|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RESPONDENT: 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 ‘No. 10’, 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? RESPONDENT: Richard, perhaps we can start here. While a truth is being spoken it is 100% true, the instant the words are complete the truth ‘dies’ (becomes a lie) and needs to be discovered anew. RICHARD: Okay ... would you say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words are ‘complete’ by now? If so, according to your philosophy his words have ‘died’ and ‘have become a lie’ ... which means that your statement (‘if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’) is not only a lie (because those words too have now ‘died’) but was incorrect whilst it was being spoken by you. 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 dead words? Is this why you will not 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’? How can a truth which ‘‘dies’ (becomes a lie)’ ever ‘stand by it’s self’? RESPONDENT: Truth has a birth, a life and then a death, just as we do. RICHARD: Oh ... I always understood the truth to be timeless and spaceless and formless ... and I do recall you indicating this to be correct when asked some time back. Viz.:
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 truth (which in your case is the truth chopping and changing its mind)? RESPONDENT: Truth can be spoken, it is the ‘hearing’ of it that seems to be impossible. 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 ... 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’ instead of blaming the listener for your failure. Because I do not and will not have any problem whatsoever in ‘the hearing of it’.
RESPONDENT: Richard, perhaps we can start here. While a truth is being spoken it is 100% true, the instant the words are complete the truth ‘dies’ (becomes a lie) and needs to be discovered anew. RICHARD: Okay ... would you say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words are ‘complete’ by now? If so, according to your philosophy his words have ‘died’ and ‘have become a lie’ ... which means that your statement (‘if a person reads about three or less words K spoke, nothing else is needed for truth stands by it’s self’) is not only a lie (because those words too have now ‘died’) but was incorrect whilst it was being spoken by you. 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 dead words? Is this why you will not 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’? How can a truth which ‘‘dies’ (becomes a lie)’ ever ‘stand by it’s self’? RESPONDENT: Truth has a birth, a life and then a death, just as we do. RICHARD: Oh ... I always understood the truth to be timeless and spaceless and formless ... and I do recall you indicating this to be correct when asked some time back. Viz.:
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 truth (which in your case is the truth chopping and changing its mind)? RESPONDENT: Truth can be spoken, it is the ‘hearing’ of it that seems to be impossible. 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 ... 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’ instead of blaming the listener for your failure. Because I do not and will not have any problem whatsoever in ‘the hearing of it’. RESPONDENT: Richard, I do not care to engage in an argument with you. RICHARD: How on earth does a discussion turn into an argument in your mind? Is it because I do not necessarily agree with what you say? Am I to unquestionably take your words to heart without examining if they be valid? RESPONDENT: If I did I would be just as this group and the world is, ‘violent’. RICHARD: May I suggest that you may already be subject to being ‘violent’ ... given that you experience a frank discussion as ‘an argument’ that would lead to you being ‘just as this group and the world is, violent’? Are you the same person who just recently wrote: ‘to be ‘simple’ one must drop ALL of their ‘ego’ forget about etiquette (still can’t spell that word) and not be concerned about hurting another, can this happen?’ (Message 00649 of Archive 99/10: Date: Sat, 16 Oct 1999). I am indeed being simple, I have no identity whatsoever (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are no longer extant), I am not ruled by etiquette, and I am in no way concerned about hurting you. You asked ‘can this happen’ ... and when it does happen you fail to honour your agreement, saying that you ‘do not care to engage in an argument’ because if you did you ‘would be just as this group and the world is, ‘violent’’. It would appear that you are full of pith and wind. RESPONDENT: If you can and will listen to the truth, then just re-read the posts from me, and instead of already knowing, while reading, question yourself, as to whether you ‘can and do’ listen. RICHARD: I always do this already, with each and every person, thing or event that occurs as each moment occurs. Just as each moment is fresh so too am I fresh ... thus there is, automatically and effortlessly, a fresh looking, listening, reading and questioning. And, as I do as you say here and ‘just re-read’ your posts, what I see is that you do not ‘speak the truth’. RESPONDENT: If the written word is read and is ‘seen’ as it was intended, the ‘truth’ of the words are born new within the reader of the words, (it is called an insight’). RICHARD: As I remarked before, you never, ever ‘speak the truth’ when you write to me, for whenever I engage you in a discussion basically all you have to say can be summed up with your ubiquitous ‘‘see’ the ‘truth’’ statement ... which is what you do here with your ‘if the written word is read and is ‘seen’ as it was intended, the ‘truth’ of the words are born new within the reader’ whitewash. And I have no need for some paltry and momentary ‘insight’ to ascertain what the nature, character, disposition and constitution of ‘the truth’ is ... it is open to view each moment again. Once again, 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’ instead of telling me that I need to have ‘an insight’ so that you can avoid holding amenability for your own failure to be an effective ‘empty vessel’ for that non-cognitive, non-affective, non-sensate and bodiless ‘Love’ and/or ‘Compassion’ and/or ‘Truth’ that has hoodwinked you into believing will transform ‘all of NATURE’ (including the animals) and bring about peace on earth. I do ‘see’ what you have to say.
RESPONDENT: This is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’. Can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true? RICHARD: Where on earth is your head at to repeat such asinine ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the simmering ’sixties? Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters and/or ‘dictate the rules’. Or, in the words of Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos:
So as to assist in coming out of the ’sixties, where the battle of the sexes climbed sharply towards its
zenith, and here into the ’noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success, you may or may not find the following URL
helpful:
RICHARD: Whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters and/or ‘dictate the rules’. Or, in the words of Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos: [quote]: ‘Women are the carriers of society’s values ... men are deviant in the sense that many of the qualities admired in them are also one’s that society has to regard with disapproval ... Women’s Lib portrays society and morality as a male invention to coerce and punish women ... [yet] women are a virtuous group seeking to impose their moral standards on men’. [endquote]. ‘The Female Woman’; pps 134-135 © Arianna Stassinopoulos 1973; published by William Collins Sons & Coy Ltd Glascow). RESPONDENT: You seem to disagree then agree Richard. RICHARD: In case you did not notice ... I was disagreeing all the way through. RESPONDENT: I was speaking of what is here and now, not the sixties. RICHARD: Yet the point is that it is not ‘a man’s world’ now ... just as it never was in the ’sixties. * RICHARD: So as to assist in coming out of the ’sixties, where the battle of the sexes climbed sharply towards its zenith, and here into the ’noughties, where equity and parity is the key to success, you may or may not find the following URL helpful: www.jokeaday.com/nfweird014.shtml (Whomsoever finds scatological humour to be of questionable taste is advised not to access this URL). RESPONDENT: Your URL seems rather silly to me. RICHARD: I was simply acting upon your own advice. Viz.:
May I ask? What does it take for you to grasp that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit your feminist point of view? You have complained to me in the past that I used too many words: [quote]: ‘Well Richard, at least now I can read you message without all of the errors, now can you at least shorten them, so I will read them?’ and again: ‘just a short answer would be perfect’ and again: ‘Damn Richard, a lot of words to say nothing’ [end quotes] ... so, after tossing and turning and laying awake all night, I suddenly saw the light: is it not said that ‘a picture paints a thousand words’? Apparently not, eh?
RESPONDENT: Your URL seems rather silly to me. RICHARD: I was simply acting upon your own advice. Viz.: [quote]: ‘I am just to lazy to write long posts filled with detail that seems clear to me, the greater amount of words used the less the communing, for to do the work for another is to get to keep doing it, when a person sees not, pointing is difficult’. [endquote]. (Message 00539 of Archive 00/03). May I ask? What does it take for you to grasp that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit your feminist point of view? You have complained to me in the past that I used too many words: [quote]: ‘Well Richard, at least now I can read you message without all of the errors, now can you at least shorten them, so I will read them?’ and again: ‘just a short answer would be perfect’ and again: ‘Damn Richard, a lot of words to say nothing’ [end quotes] ... so, after tossing and turning and laying awake all night, I suddenly saw the light: is it not said that ‘a picture paints a thousand words’? Apparently not, eh? RESPONDENT: Well Richard, if you mean the picture of the man with his head up his ass, I do not think that of you at all. RICHARD: Good ... having some regard for where the other person’s head is at goes half-way towards what you call ‘communing’ as it minimises what you call ‘when a person sees not, pointing is difficult’. The other half of what you call ‘communing’ happens when the recipient of what you call ‘pointing’ checks to see where their head is at also. So, bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Viz.:
Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because then equity and parity will be artless and free.
RICHARD: Having some regard for where the other person’s head is at goes half-way towards what you call ‘communing’ as it minimises what you call ‘when a person sees not, pointing is difficult’. The other half of what you call ‘communing’ happens when the recipient of what you call ‘pointing’ checks to see where their head is at also. So, bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because equity and parity will be artless and free. RESPONDENT: Well Richard your messages seem to have taken on a small bit of difference, they are the same with a small thread of difference. RICHARD: Oh? I do not see any difference whatsoever other than being brief. RESPONDENT: This Arianna knows not of what she speaks ... RICHARD: Okay ... but what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and where and how? RESPONDENT: ... nor do you I say. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts in the few lines I wrote do I ‘‘know not of what [I] speak’ according to you? It is a very short message that I wrote, being informed as I was of your laziness. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: To ‘unite’ all thought must be gone, and love from intelligence which has been created must be in order. RICHARD: May I ask? Why is it, then, that you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’? RESPONDENT: I know not what to do to put this in a ‘thought’ spoken way so it can be understood ... RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? First explain why you consider that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and see what happens, eh? You must have some explanation for having come to this conclusion ... or else you are just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind (which would make you a fool). RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do! RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is. I do so look forward to your response on these few trifling matters.
RICHARD: Bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because then equity and parity will be artless and free. RESPONDENT: This Arianna knows not of what she speaks ... RICHARD: Okay ... but what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and where and how? RESPONDENT: What makes the difference about what she said in 1973, I just responded given you posted it to prove your rightness. RICHARD: I am well aware that you ‘just responded’ ... yet you responded with a blanket dismissal (‘this Arianna knows not of what she speaks’) of what she observed. What I am asking is: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? * RESPONDENT: ... nor do you I say. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts in the few lines I wrote do I know not of what I speak according to you? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I said you know not of what you speak given you do not. RICHARD: Oh? Who decided that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? * RESPONDENT: Your statement above seems correct and is why the male and female cannot unite. RICHARD: Are you saying that the overt/covert power battle between man and woman is the reason that ‘the male and female cannot unite’? * RESPONDENT: To ‘unite’ all thought must be gone, and love from intelligence which has been created must be in order. RICHARD: May I ask? Why is it, then, that you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’? RESPONDENT: There is no reason Richard, reason is for the thoughtful ones, those lost in reason, justification and explanation. RICHARD: Okay, let me put it this way: (1) has ‘all thought gone’ for you? (2) has ‘love from intelligence which has been created in order’ for you? * RESPONDENT: I know not what to do to put this in a ‘thought’ spoken way so it can be understood ... RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? First explain why you consider that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and see what happens, eh? You must have some explanation for having come to this conclusion ... or else you are just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind (which would make you a fool). RESPONDENT: Perfect Richard, you have hit upon it, I am a fool, a perfect one at that! RICHARD: Good ... now that it has been established that you are a fool who was sucked in badly by some ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the ’sixties we can proceed. Am I to take it that you now agree that power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite and not because ‘it’s a man’s world’ after all? * RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do! RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is. RESPONDENT: No truth can be demonstrated you either see it or not, Richard. RICHARD: Okay ... I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’. What do you see?
RICHARD: Bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because then equity and parity will be artless and free. RESPONDENT: This Arianna knows not of what she speaks ... RICHARD: Okay ... but what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and where and how? RESPONDENT: What makes the difference about what she said in 1973, I just responded given you posted it to prove your rightness. RICHARD: I am well aware that you ‘just responded’ ... yet you responded with a blanket dismissal (‘this Arianna knows not of what she speaks’) of what she observed. What I am asking is: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Here and now Richard, she was just expounding her theory, for the profit, or other gain she was looking for RICHARD: Yet the question is not about what you think her motives for writing are, the question is this: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? * RESPONDENT: ... nor do you I say. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts in the few lines I wrote do I know not of what I speak according to you? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I said you know not of what you speak given you do not. RICHARD: Oh? Who decided that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: Me. RICHARD: Okay, seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain (and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) how can you possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? * RESPONDENT: Your statement above seems correct and is why the male and female cannot unite. RICHARD: Are you saying that the overt/covert power battle between man and woman is the reason that ‘the male and female cannot unite’? RESPONDENT: No, it is only a tiny part. RICHARD: Okay, what is the major part? * RESPONDENT: The men’s club and the women’s club are not very well known, you know! RICHARD: Every woman I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the men’s club’ and every man I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the women’s club’ ... plus it is written about in books, newspapers, magazines and on the internet as well as being talked about on radio and television and in seminars. Therefore, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? * RESPONDENT: To ‘unite’ all thought must be gone, and love from intelligence which has been created must be in order. RICHARD: May I ask? Why is it, then, that you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’? RESPONDENT: There is no reason Richard, reason is for the thoughtful ones, those lost in reason, justification and explanation. RICHARD: Okay, let me put it this way: (1) has ‘all thought gone’ for you? (2) has ‘love from intelligence which has been created in order’ for you? RESPONDENT: All control that thought had is gone, thought is still here otherwise I could not respond. Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation is Creating. RICHARD: Okay, I take it from this that you fit your detailed requirements to ‘unite’ ... yet it has not happened. Can you ‘see’ what is preventing ‘uniting’ from happening vis a vis you and your partner? * RESPONDENT: I know not what to do to put this in a ‘thought’ spoken way so it can be understood ... RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? First explain why you consider that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and see what happens, eh? You must have some explanation for having come to this conclusion ... or else you are just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind (which would make you a fool). RESPONDENT: Perfect Richard, you have hit upon it, I am a fool, a perfect one at that! RICHARD: Good ... now that it has been established that you are a fool who was sucked in badly by some ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the ‘sixties we can proceed. Am I to take it that you now agree that power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite and not because ‘it’s a man’s world’ after all? RESPONDENT: Why do you add to my words? RICHARD: Where did I ‘add to your words’? I had said that unless you had an explanation for your conclusion that it is ‘a man’s world’ it would make you a fool to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind ... and you replied that I had ‘hit upon it, I am a fool’. Where, may I ask again, am I adding to your words? * RESPONDENT: Do you not know that knowledge cannot add to Intelligence? RICHARD: Are you telling me that you are ‘Intelligence’ itself now? The last time we corresponded you said you were an ‘empty vessel’ for ‘Intelligence’ to come through ... have you been taken over completely these days? * RESPONDENT: Power which the male has thus far is the cause of this insanity, if the power were to be given to the female the same result would be. RICHARD: How is this response of yours different from what I wrote (above)? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite’. * RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do! RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is. RESPONDENT: No truth can be demonstrated you either see it or not, Richard. RICHARD: Okay ... I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’. What do you see? RESPONDENT: I ‘see’ that you are thinking your way through and failing! RICHARD: Okay ... so there are two ‘truths’ (your truth and my truth). Seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection ... which ‘truth’ is correct? * RESPONDENT: Thought cannot find the other side, for all thought is blind/dead, just as you are. RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I am is ‘blind/dead’ ... is this not just another cliché on your part? Given that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection, will you retract your ‘truth’ unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is. * RESPONDENT: Damn I have forgotten my ‘temperedness’. Hum Richard when a person looks, the mind must be free to see! RICHARD: This mind is free to see; this free-seeing mind is looking; this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’ and this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what I am is not ‘blind/dead’. What do you see?
RICHARD: Bearing in mind that there may very well be something of worth to examine that does not fit a feminist point of view, the question is: what is being ‘pointed to’ in regards your statement (‘this is a man’s world ... the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?) by my response? Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. Maybe – just maybe – some reflecting and contemplating on this overt/covert ‘balance of power’ issue will throw some light on why you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’. Because then equity and parity will be artless and free. RESPONDENT: This Arianna knows not of what she speaks ... RICHARD: Okay ... but what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ and where and how? RESPONDENT: What makes the difference about what she said in 1973, I just responded given you posted it to prove your rightness. RICHARD: I am well aware that you ‘just responded’ ... yet you responded with a blanket dismissal (‘this Arianna knows not of what she speaks’) of what she observed. What I am asking is: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Here and now Richard, she was just expounding her theory, for the profit, or other gain she was looking for RICHARD: Yet the question is not about what you think her motives for writing are, the question is this: what is it that is incorrect (according to you) in what I quoted of hers ... and where and how? RESPONDENT: Richard I do not care about quotes taken out of context ... RICHARD: Allow me to refresh your memory as in regards context Viz.:
Do I have to have ‘Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation’ in order to ‘see’ with the clarity of that ‘Intelligence’ that this quote is taken ‘out of context’? Seeing that I do not have your advantage, will you point out just where you ‘see’ that this is ‘out of context’ ... and how? * RESPONDENT: Nor do I care what walkie talkies are saying to one another. RICHARD: Yet even what you call ‘walkie talkies’ can have an insight every now and then. Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos had something of value to say in defining the problem ... and this ‘battle of the sexes’ need no longer hold sway if the need for power is seen at its source. So the question still is this: what it is that Ms. Arianna Stassinopoulos ‘knows not of what she speaks’ ... and where and how? * RESPONDENT: ... nor do you I say. RICHARD: Okay ... whereabouts in the few lines I wrote do I know not of what I speak according to you? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘whilst it is true that men overtly ‘rule the roost’ and/or ‘hold the reins of power’ ... yet all the while women covertly ‘define the parameters’ and/or ‘dictate the rules’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: I said you know not of what you speak given you do not. RICHARD: Oh? Who decided that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: Me. RICHARD: Okay, seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain (and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) how can you possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? RESPONDENT: It is easy Richard I just say it, what you do with it is 100% up to you. RICHARD: Yet I did not ask how you ‘say’ it, I asked how you can possibly ‘see’ it ... and what I am 100% doing with what you ‘say’ is to ask you (seeing that I am aware moment-to-moment of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection) how you can possibly ‘see’ that it is ‘given’ that I do not know of what I speak? * RESPONDENT: Your statement above seems correct and is why the male and female cannot unite. RICHARD: Are you saying that the overt/covert power battle between man and woman is the reason that ‘the male and female cannot unite’? RESPONDENT: No, it is only a tiny part. RICHARD: Okay, what is the major part? RESPONDENT: The fact that each person does not have 100% of themself, instead we are ego machines. RICHARD: But by ‘we’ you do not mean yourself as well because you certainly have ‘100% of yourself’ and you certainly are not an ‘ego machine’ and yet you have ‘failed to ‘join’ your partner 100%’. Therefore, it cannot the ‘major part’ which is preventing you and your partner uniting, eh? Could it be that you have inadvertently overlooked the ‘tiny part’ (the overt/covert power battle between man and woman) through your dedicated focus on the major part? Just so as there is no misunderstanding about what I am proposing here, allow me to re-phrase your statement (‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... can we ever ‘unite’ as long as this is true?’) and ‘see’ what it looks like. Viz.:
How do you ‘see’ this ‘pointing’ ... does this sentence display and/or reveal the overt/covert power-battle between the sexes? * RESPONDENT: The men’s club and the women’s club are not very well known, you know! RICHARD: Every woman I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the men’s club’ and every man I have ever spoken to is aware of what you call ‘the women’s club’ ... plus it is written about in books, newspapers, magazines and on the internet as well as being talked about on radio and television and in seminars. Therefore, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? RESPONDENT: Yes Richard I do not belong to either club. RICHARD: Yet you have ‘failed to ‘join’ your partner 100%’ ... so not belonging to either what you call ‘the men’s club’ or what you call ‘the women’s club’ is not going to enable other men and women to unite either, eh? So, is there something new you can contribute to aid human understanding? * RESPONDENT: To ‘unite’ all thought must be gone, and love from intelligence which has been created must be in order. RICHARD: May I ask? Why is it, then, that you and your partner have been unable to ‘unite’? RESPONDENT: There is no reason Richard, reason is for the thoughtful ones, those lost in reason, justification and explanation. RICHARD: Okay, let me put it this way: (1) has ‘all thought gone’ for you? (2) has ‘love from intelligence which has been created in order’ for you? RESPONDENT: All control that thought had is gone, thought is still here otherwise I could not respond. Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation is Creating. RICHARD: Okay, I take it from this that you fit your own detailed requirements to ‘unite’ ... yet it has not happened. Can you ‘see’ what is preventing ‘uniting’ from happening vis a vis you and your partner? RESPONDENT: Yes Richard, my failure to ‘join’ my partner 100%. RICHARD: Okay ... can you ‘see’ what is causing your ‘failure to ‘join’ your partner 100%’? * RESPONDENT: I know not what to do to put this in a ‘thought’ spoken way so it can be understood ... RICHARD: May I make a suggestion? First explain why you consider that ‘this is a man’s world put together by men for men and to be maintained by men, the women must ‘fit in’ and get by using the ‘men’s rule’ ... and then see what happens, eh? You must have some explanation for having come to this conclusion ... or else you are just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind (which would make you a fool). RESPONDENT: Perfect Richard, you have hit upon it, I am a fool, a perfect one at that! RICHARD: Good ... now that it has been established that you are a fool who was sucked in badly by some ‘radical feminist’ propaganda from the ’sixties we can proceed. Am I to take it that you now agree that power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite and not because ‘it’s a man’s world’ after all? RESPONDENT: Why do you add to my words? RICHARD: Where did I ‘add to your words’? I had said that unless you had an explanation for your conclusion that it is ‘a man’s world’ it would make you a fool to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind ... and you replied that I had ‘hit upon it, I am a fool’. Where, may I ask again, am I adding to your words? RESPONDENT: The sucked in badly part. RICHARD: Fair enough ... as you were not ‘sucked in badly’ then, in what way were you a ‘perfect fool’ to be just writing the first bit of propaganda that comes into your mind? * RESPONDENT: Do you not know that knowledge cannot add to Intelligence? RICHARD: Are you telling me that you are ‘Intelligence’ itself now? The last time we corresponded you said you were an ‘empty vessel’ for ‘Intelligence’ to come through ... have you been taken over completely these days? RESPONDENT: They are the same, and there is nothing to take over, that would be force. RICHARD: Okay ... seeing that you are saying that you and ‘Intelligence’ are the same, then what you are saying (above) is that ‘knowledge cannot add to Intelligence/you’. Therefore, when ‘Intelligence/you’ writes ‘this is a man’s world’ and Richard points out that this is ‘radical feminist propaganda’, then this bit of knowledge ‘cannot add to Intelligence/you’ (irregardless of how vital to understanding the overt/covert power battle betwixt man and woman it is). In other words: ‘Intelligence/you’ has the knowledge that ‘this is a man’s world’ and the knowledge that ‘this is radical feminist propaganda’ cannot be added to the knowledge that ‘Intelligence/you’ already has. Am I ‘seeing’ this correctly? * RESPONDENT: Power which the male has thus far is the cause of this insanity, if the power were to be given to the female the same result would be. RICHARD: How is this response of yours different from what I wrote (above)? Viz.: [Richard]: ‘power itself is the reason why man and woman cannot unite’. RESPONDENT: You used the word reason. RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that ‘power itself’ is not the reason why man and woman cannot unite? Because if so, why did you say ‘power destroys’ in a recent post? Viz.:
Where you say that ‘power destroys’, do you also ‘see’ that power prevents man and woman uniting ... or not? * RESPONDENT: ... for it cannot be understood, it must be seen and experienced by each, everything else is just so much thought thinking its way through, just as you do! RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I do is have ‘thought thinking its way through’ ... is this not just a cliché on your part? Therefore, could you either (a) demonstrate that this statement of yours is true ... or (b) retract your statement unreservedly for being the chestnut that it is. RESPONDENT: No truth can be demonstrated you either see it or not, Richard. RICHARD: Okay ... I see the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’. What do you see? RESPONDENT: I ‘see’ that you are thinking your way through and failing! RICHARD: Okay ... so there are two ‘truths’ (your truth and my truth). Seeing that I am aware, moment-to-moment, of what goes on in this brain and that you are not privy to this hands-on inspection ... which ‘truth’ is correct? RESPONDENT: I do not see two truths if there are two of them then yours is, (if there is a correct). RICHARD: Where you say ‘I do not see two truths’ (even though there are two ‘truths’) are you not conveying the impression that the ‘Love which is of Intelligence, born of Creation’ has made you blind? Can you ‘see’ this? * RESPONDENT: Thought cannot find the other side, for all thought is blind/dead, just as you are. RICHARD: Hmm ... how can you possibly know that what I am is ‘blind/dead’ ... is this not
just another cliché RESPONDENT: Hum repeat, repeat. RICHARD: Indeed ... and I will keep on repeating it just as long as you keep on repeating your ‘just as you do!’ and your ‘just as you are’ clichés. It is entirely up to you as to whether you wish to have an intelligent conversation or not. * RESPONDENT: Damn I have forgotten my ‘temperedness’. Hum Richard when a person looks, the mind must be free to see! RICHARD: This mind is free to see; this free-seeing mind is looking; this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what happens for me is not ‘thought thinking its way through’ and this free-seeing mind is seeing the truth that what I am is not ‘blind/dead’. What do you see? RESPONDENT: Your words. RICHARD: Good ... and do you ‘see’ what my words are ‘pointing to’ or not? * RESPONDENT: And I am not your authority. RICHARD: I never said that you were my authority ... what on earth gives you that idea? The peace-on-earth which became apparent in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) was the authority all those years ago. What is your authority?
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 |
