|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RESPONDENT: The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans.RICHARD: 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: I don’t know – did not meet the first children’s parents. RICHARD: You do not know what the cause of violence is? Please let me present this dialogue for your perusal:
Now ... you can get away with saying ‘I don’t know’ when asked about the nature of Love and Compassion and Truth and Intelligence, but how on earth do you think that you can get away with saying that you do not know the cause of violence when it was you who asked me in the first place ... and then said ‘No, Richard’ to my sensible answer? Do you really expect to get away with telling me that I am incorrect (without giving a reason why not) and then on top of this telling me that you do not know? Why did you ask? * 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: All by itself, for even then the parents did not know what to do to be parents, and worse just as it is today, they did not know THAT they did not know. RICHARD: So your answer to your own question (‘what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?’) is that it happened ‘all by itself’ thousands and thousands of years ago, eh? Does this qualify as an answer? Of what use is it to know this? Why did you ask me ‘what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves’? Why? * 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: The same cause as today, knowledge in action, rather than Intelligence. RICHARD: And what is the cause of this ‘knowledge in action’ that causes the ‘ignorance of our self’ that human beings do not ‘see’? How did it all start ... and why? * 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:
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’ ...[??] ...[??]. [endquotes]. 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? RESPONDENT: Richard are you perhaps fond of parrots for you repeat what I say often. RICHARD: I have repeated/ re-posted en-masse what you have said, so far, three times in this thread. The first on-masse re-posting was when you said (instead of answering a valid query): [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?’ As you seemed to be overlooking the fact that I keep all of your and my E-Mails in a long document in my word processor, it was a simple task to type <transformation> into the search function, refreshing my recollection of what we have conversed about and see that nowhere at all had you ‘explained this to Richard before’ ... thus making your response an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly. This meant that by saying that, because Richard ‘does not hear then what good would it be for [No. 10] to explain anew’, you were making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do. The second time was when you asked me‘what are some of the ‘infinitesimal amounts of information’ when I had said that I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind because your responses in this thread so far had contained infinitesimal amounts of information. Thus I re-posted everything you had written and then provided an extract of the minuscule bit that was relevant so that you could see for yourself that you have very little to contribute to bring to an end all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. The third time is this repeat (above) where I gathered together your scattered sentences and phrase into a whole so that you could see that your answer to your own question (‘what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?’) was a circular answer that means zilch. Zero. Therefore, could you answer the following:
* RICHARD: Also, are you familiar with the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy? RESPONDENT: Never heard of it, nor do I study any philosophy. RICHARD: It is the philosophy/ theory that children are born ‘clean slates’ (innocent) and that they become corrupted by their parent, their peers, and society at large (these days the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy has reared its pervasive head again in NDA circles as ‘We are all born Little Buddhas’). And you say that ‘we have never known what to do to actually join our children we just control them just as we are controlled’ as if they are indeed born ‘clean slates’ ... when it is a biological fact that all sentient beings (including human babies) are born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire encoded into their genes. Therefore, if you are going to publicly proclaim that your ‘Transformation’ will bring about global peace on earth then you are going to have to address yourself to these questions ... or else this Love and Compassion and Truth and Intelligence just ain’t gunna be transforming ‘all of NATURE’ at all. Your ‘Transformation’ will be still-born. * RESPONDENT: Now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away from 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? 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? 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. RESPONDENT: You are only missing a part, and that is the ‘whole’ – you take a whole and break it into pieces, and wish to argue rather than ‘looking’ at what I say. RICHARD: Do you mean that one is to take what you say on blind trust and/or faith like you have done? Are you telling me that I am to allow an unknown bodiless entity to possess me too? If so, no way ... I did that back in 1981 and it took me eleven years to break through into this actual world. Of course I take the ‘whole’ and break it into pieces; of course I will ‘argue’ with you ... you are perpetuating all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides just like all those enlightened sages who did not dare to examine this Love and Compassion and Truth and Intelligence that they were ‘open vessels’ for. Look ... you are writing to a person who was an ‘open vessel’ for ‘The Absolute’ for eleven years. Your normal vagueness that works on other people just does not work on me. I already know what ‘the whole’ is ... do you? RESPONDENT: You just fragment it with your HUGE amount of knowledge. RICHARD: Yes ... experiential knowledge. RESPONDENT: Perhaps the greatest deterrent to Intelligence is knowledge. RICHARD: Yes ... and thus there now is a genuine chance for peace on earth.
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? RESPONDENT: The ability to comprehend, understand and know are all of knowledge, not Intelligence. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point that I am making: the word ‘intelligence’ basically means ‘the ability to comprehend, understand and know’ ... whereas the word ‘ignorance’ basically means ‘non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing’. Therefore, why do you not say that ‘I am an open vessel for Ignorance’? * RICHARD: 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: No, I do not have any extra light bulbs. RICHARD: Hmm ... may I ask? What does ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ mean to you? Because the phrase otherwise conveys a mental agility and ability of an outstanding character ... able to ascertain the origins of ... um ... violence, for example, instead of: ‘I don’t know’. Why not make use of your ‘ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ instead of bemoaning the lack of light bulbs? * 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. 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’? And 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: No I mean clear as in ‘see through’. RICHARD: Okay ... so you have the ability to see through the old consciousness (that 6.0 billion peoples possess) and ascertain ... um ... the origins of violence, perchance? Otherwise, what is this ability to see through the old consciousness good for? * 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. 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 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. And 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? RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard if you see if you can beat everyone you speak with? RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘if’ about it ... I already know that I can do that as I have had years of experience at dealing with recalcitrant egos. That is not why I am writing ... these days I am having the time of my life quizzing compliant souls ... bodiless entities, in other words. It is called ‘running the gauntlet of peer review’.
RICHARD: Where you say that ‘this process of ‘conditioning’ based on their own conditioning has been going on since the first children’ an immediate question springs to mind: who conditioned ‘the first children’? RESPONDENT: I don’t know – did not meet the first children’s parents. RICHARD: You do not know what the cause of violence is? Please let me present this dialogue for your perusal: [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 that are the result of socialisation’. [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’. [endquotes]. How on earth do you think that you can get away with saying that you do not know the cause of violence when it was you who asked me in the first place ... and then said ‘No, Richard’ to my sensible answer? Why did you ask? RESPONDENT: My Ignorance showing anew! RICHARD: Yes, I am well aware that you are ‘showing your Ignorance anew’ (which is to be expected given that you are self-acknowledged as being an ignorant ‘empty vessel’ for the ‘Love and Compassion and Truth and Ignorance’ that promises to ‘transform all of NATURE’), but what I am more interested in is why you would ask me what the cause of violence is in the first place when, upon dismissing my sensible response, you go on to say ‘I don’t know’ and then castigate me (further below) for ‘taking a whole and breaking it into pieces and wishing to argue rather than ‘looking’ at what I say’. Is it an essential part of the ‘whole’ process of initiating ‘Transformation’ to ask oneself ‘what is the cause of violence’ and then acknowledge that, not only does one not know, but that one will never know? Are you ‘showing’ me how ‘not taking a whole and breaking it into pieces and not arguing but looking’ operates if I were to do it myself? * RICHARD: Your answer to your own question (‘what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves?’) is that it happened ‘all by itself’ thousands and thousands of years ago, eh? Does this qualify as an answer? Of what use is it to know this? Why did you ask me ‘what causes our own personal violence towards ourselves’? Why? RESPONDENT: My own personal Ignorance. RICHARD: Okay ... is everyday ignorance (getting rid of knowledge like the biological cause of violence) essential for ‘Ignorance’ to happen? * RESPONDENT: 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: The same cause as today, knowledge in action, rather than Intelligence. RICHARD: And what is the cause of this ‘knowledge in action’ that causes the ‘ignorance of our self’ that human beings do not ‘see’? How did it all start ... and why? RESPONDENT: It started given people did not know THAT they did not know, what to do. RICHARD: Okay, is that it is vital that one realises that one now knows that one does not know what to do (whereas peoples like me do not know that I do not know what to do even though I do know what to do). Is this it? It is essential to know that I do not know what to do ... and, furthermore, I will never know what to do just like you? * RICHARD: 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? And, last but not least: what is the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’? RESPONDENT: Our total Ignorance OF ourself. RICHARD: Okay ... thus knowledge (knowing that violence is biologically caused for example) is me being ignorant of myself? * RICHARD: The ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy/ theory is that children are born ‘clean slates’ (innocent) and that they become corrupted by their parent, their peers, and society at large (these days the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy has reared its pervasive head again in NDA circles as ‘We are all born Little Buddhas’). RESPONDENT: Do not know about Little Buddhas, and do see the rest of this last statement as true. RICHARD: Are you saying that you see that it is true that the human animal is not genetically encoded with survival instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire? A question immediately springs up: do children under the age of four have ‘a ‘being’ that transcends time and space within’ instead of the ‘old consciousness’ (which is ‘full of knowledge’) that you say peoples over the age of four have? If so, then what happens to this ‘transcendent being’ when ‘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 ‘we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans’)? I only ask because you say that ‘out of the happening I call Transformation comes a new human with a new consciousness, one that cannot return to the old’. If the ‘new consciousness’ (which you say you are) cannot ‘return to the old’ and if children under the age of four are this same-same ‘new consciousness’ (‘a ‘being’ that transcends space and time’), then how can something so mundane as parental conditioning (based on their own conditioning) dislodge this transcendent being? Or do children under the age of four have no ‘being’ (neither the ‘old consciousness’ hereditary being nor the ‘new consciousness’ transcendent ‘being’)? * RICHARD: Yet it is a biological fact that all sentient beings (including human babies) are born with the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire encoded into their genes. Therefore, if you are going to publicly proclaim that your ‘Transformation’ will bring about global peace on earth then you are going to have to address yourself to these questions ... or else this Love and Compassion and Truth and Intelligence just ain’t gunna be transforming ‘all of NATURE’ at all. Your ‘Transformation’ will be still-born. RESPONDENT: Yes it is still being born each moment. RICHARD: Hmm ... could you clear up something for me? Last year you wrote and told me that ‘The Truth, no matter how often discovered will always be the same’ and when I queried what you meant you said that ‘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’. Now here you are saying that ‘Transformation’ is ‘still being born each moment’ and, given that the ‘Enlightenment’ brand of ‘Truth’ (that has been bought into the world by ‘empty vessels’ of the Guru and God-Men type for thousands of years) has not changed human nature let alone ‘all of nature’, then is this ‘Truth’ of ‘Transformation’ the same-same ‘Truth’ of ‘Enlightenment’ or different (not different as in ‘better’ but ‘just beyond’ the ‘Truth’ of ‘Enlightenment’)? What I am getting at is this: will the ‘Truth’ of ‘Transformation’ succeed in transforming ‘all of NATURE’ given that, after thousands and thousands of years of being in the world, the ‘Truth’ of ‘Enlightenment’ has failed miserably to bring about its much-trumpeted Peace On Earth? * RICHARD: Have I understood this so far? 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. RESPONDENT: You are only missing a part, and that is the ‘whole’ – you take a whole and break it into pieces, and wish to argue rather than ‘looking’ at what I say. RICHARD: Yet you are not presenting a ‘whole’ ... you only show snippets. And these miniscule fragments of your ‘Transformation’ that you have begrudgingly doled out so far are indicating that, despite you saying it ‘is indeed beyond enlightenment, not as in better, just beyond’, it has all the hall-marks of ‘Enlightenment’. I know that mysticism in general (and spiritual enlightenment in particular) has a long history of evading vigorous investigation, rigorous examination and critical analysis ... and that ‘analysis’ is a no-no word on this Mailing List is evidence enough of that. The following extract, from a biography of Mr. Ludwig Wittgenstein, may be enlightening ( pp 243, 244, 142, 151; ‘The Duty of a Genius’ © 1990 by Ray Monk; Published by Penguin Books, USA). Viz.:
I am still curious as to how you will show that your ‘Transformation’ is indeed beyond ‘ Enlightenment’.
RICHARD: You say you are ‘ignorant of knowing what to say’ because this that will ‘transform ALL 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? RESPONDENT: The ability to comprehend, understand and know are all of knowledge, not Intelligence. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point that I am making: the word ‘intelligence’ basically means ‘the ability to comprehend, understand and know’ ... whereas the word ‘ignorance’ basically means ‘non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing’. Therefore, why do you not say that ‘I am an open vessel for Ignorance’? RESPONDENT: Perhaps you are Richard, I do not know! RICHARD: No, I am most definitely not an open vessel for either ignorance or Ignorance ... I am asking you: Why do you not say that ‘I (No. 10) am an open vessel for Ignorance’? Why take a word that basically means ‘the ability to comprehend, understand and know’ and capitalise it into a word pointing to something which is ‘non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing’? Why do you not say that ‘I (No. 10) am an open vessel for Ignorance’? * RICHARD: 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: No, I do not have any extra light bulbs. RICHARD: May I ask? What does ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ mean to you? Because the phrase otherwise conveys a mental agility and ability of an outstanding character ... able to ascertain the origins of ... um ... violence, for example, instead of: ‘I don’t know’. Why not make use of your ‘ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ instead of bemoaning the lack of light bulbs? RESPONDENT: Given you asked me to ‘shed some light’ not to ascertain. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... given that you cannot ascertain, grasp, establish and ensure anything distinctly, unambiguously and unmistakeably definite as in comprehending, understanding and knowing, then what does ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ mean to you? (Because the phrase otherwise conveys a mental agility and ability of an outstanding character able to ascertain, grasp, establish and ensure things like ... um ... the origins of violence, for example, as in distinctly, unambiguously, unmistakeably and definitely comprehending, understanding and knowing the why’s and the wherefore’s thereof). Why do peoples who have ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ 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? Why are you so ignorant of 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. 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: When you say ‘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? And by the word ‘clear’ you do not actually mean ‘clear’ (as in distinct, unambiguous, unmistakeable) do you? RESPONDENT: No I mean clear as in ‘see through’. RICHARD: Okay ... so you have the ability to see through the old consciousness (that 6.0 billion peoples possess) and ascertain ... um ... the origins of violence, perchance? Otherwise, what is this ability to see through the old consciousness good for? RESPONDENT: Seeing through the old consciousness. RICHARD: What do you see when you ‘see through the old consciousness’? * RICHARD: 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. And 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? RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard if you see if you can beat everyone you speak with? RICHARD: Oh, there is no ‘if’ about it ... I already know that I can do that as I have had years of experience at dealing with recalcitrant egos. That is not why I am writing ... these days I am having the time of my life quizzing compliant souls ... bodiless entities, in other words. It is called ‘running the gauntlet of peer review’. RESPONDENT: Hum Richard, rather than review, why not re-new? RICHARD: Because ‘running the gauntlet of peer review’ is what happens when someone announces that they have discovered the ‘Secret To Life’ (by whatever name). You would have to be past being just ignorant and have headed well into being stupid if you fondly imagine that peoples will take what you say on blind faith and/or trust and leap energetically into ‘renewing’ themselves on your say-so (especially as the most obvious result so far is the ability to give forth of only infinitesimal snippets of information). Are we not fellow human beings who find ourselves here in this world as it was when we arrived ... a mess? And do we not all seek to find a way through this mess ... and share our findings with one another? And if one has ‘got it wrong’ is it not beneficial that someone else will point that out to one? One can benefit from such interaction as much as the other ... we all benefit. Speaking personally, I make no secret of the fact that I consider that I have discovered the ‘Secret To Life’ and I welcome rigorous – and at times vigorous – discussion and invite people to either agree or disagree (those who are neutral on the subject will just ignore it). I have been doing this for eighteen years now and have had the full gamut of scorn and derision and ridicule and flattery and gratitude and compliments ... and indifference. But I would not be where I am now if I had kept it all to myself. All those people who over those years pointed out flaws in my then ‘wisdom’ aided me immensely as far as I am concerned. Why do you want to be treated differently?
[This post is off-topic.] RESPONDENT: Damn Richard, why does my computer have a problem getting your messages. If I see it is from you I just delete it, given I get about 3 or 4 Java errors each time. However sometimes I delete an already read message and one form you is next, then the problem begins. Do you know why? It only happens with your messages? RICHARD: Different software programmes make for different formats and sometimes strange effects result in the digital translation from one format to another. I had a similar situation to what you describe last year when E-Mails from one correspondent on this Mailing List persistently came through as size 16 font in ‘bold’ ... and then somehow made every other E-Mail that followed the same. The solution? I disabled the ‘consider as read within 5 seconds’ command and would delete the offending headers as they appeared in the preview pane without opening them (I could read them later in the archives). Eventually I unsubscribed (for other reasons) and these days I access all posts via the archives. As for the software I use, I am running Microsoft Office Suite 2000 Pro (supposedly the solution to the differing formats but not so) and send my E-Mails from ‘FrontPage 2000 through ‘Outlook 2000’ (as sending them from ‘Word 2000’ or direct from ‘Outlook 2000’ resulted in hieroglyphics instead of the higher ᴀsᴄɪɪ characters). Microsoft say they are ‘working on the problem’ ... I have tried some other programmes but unless I were to learn ᴜɴɪx or ʟɪɴᴜx they are not particularly better than Microsoft. This personal computer business is still in its ‘early days’ and maybe these issues will be resolved eventually ... or maybe not: look at the incompatibility of nuts and bolts (British Standard Fine (ʙsғ); British Standard Whitworth (ʙsᴡ); Unified Thread Standard (ᴜᴛs); Metric; and so on). In Australia, each state had differing rail gauges (width) in its early years which made for laborious change-overs of bogies in order to cross over the dotted lines! The same with plumbing, HiFi equipment; currency and so on and so on. It is a global village in name only yet. Despite its shortcomings it sure beats using postal mail or carrier pigeon, though. The almost instantaneous multiple feed-back capacity of a Mailing List is second to none.
October 13 1999: RESPONDENT: Well Richard, at least now I can read you message [Apramanas In Action] without all of the errors, now can you at least shorten them, so I will read them? RICHARD: Okay, what could be more concise than an encyclopaedia then ... the Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes the Apramanas Thus even an encyclopaedia classifies compassion as being a function of the affective faculty.
RESPONDENT: Well Richard, at least now I can read you message [Apramanas In Action] without all of the errors, now can you at least shorten them, so I will read them? RICHARD: Okay, what could be more concise than an encyclopaedia then ... the Encyclopaedia Britannica
describes the Apramanas RESPONDENT: So Richard given what you have printed, would you say that if a person is ‘perfect’ they would be perfect in every domain described? RICHARD: No ... the Apramanas (‘infinite feelings’) are all a function of the affective faculty.
RESPONDENT: So Richard would you say that if a person is ‘perfect’ they would be perfect in every domain described [in the Apramanas]? RICHARD: No ... the Apramanas RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard, why folks confuse ‘feelings’ which are not real and are removable with ‘emotions’ why are of the humanness, real and non removable? RICHARD: The word <feeling> serves two faculties (sensate and affective) as in ‘I feel the sun on my face’ or ‘I feel the wind in my hair (sensate feeling) and ‘I feel hateful’ or ‘I feel loving’ (affective feeling). Thus when I write about the affective feelings I am meaning it as all the emotions and passions and calentures ... it is an all-inclusive term. The affective feelings include both the affectionate and desirable emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are loving and trusting) and hostile and invidious emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are hateful and fearful). This means the entire ‘software package’ of malice and sorrow along with its antidotal love and compassion in its totality ... all which are born of the instincts: the fear and aggression (savage) and nurture and desire (tender) genetically encoded by blind nature as a ‘rough and ready’ survival package. As it is ‘software’ and not ‘hardware’ it can be deleted in its totality when it is no longer needed. And as intelligence (the ability to think, to reflect and plan and implement considered action for beneficial reasons) has evolved in one carbon-based life-form – the human species – it is no longer needed. This ‘quick and dirty’ reactionary package is now a hindrance – a liability rather than an asset – and the 160,000,000 human beings killed in wars this century by their fellow human beings bears stark testimony to this observation. In my experience the whole lot are ‘removable’ – but only when the rudimentary animal self lurking around in the centre of these feelings psychologically and psychically self-immolates – and not just the so-called ‘bad’ ones (the savage instincts). That is, both the ‘good’ feelings, the affectionate and desirable emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are loving and trusting) and the ‘bad’ feelings, the hostile and invidious emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are hateful and fearful) are no longer extant. The result is an individual peace-on-earth. Which ones is it that you are saying are ‘humaneness’ and therefore ‘non removable’?
RESPONDENT: I wonder Richard, why folks confuse ‘feelings’ which are not real and are removable with ‘emotions’ why are of the humanness, real and non removable? RICHARD: The word <feeling> serves two faculties (sensate and affective) as in ‘I feel the sun on my face’ or ‘I feel the wind in my hair (sensate feeling) and ‘I feel hateful’ or ‘I feel loving’ (affective feeling). Thus when I write about the affective feelings I am meaning it as all the emotions and passions and calentures ... it is an all-inclusive term. The affective feelings include both the affectionate and desirable emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are loving and trusting) and hostile and invidious emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are hateful and fearful). This means the entire ‘software package’ of malice and sorrow along with its antidotal love and compassion in its totality ... all which are born of the instincts: the fear and aggression (savage) and nurture and desire (tender) genetically encoded by blind nature as a ‘rough and ready’ survival package. As it is ‘software’ and not ‘hardware’ it can be deleted in its totality when it is no longer needed. And as intelligence (the ability to think, to reflect and plan and implement considered action for beneficial reasons) has evolved in one carbon-based life-form – the human species – it is no longer needed. This ‘quick and dirty’ reactionary package is now a hindrance – a liability rather than an asset – and the 160,000,000 human beings killed in wars this century by their fellow human beings bears stark testimony to this observation. In my experience the whole lot are ‘removable’ – but only when the rudimentary animal self lurking around in the centre of these feelings psychologically and psychically self-immolates – and not just the so-called ‘bad’ ones (the savage instincts). That is, both the ‘good’ feelings, the affectionate and desirable emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are loving and trusting) and the ‘bad’ feelings, the hostile and invidious emotions and/or passions and/or calentures (those that are hateful and fearful) are no longer extant. The result is an individual peace-on-earth. Which ones is it that you are saying are ‘humanness’ and therefore ‘non removable’? RESPONDENT: Well Richard, the ones that are of a natural human, before he/she became lost in her/his descriptions, the REAL ones. RICHARD: As you are not ‘lost in your descriptions’, then it should be no problem for you to describe which ones are ‘the REAL ones’, eh? Which means: which ‘emotions’ is it that you are saying are ‘humanness’ and therefore ‘non removable’? Or: which ‘emotions’ are ‘the ones that are of a natural human’ ... according to you?
RESPONDENT No. 33: I taught at Rishi Valley for a few years. RICHARD: What attracted you to do so? RESPONDENT No. 33: I was very much interested (and still am) in the philosophy of K. RICHARD: Please correct me if I am wrong ... but was not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘philosophy’
about perfect peace and understanding? Where did he offer anything to anybody who said ‘but I don’t long for perfect
peace and understanding. I want pleasure, instant gratification. Give me the magic lamp and I will ask for nothing else’?
Did you misunderstand his ‘philosophy’ ... or did you teach under false pretences? RESPONDENT: I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy when he had none, he just spoke truth. RICHARD: You have caught my attention ... I was not aware of this. Could you provide some of the quotes where ‘he just spoke truth’ please? RESPONDENT: There is no philosophy needed when truth is spoken. RICHARD: Good ... will you provide the quotes of ‘when truth is spoken’ by yourself please? RESPONDENT: Philosophy is needed in order to argue with one another, given we do not ‘see’ the truth in order to speak it. RICHARD: Easy on this <we> business ... I have no difficulties whatsoever in detecting ‘the truth in order to speak it’. As for philosophy being ‘needed in order to argue’ ... maybe – just maybe – that is the price to be paid for the dogmatic insistence that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’ put-down which quite often rears its head when anyone dares to say something of substance. Try running ‘he who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know’ through the archives and see for yourself that all any one is allowed to speak of is philosophy (‘love of wisdom’) ... except, of course, someone being clever will pop up and say that if one does not see the truth then one should not be talking about it (and, conversely, if one does see the truth one cannot be talking about it anyway because the truth cannot be spoken). RESPONDENT: And if we did see and speak the truth, Hum along comes the phil-officers. RICHARD: You never, ever ‘speak the truth’ when you write to me ... whenever I have engaged you in a discussion basically all you have to say can be summed up with your ubiquitous ‘see the truth’ statement (as above) ... followed by some variation on your plaintive ‘have been failing anew for 19 years’ phrase. For example: [Respondent]: ‘This is rather impossible to transmit and I have been learning for almost 19 years from my mistakes a way to converse about it’ [endquote]. However, here is your opportunity to put all your prevaricating aside, once and for all, and ‘speak the truth’. Either that or acknowledge that you too believe that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’. You have my undivided attention.
RESPONDENT: I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy when he had none, he just spoke truth. RICHARD: You have caught my attention ... I was not aware of this. Could you provide some of the quotes where ‘he just spoke truth’ please? RESPONDENT: There is no philosophy needed when truth is spoken. RICHARD: Good ... will you provide the quotes of ‘when truth is spoken’ by yourself please? RESPONDENT: Philosophy is needed in order to argue with one another, given we do not ‘see’ the truth in order to speak it. RICHARD: Easy on this <we> business ... I have no difficulties whatsoever in detecting ‘the truth in order to speak it’. As for philosophy being ‘needed in order to argue’ ... maybe – just maybe – that is the price to be paid for the dogmatic insistence that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’ put-down which quite often rears its head when anyone dares to say something of substance. Try running ‘he who knows does not speak; he who speaks does not know’ through the archives and see for yourself that all any one is allowed to speak of is philosophy (‘love of wisdom’) ... except, of course, someone being clever will pop up and say that if one does not see the truth then one should not be talking about it (and, conversely, if one does see the truth one cannot be talking about it anyway because the truth cannot be spoken). RESPONDENT: And if we did see and speak the truth, Hum along comes the phil-officers. RICHARD: You never, ever ‘speak the truth’ when you write to me ... whenever I have engaged you in a discussion basically all you have to say can be summed up with your ubiquitous ‘see the truth’ statement (as above) ... followed by some variation on your plaintive ‘have been failing anew for 19 years’ phrase. For example: [Respondent]: ‘This is rather impossible to transmit and I have been learning for almost 19 years from my mistakes a way to converse about it’ [endquote]. However, here is your opportunity to put all your prevaricating aside, once and for all, and ‘speak the truth’. Either that or acknowledge that you too believe that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’. You have my undivided attention. RESPONDENT: Well Richard, if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self. RICHARD: Good ... this is a clear answer. Will you provide some examples of ‘three or less words K spoke’ so that I can know what to look for in order to see what you mean by ‘nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’? RESPONDENT: The problem may well be that a truth spoken instantly becomes a lie. No. 10, speaking a truth. RICHARD: Ahh ... this sentence of yours muddies the water somewhat and is no longer a clear answer. Are you now saying that any of the ‘three or less words K spoke’ are a lie ... even though further above you said ‘he just spoke truth’? Perhaps this is the answer to your question ‘I wonder why folks say Krishnamurti had a philosophy’ ... maybe its a philosophy what they hear whilst listening to the lies? RESPONDENT: Each set of words in red after the name ‘Question’, are the answer your request about ‘quotes’ where I spoke truth. RICHARD: No, they are not, they are lies ... because every single one of your words ‘instantly becomes a lie’ when spoken. As you are saying that the truth cannot be spoken without it becoming a lie ... why not just acknowledge that ‘the truth cannot be spoken’ and be done with it? Why try so desperately to make out that your ‘Transformation’, which has all the hallmarks of ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’, is different and stop befooling yourself? Incidentally, why do you go around knowingly telling people lies?
CORRESPONDENT No. 10 (Part Four) 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 |
