [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?’ (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

7. [Respondent]: ‘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’. I took particular care to ask: ‘Why a ‘new birth’ ... why any new identity?’.
[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’? (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

8. [Respondent]: ‘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’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

9. [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’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

10. [Respondent]: ‘For most I am invisible’.
[Richard]: ‘‘For most’? ‘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, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

11. [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. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 24 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

12. [Respondent]: ‘What these two words mean to me is ‘Tried’ is 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. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 26 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for No. 10 to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

13. [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’. (Richard, List B, No. 10, 26 March 1999).
[this was followed by a deafening silence from you, thus your response is an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do].

If you have bothered to read this far, it will have become obvious that if you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is, then there is no substance in what you promote.

RESPONDENT: I have never been enlightened, nor do I care to be.

RICHARD: Good. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

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: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP>

RESPONDENT: Are you holding Mr. J Krishnamurti as my leader, authority? If so please drop it.

RICHARD: No ... I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: You have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said; you just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed.

RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... whereas you do have an idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, eh? I take it that you do not just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed? Given that you know what he meant by the words that he used (and that you know that to see the truth in what K says is as equally important as it is to see where he missed just a bit), will you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate just what it was that he did in order to say what he said?

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.

RESPONDENT: He was speaking to a large number of people and used words to appeal to them all, for they do not speak in distinctions: they generalize.

RICHARD: 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.

RESPONDENT: To you, yes!

RICHARD: Maybe you have psychic access to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s secret ‘Teachings’ whilst I have only the recorded books to go by. What I see, and not only in this quote but in many, many others I have, that he is not so secretive about the nature, disposition or character of ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ as you are and responded to questioners honestly and openly. I see that he cared about the plight of humankind. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: What is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect).

RESPONDENT: Thanks, perhaps the past can only see the past, and then note it? No. 10, being radical.

[No. 10]: ‘Thanks for this message, it took me back about 19 years when an experience I call Transformation took place and Krishnamurti’s problem was understood, in a large way. While it may not be as bad today, I can assure you it was difficult in the beginning for me and still now I do not show all. My message about this was not a guess, it is from personal experience’. and: ‘What I did in 1979, all of what I was died and a new human was born. Transformation is something from which there is no return’. and: ‘I have ended the old me and the old world. A new world is born and I am just bringing it forth’. and: ‘Transformation is the movement (quantum) from insanity all of the way through the vortex and into a new world (Saneness). This is rather impossible to transmit and I have been learning for almost 19 years from my mistakes a way to converse about it’. [endquotes].

RESPONDENT: No, and I always note my own and others response, no matter!

RICHARD: But instead of merely ‘noting’, could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: There is a collective past and an individual past my reference was to the collective.

RICHARD: Yet my explanation of what I meant by c’est la vie was a reference to you repeating the past ... not the collective. Why did you try to change the subject and deflect it away from yourself and onto the collective? Is it because you will not or cannot explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, perhaps if we can sort all of this out we could find a mental meeting place for actual conversation.

RESPONDENT: I would suggest that we place peace with ourselves first, for without that no peace on earth will ever happen. We, given our selfish petty minds destroy ourselves first then the destruction of others becomes easy. It is out of our own violence that the collective violence is born.

RICHARD: I am proposing, from my own direct experience, that it is out of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression that the individual violence is born. The collective violence is but individuals gathering together for support so as to be as big – if not bigger – than the collection of individuals that they are fighting.

RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?

What do you propose as being the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’?

July 19 1999:

RICHARD: I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information.

RESPONDENT: What are some of the ‘infinitesimal amounts of information’?

RICHARD: Oh ... allow me to re-post all that you have contributed, to this exploration into the Love and/or Truth that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for, so that you can see for yourself. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Richard, what does ‘sacrosanct’ mean? As long as you ‘show’ your knowledge your ‘Intelligence’ cannot show through (if there is any). Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie! 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! No, feelings are not sacrosanct. Love: has no feelings; is eternal; cannot be ‘perfectly’ described. Compassion: something a person needs for themself to themself 100% of the day. Beauty: it is of thought that beauty is born. No. 10 lives under a 2000 power microscope of himself 100% of the time. Proceed with what Richard? Perhaps with your constant need to look smart? Or your need to look Intelligent? Or your need to control? All of your messages I have read are you saying the same thing which is HEY look at ME I am the authority! Huge Smile Richard, while your answer was long and ever repeating your other messages, I thank you for the intent. There was no anger. Just a little throw back at me what I threw towards you, noted. What is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect). Beauty must be thought first then exclaimed, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. Something radical is what I have been doing for almost twenty years with a 99.9% failure rate! Perhaps the past can only see the past, and then note it? K is not my guru. Nor do all of his words mean anything to me, most do, however. When he says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling. The rest is true. To see the truth in what K says is important, equally important is to see where he missed just a bit. I was speaking as I speak and doing as I do long before ever reading something K said. To me he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet! The difference is where he stopped I passed by. Are you holding Mr. J Krishnamurti as my leader, authority? If so please drop it. You have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said; you just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. He was speaking to a large number of people and used words to appeal to them all, for they do not speak in distinctions: they generalize. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. I have explained this to you before, and yet you do not hear, so what good would it be for me to explain anew? I have never been enlightened, nor do I care to be. Love is none of the three, they (sensate, cognitive, affective) they are all of thought which is and confusion in action. Sensitivity: 100% sensitive to our universe, world self and ALL of the people on this planet (not in this order it has no pecking order with me). Nature: the thing we live with on this planet and it is a violent as we are, if we Transform, all of NATURE will as well! Vulnerable mind: A mind that is 100% open, there is no way to hurt it for the open mind has no ego, has no need to be right, has no pain, has no anger, has no argument, has no reason, has no justification, has no explanation for it’s action. A vulnerable mind is a mind of Love, Intelligence and insight. Transformed! Richard, perhaps if we can sort all of this out we could find a mental meeting place for actual conversation. I would suggest that we place peace with ourselves first, for without that no peace on earth will ever happen. We, given our selfish petty minds destroy ourselves first then the destruction of others becomes easy. It is out of our own violence that the collective violence is born. What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves? The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans, now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away for reality, that of being Human. Transformation is the Possibility of a new world. Transformation is the ending of the old and the beginning of new simultaneously for sure!’

So, stripping out all that is not information about Love and/or Truth, I see that you are saying: ‘Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie! Love: has no feelings; is eternal; cannot be ‘perfectly’ described. Compassion: something a person needs for themself to themself 100% of the day. Beauty: it is of thought that beauty is born. Beauty must be thought first then exclaimed, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. When K says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. Love is none of the three, they (sensate, cognitive, affective) they are all of thought which is and confusion in action’.

I do not know what you make of it all, but what I understand is that this Love and/or Truth, that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for so as to transform ‘all of NATURE’, is not sensate, not affective and not cognitive ... which means that it is an immaterial, eternal (bodiless) Love and/or Truth, eh? A metaphysical Love and/or Truth, in other words ... and the nature, character, constitution or disposition of which either you are ignorant of or are being secretive about.

Which is it?

RICHARD: What I am endeavouring to ascertain is 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?

RESPONDENT: Love is none of the three, they (sensate, cognitive, affective) they are all of thought which is and confusion in action.

RICHARD: Okay ... is the physical (this body and that body and the mountains and streams and planets and stars) actual or ‘all of thought’ too?

RICHARD: May I ask why you, too, bag the intellect and yet praise an (as yet unexplained) non-affective sensitivity? I already know that you are anti-thought (like all enlightened people) but they are anti-thought because they favour the affective faculty over the cognitive faculty. As you do not, what do you favour over the cognitive faculty if it be not the affective faculty? What is sensitivity (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a vulnerable mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a defenceless mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition?

RESPONDENT: Sensitivity: 100% sensitive to our universe, world, self and ALL of the people on this planet (not in this order it has no pecking order with me).

RICHARD: If I may point out? This is a tautological answer and conveys no information about the nature, character, constitution or disposition of sensitivity. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s sensitivity was affective (deep feeling) ... what is yours?

RESPONDENT: Nature: the thing we live with on this planet and it is a violent as we are, if we Transform, all of NATURE will as well!

RICHARD: Hmm ... an unsolicited statement, completely out of context, but ... okay: will all the animals transform in this ‘if we Transform, all of NATURE will as well!’ scenario of yours?

RESPONDENT: Vulnerable mind: A mind that is 100% open, there is no way to hurt it for the open mind has no ego, has no need to be right, has no pain, has no anger, has no argument, has no reason, has no justification, has no explanation for it’s action. A vulnerable mind is a mind of Love, Intelligence and insight. Transformed!

RICHARD: Ahh ... good. Could you explain or describe what this ‘Love’ and ‘Intelligence’, that your vulnerable mind is host to, is made up of?

RESPONDENT: The words K wrote are still here (...) he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet.

RESPONDENT: Hum don’t know, perhaps: do not take advice! Damn now I have advised, my mistake.

RICHARD: Then why tell me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’? Am I to just ignore you? Why do you write to this Mailing List (purportedly set up to explore the appalling mess that is the human condition) if you advise people not to take any notice of what you say, even though you tell me I have ‘no idea of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said nor what he did in order to say what he said’, and that I just ‘study his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed’ as if I should listen to you?

RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti 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’ 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. So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment?

RESPONDENT: Richard I have explained this to you before, and yet you do not hear, so what good would it be for me to explain anew?

RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking the fact that I keep all of your and my E-Mails in a long document in my word processor and it is a simple task to type <transformation> into the search function, refreshing my recollection of what we have conversed about. Upon reading this response of yours I have revisited everything we have covered and nowhere at all have you ‘explained this to Richard before’ ... thus making your response an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard ‘does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew’, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do. It is obvious that if you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is, then there is no substance in what you promote.

RESPONDENT: Richard, the error message I get with all of your messages is Java script error line 27 document classes. Mso Normal P. Margin is missing!

RICHARD: Yeah ... unlike yourself though, Microsoft is addressing the situation, and will be providing ‘fixes’ and ‘patches’ on their ‘live update’ web site. Will you acknowledge that you have never ‘explained this to Richard before’ and, so as to show that there is substance in what you promote, will you provide an update also?

Are all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides just a joke to you?

RICHARD: I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: Yes, Transformation is the Possibility of a new world.

RICHARD: Not at the rate you are going ... what is ‘Transformation’ and in what way is it different from ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’?

RESPONDENT: I always note my own and others response, no matter!

RICHARD: But instead of merely ‘noting’, could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is?

RESPONDENT: Yes, Transformation is the ending of the old and the beginning of new simultaneously for sure!

RICHARD: And what is this ‘new’ made up of? What does it look like, taste like, feel like, seem like or whatever description you can come up with. You say that you had this ‘Transformation’ happen 19 years ago ... how much longer do you need to have before you can explain what it is?

RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?

RICHARD: The instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... which give rise to malice and sorrow and thence all the other cultivated feelings and emotions are the result of socialisation. What do you propose as being the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’?

RESPONDENT: The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans.

RICHARD: Okay ... why do all peoples (6.0 billion living and perhaps 4.0 billion that have lived) ‘give themselves up’ at such a young age? Is this the result of physical causes (genetic inheritance) or metaphysical causes (like the Christian ‘born in sin’ or the Buddhist ‘born of samsara’ and so on)? Such a mass result must have a mass cause (and not be each very young infant’s personal failing) surely?

RESPONDENT: Now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away for reality, that of being Human.

RICHARD: Okay, ‘just people’ are characterised by malice and sorrow (affective drives and impulses) ... what is ‘being Human’ characterised by (what is the character of Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence)? And perhaps a more useful answer than what Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence are not, this time?

What are they?

July 27 1999:

RICHARD: I would suggest setting anything that stands in the way of peace on earth on the agenda for exploration, examination and discovery.

RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?

RESPONDENT: The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans.

RICHARD: Okay ... why do all peoples (6.0 billion living and perhaps 4.0 billion that have lived) ‘give themselves up’ at such a young age? Is this the result of physical causes (genetic inheritance) or metaphysical causes (like the Christian ‘born in sin’ or the Buddhist ‘born of samsara’ and so on)? Such a mass result must have a mass cause (and not be each very young infant’s personal failing) surely?

RESPONDENT: No Richard it is caused by each parent or whoever cares for the child at and after birth, they begin the process of ‘conditioning’ based on there own conditioning, we have never known what to do to actually join our children we just control them just as we are controlled, this has been going on since the first children only now it is FAR worse and so are the products.

RICHARD: An immediate question springs to mind (where you say ‘this has been going on since the first children’) which is: who conditioned ‘the first children’?

RESPONDENT: Our children will soon be us, given forever we (and all of the we’s before us) did not know what to do to be Parents, we ‘thought’ that they would learn only what we taught them, but no, they learned ALL of what we were and then emulated us, this began thousands of years ago.

RICHARD: Again the question arises: how did all this ‘learning and emulating’ that ‘began thousands of years ago’ begin all those thousands of years ago?

RESPONDENT: And now we have the ‘fruits of our labour to view’ how did we do? To me it comes down to this as to our children (and our self) we are a totally failed people who do not ‘see’ the ignorance of our self.

RICHARD: What is the cause of this ‘ignorance of our self’ that human beings do not ‘see’? What was the initial cause of ‘the first children’ having the malice and sorrow that set off all the ensuing wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that has rolled down through the aeons?

RESPONDENT: So we blame others and raise our children to be idiots ‘just like us’. Then to be even a BIGGER idiot we look everywhere for the solution, except we do not look to our self and our total ignorance. Hum. No. 10, for whom ignorance is the place to start, by not knowing (it is the unknown).

RICHARD: Do I understand this correctly so far? You say that:

• ‘The collective violence is born out of our own violence’ and the only reason for ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’ is that ‘each parent or whoever cares for the child at and after birth’ begins ‘the process of ‘conditioning’ based on there own conditioning’ which means that they ‘control them just as we are controlled’ and thus ‘we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans’. Now, for some [??] reason ‘this began thousands of years ago’ and as ‘we have never known what to do to actually join our children we just control them just as we are controlled’ thus humans now have the ‘fruits of our labour to view’ and can ask ‘how did we do’? When they ask they will see that ‘as to our children (and our self) we are a totally failed people’ because ‘we do not ‘see’ the ignorance of our self’. This means that humans ‘blame others and raise our children to be idiots ‘just like us’’ yet then ‘be even a BIGGER idiot’ by looking ‘everywhere for the solution’ except that ‘we do not look to our self and our total ignorance’. But it is this total ignorance that is ‘the place to start’ so as to ‘see what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves’ the only cause of which is that ‘we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans’ because ‘each parent or whoever cares for the child at and after birth’ begins ‘the process of ‘conditioning’ based on there own conditioning’ which means that they ‘control us just as they were controlled’ and, for some [??] reason, ‘this began thousands of years ago’. Now, you go on to say that for you ‘ignorance is the place to start’ (and this circular reasoning you provide certainly shows ignorance) so therefore ‘by not knowing’ ... [??] ... [??] ... ‘it is the unknown’ ...[??] ...[??].

Perhaps you could add a little more before you proceed (I put the question [??] marks in only as a suggestion for where something seems to be somewhat missing)? Also, where you say ‘to actually join our children’ are you saying, that before the age of four, children are already in the same state as you are in your ‘Transformed’ state and that to join them there will be beneficial? If they are not, why would it be of benefit to ‘actually join our children’ given that it is a well-known fact that children can be – and oft-times are – quite malicious brats and somewhat sorrowful types before the age of four?

Also, are you familiar with the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy?

RESPONDENT: Now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away from reality, that of being Human.

RESPONDENT: They are: energy filled, with the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light, there Intelligence is millions of miles (years) beyond the non intelligence of this world, for this world is just knowledge filled, confusion being added to confusion for thousands of years, and they speak the truth with themselves impeccably, with a 100% Love for every person on this planet. Damn Richard, this explaining stuff is hard for a 90% illiterate person.

RESPONDENT No. 19: Is there a ‘being’ that transcends time and space within the organism of the human being?

RESPONDENT: Yes.

RICHARD: Have I understood this so far? Viz.:

• A capitalised ‘Human’ (as distinct from ‘just people’) has a transcendent ‘being’ (a ‘being’ that transcends time and space) living inside the flesh and blood body which makes them ‘energy filled’ and thus have ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ (like in your ‘sole cause of violence’ exposé above) which is to have an eternal (bodiless) ‘Intelligence’ (which is not cognitive, affective or sensate) that is ‘millions of miles (years) beyond the non intelligence of this world’ (this physical world of mountains and streams) and they ‘speak the truth (which is not cognitive, affective or sensate) with themselves impeccably’ and they have an eternal (bodiless) ‘100% Love (which is not cognitive, affective or sensate) for every person on this planet’ that would, if all humans were to ‘Transform’ (through starting with ignorance) and be an ‘open vessel’ for this metaphysical Love, it would transform ‘all of NATURE’ including the animals, and all would live in a state of ‘not knowing’ ... and there would be peace on earth.

Please correct me where I am in error.

August 02 1999:

RICHARD: What I understand is that this Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for so as to transform ‘all of NATURE’, is not sensate, not affective and not cognitive ... which means that it is an immaterial, eternal (bodiless) Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, eh? A metaphysical Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, in other words ... and the nature, character, constitution or disposition of which either you are ignorant of or are being secretive about. Which is it?

RESPONDENT: Well Richard it is given so far I am ‘ignorant of’ knowing what to say about Transformation, that I have not said and still you do not see that it cannot be understood, it can only be ‘seen’ for to understand means to fragment the context (or whole meaning).

RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that you are ‘ignorant of knowing what to say’ because this that will ‘transform all of NATURE’ cannot be understood as it ‘can only be ‘seen’’ and to understand would ‘fragment the context (or whole meaning)’ ... which throws the word ‘intelligence’ (the ability to comprehend, understand and know) into meaning something similar to ignorance (non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing, eh?

Can you throw any light onto why peoples who have ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ would make such a crass mistake as to use the word ‘intelligence’ to describe this state of not-knowing, not-understanding and not-comprehending what it is that will bring about peace on earth?

RESPONDENT: I will give it another go, huh? There is a possibility for the end of suffering, misery, killing, child molestation, robbery, murder, wife beating etc. This possibility is HUGE for it is real, Transformation is the ending of the consciousness that allows all of the above and of course much more, for it means the end of the family, church, government, all of what now brings forth only more suffering and misery. This Transformation leaves a ‘void’ where violence was in the human brain and allows a ‘clear’ view of the internal working of and for each human.

RICHARD: Okay ... what I get by now is that by using the word ‘clear’ you do not actually mean clear (as in distinct, unambiguous, unmistakeable) do you? You probably mean ‘unclear’ (indistinguishable, ambiguous, indefinite), eh?

RESPONDENT: Out of the happening I call Transformation comes a new human with a new consciousness, one that cannot return to the old one for he/she will be new and simultaneously be able to ‘see’ all of the old consciousness.

RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that by putting ‘see’ in quotes you do not actually mean perceive, grasp, establish, and ensure anything distinctly, unambiguously and unmistakeably definite about ‘all of the old consciousness’ as in comprehending, understanding and knowing why all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides happen in the first place, do you?

You probably mean ‘see’ as in ‘I don’t know’?

RESPONDENT: There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real.

RICHARD: Okay ... what I get by you using ‘real’ twice is that you do not mean a real love, compassion, intelligence and truth (as in cognitive, affective or sensate) but the ‘real real’ Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth of a metaphysical, eternal (bodiless) transcendent ‘being’ that takes the place of the ‘old consciousness’ when a happening born out of ignorance occurs.

In other words, you allowed an unknown bodiless entity to possess you 19 years ago.

RESPONDENT: The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born. No. 10, explaining, fragmenting and creating at the same time!

RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that your ‘Transformation’ is the same-same as the ‘Tried and Failed’ mystical ‘Enlightenment’ with its ever unfulfillable pledge of a peace on earth ... unfulfillable because its ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ is a bodiless peace.

Were you sucked in by the promise of a spurious post-mortem reward too?

CORRESPONDENT No. 10 (Part Three)

RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

The Third Alternative

(Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body)

Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.

Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity