|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
KONRAD: Good luck! RICHARD: I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT: Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M. RICHARD: Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors.
KONRAD: Good luck! RICHARD: I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT: Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M. RICHARD: Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors. RESPONDENT: The blunder is belief that psychological time is actual. RICHARD: Nowhere, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’ have I ever found them to be making the mistake of taking psychological time to be actual. All of them, in their own way and their own words, stated that this (essentially self-centred) approach to the question of what time is, is the very problem that they had become free of. What books do you read that inclines you to say that the blunder which they make is the ‘belief that psychological time is actual’? Anyway, you have side-stepped the issue ... which is: to hold a mimicked disdain for knowledge is to commit oneself to doggedly re-making the blunders of one’s illustrious predecessors. Once again, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’, there is this almost universal disparagement of knowledge ... which disdain you mimicked in your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment (above). The man you like to quote made no secret of his disregard for knowledge ... to the point of convincing gullible acolytes that he had no memory of past events (when he did) and that he had never read any of the writings of his ‘illustrious predecessors’ (which he had). As do you. RESPONDENT: The self is established in confusion. RICHARD: Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’. So strong is this instinct that it makes otherwise intelligent peoples strive for a non-physical immortality (by whatever name). Seeking to be the ‘everlasting’ (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) is merely re-phrasing what the word ‘immortality’ conveys much less ambiguously. And a non-physical ‘everlasting’ cannot be described as being actual in any book. Could it be that you are dutifully blundering?
RICHARD: I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT: Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M. RICHARD: Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors. RESPONDENT: The blunder is belief that psychological time is actual. RICHARD: Nowhere, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’ have I ever found them to be making the mistake of taking psychological time to be actual. All of them, in their own way and their own words, stated that this (essentially self-centred) approach to the question of what time is, is the very problem that they had become free of. What books do you read that inclines you to say that the blunder which they make is the ‘belief that psychological time is actual’? RESPONDENT: The blunder (apparent from proclamation that ‘I know where I am, where I came from and how I got there’) is the belief that psychological time is actual. The confusion concerns the nature of self. RICHARD: If I may point out? You are simply flogging an empty issue over and over again ... we have discussed this before, you and I. Nevertheless, I am only too happy to re-present it for you. Viz.:
Now can we attend to the subject under discussion? Which is: whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors. * RICHARD: Anyway, you have side-stepped the issue ... which is: to hold a mimicked disdain for knowledge is to commit oneself to doggedly re-making the blunders of one’s illustrious predecessors. Once again, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’, there is this almost universal disparagement of knowledge ... which disdain you mimicked in your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment (above). The man you like to quote made no secret of his disregard for knowledge ... to the point of convincing gullible acolytes that he had no memory of past events (when he did) and that he had never read any of the writings of his ‘illustrious predecessors’ (which he had). As do you. RESPONDENT: You mistake seeing the false in terms of identity with disdain for knowledge. RICHARD: Where have I made the ‘mistake of seeing the false in terms of identity with disdain for knowledge’? It was you who posted ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ and not me. It would seem that it is yourself who is making the ‘mistake of seeing the false in terms of identity with disdain for knowledge’ ... otherwise why post it? RESPONDENT: [quote]: K: ‘I want to find out if man can be free of time and yet function in the world. Obviously there is chronological time – today, tomorrow, next year and so on. If there were no chronological time I should miss my train, so I realize there must be time in order to function, but that time is always measurable. The action of time, which is knowledge, is absolutely necessary. But if that is the only way I can live and function then I am a slave. Now the mind wants to find out whether it is possible to go beyond time. Can it enter into the immeasurable – which has its own space – and live in that world, free of time and yet function in time, with knowledge and all the technological achievements which thought has brought about? This is a very important question’. [endquote]. (The Awakening of Intelligence). RICHARD: I am happy to explore this topic in another post if you so wish ... it has nothing to do with what Konrad and I are discussing (which dialogue is what prompted you to poste your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment). * RESPONDENT: The self is established in confusion. RICHARD: Hmm ... given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’. So strong is this instinct that it makes otherwise intelligent peoples strive for a non-physical immortality (by whatever name). Seeking to be the ‘everlasting’ (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) is merely re-phrasing what the word ‘immortality’ conveys much less ambiguously. And a non-physical ‘everlasting’ cannot be described as being actual in any book. Could it be that you are dutifully blundering? RESPONDENT: There is a freedom which is not measurable. It has extraordinary space that has no contact with any ‘thing’. In that there is no seeking to achieve an end so there is no fear of loss nor desire for gain. See what I mean? RICHARD: Aye, I lived that metaphysical freedom for eleven years ... so I know it intimately and not merely ‘see’ it. But what has all this to do with you disparaging knowledge with your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment? Can you stay with the topic?
RESPONDENT: There is a freedom which is not measurable. It has extraordinary space that has no contact with any ‘thing’. In that there is no seeking to achieve an end so there is no fear of loss nor desire for gain. See what I mean? RICHARD: Aye, I lived that metaphysical freedom for eleven years ... so I know it intimately and not merely ‘see’ it. But what has all this to do with you disparaging knowledge with your ‘Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment? Can you stay with the topic? RESPONDENT: You mean the topic as you will it, your agenda? RICHARD: No, it is your will, your agenda. It was you who posted the mimicked disdain for knowledge comment ... not me. I am simply making sure that you stay on-topic, just this once, so as to see what happens. RESPONDENT: If that whole movement ... RICHARD: By ‘that whole movement’ do you mean knowledge ... or are you straying off-topic again? RESPONDENT: ... does not stop ... RICHARD: Do you mean knowledge must cease ... or thought must cease ... or the whole movement of ‘me’ must cease? RESPONDENT: ... there is no silence and hence no listening. RICHARD: I am beginning to gain the impression that this ‘listening’ business is somewhat similar what the SETI aficionados are doing. RESPONDENT: It is the poor in spirit that are blessed, not the rich in knowledge. RICHARD: Good grief ... regurgitating a pseudo-Christian aphorism makes it evident that ‘that whole movement’ has not stopped for you yet. This is ‘knowledge’ that you are spouting here ... and pathetic ‘knowledge’ at that. It does pay to stay with the topic, eh?
RESPONDENT: It is the poor in spirit that are blessed, not the rich in knowledge. RICHARD: Good grief ... regurgitating a pseudo-Christian aphorism makes it evident that ‘that whole movement’ has not stopped for you yet. This is ‘knowledge’ that you are spouting here ... and pathetic ‘knowledge’ at that. It does pay to stay with the topic, eh? RESPONDENT: What was insightful centuries ago is no less insightful now. RICHARD: If it was as you say (‘insightful centuries ago’) then that is presumably because those peoples lacked the capacity to discriminate between inanity and wisdom. RESPONDENT: If it is just conceptual, there is no understanding. RICHARD: When I say ‘that is knowledge and pathetic knowledge at that’ it is not a conceptual answer given from a conceptual understanding ... I am talking from an on-going experiential actuality. That ‘insightful knowledge’ is predicated upon pathos ... and is experienced as such by anyone who goes past conceptualising and lives the reality of it. RESPONDENT: When a thought arises – ‘that is pathetic’ or ‘he does not see the forest for the trees’, etc is that not the operation of self in time, i.e. a comparing of images? RICHARD: Maybe for you and maybe for others ... but not for me. It is a fact, and not an image, that suffering plays a large part in Christianity’s solution to the human condition. Meanwhile ... back to the topic: do you see that for all of your criticism of knowledge (as evidenced in your ‘Richard knowledge versus Konrad knowledge’ comment) you are spouting knowledge by the bucket load? And tried and failed knowledge at that?
RICHARD: When I say ‘that is knowledge and pathetic knowledge at that’ it is not a conceptual answer given from a conceptual understanding ... I am talking from an on-going experiential actuality. That ‘insightful knowledge’ is predicated upon pathos ... and is experienced as such by anyone who goes past conceptualising and lives the reality of it. RESPONDENT: When a thought arises – ‘that is pathetic’ or ‘he does not see the forest for the trees’, etc is that not the operation of self in time, i.e. a comparing of images? RICHARD: Maybe for you and maybe for others ... but not for me. It is a fact, and not an image, that suffering plays a large part in Christianity’s solution to the human condition. Meanwhile ... back to the topic: do you see that for all of your criticism of knowledge (as evidenced in your ‘Richard knowledge versus Konrad knowledge’ comment) you are spouting knowledge by the bucket load? And tried and failed knowledge at that? RESPONDENT: To think in terms of trying and failing or succeeding is to act from self-image. RICHARD: One will never become free of the human condition whilst sitting in a deckchair on the patio waiting for ‘The Grace of God’ to descend. One needs to dare to do the unthinkable ... and then face the opprobrium of one’s peers with delight in the fun of it all. RESPONDENT: The problem is not with knowledge but with identification with the known ... RICHARD: Ahh ... good. I take it then that you are withdrawing your ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M’. cynicism as being an unfounded and ill-thought out exercise that only appealed to the peanut gallery? RESPONDENT: ... and the aggressiveness, pride and ambition that go with it. RICHARD: Yet it is not ‘identification with’ (anything at all) that is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem ... it is identity itself. To merely cease ‘identifying with ...’ is to keep the identity intact (only a ‘detached identity’ now). Sounds like neo-Buddhism to me.
RESPONDENT: To think in terms of trying and failing or succeeding is to act from self-image. RICHARD: One will never become free of the human condition whilst sitting in a deckchair on the patio waiting for ‘The Grace of God’ to descend. One needs to dare to do the unthinkable ... and then face the opprobrium of one’s peers with delight in the fun of it all. RESPONDENT: Both me doing or god doing are images within the field of thought. RICHARD: Maybe for you and maybe for others ... but not for me. It is a fact and not an image that the ‘I’ that was got off ‘his’ backside and sacrificed ‘himself’ in ‘his’ totality ... thus I am free to be here – unhindered by any ‘walk-in’ – now. RESPONDENT: Insight comes from outside the field of the known. RICHARD: If I may re-phrase this? ‘Insight comes from the field of the not-yet known’. RESPONDENT: If one is doing or waiting for something, there is no space for something new, no insight. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have never gone for that ‘double-speak’ (double-think) ... if you look at your own sentence you are acknowledging that there is a necessity (if not a desire) for ‘something new’. All you are doing is debating the method (‘neither doing nor not-doing’ or ‘neither waiting nor not-waiting’). Once again, it sounds like neo-buddhism to me. * RESPONDENT: The problem is not with knowledge but with identification with the known ... RICHARD: Ahh ... good. I take it then that you are withdrawing your ‘Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M’. cynicism as being an unfounded and ill-thought out exercise that only appealed to the peanut gallery? RESPONDENT: Okay, make it $50. RICHARD: You can have it for free as far as I am concerned ... anything of genuine value is priceless. RESPONDENT: ... and the aggressiveness, pride and ambition that go with it. RICHARD: Yet it is not ‘identification with’ (anything at all) that is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem ... it is identity itself. To merely cease ‘identifying with ...’ is to keep the identity intact (only a ‘detached identity’ now). Sounds like neo-Buddhism to me. RESPONDENT: To think that a former ‘self’ succeeded in ending itself so as to leave a selfless state is identification with the known. RICHARD: What you are saying here is that if someone were to cease ‘becoming’ (so that there was ‘being’) then the moment that they open their mouth and inform others they are ‘identifying with the known’ . Do you realise that this wipes out everything spoken and written by the man you like to quote? Would you care to re-think this statement? RESPONDENT: Actions are predictable, limited by the past, when they flow from memory of personal history. RICHARD: Actions are predictable, limited by the past, when they flow from identity ... there is nothing problematic with a freed memory. RESPONDENT: The interest here is in freedom from the known. RICHARD: The interest here was freedom from both the ‘known’ and the ‘unknown’ ... then one is living the ‘unknowable’.
RICHARD: He travelled the world imploring people to ‘listen’ ... and he means ‘listen’ as in ‘drink the water’ (which ‘water’ he is the living embodiment of – the ‘supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or the ‘otherness’ – which is what the words point to) rather than the ordinary way of listening to words. Which ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT No. 31: That listening is of a different order than ‘satsang’. Satsang has got in it the inherent motive: the company of good people ... RICHARD: I only have one language (and rely upon translations via dictionaries and scholarly debate for my understanding of other languages) so by all means correct me if I have misunderstood a word’s cultural or contextual meaning. Until then, I meant the word ‘satsang’ in its ‘in the company of truth’ meaning (which usually implies a living master) rather than ‘the company of good people’ meaning which, when there is no ‘living master’, is also known as ‘sangama’ (‘association’ or ‘fellowship’) ... but of course it can be taken either way (the word ‘satsang’ is derived from ‘satsanhga’ or ‘satsanga’ which is a combination of two Sanskrit words, ‘satya’ which means ‘truth’ and ‘sangha’ which means ‘spiritual community’). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT No. 31: ... to attain God-consciousness in the midst of ‘holy’ men. RICHARD: Aye ... that is the way I meant it too. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is a ‘holy man’ who urged those in his company to attain ‘God-consciousness’ . Viz.: • [quote]: ‘I ask you, what is God? ... God is something unnameable, unknowable, unthinkable by a conditioned mind; it is something which is totally unknown, but your mind answers according to your conditioning. ... Please think about it with me and do not just deny or accept. There is an art in listening and it is very difficult to listen to something with which you are not familiar. Your mind is always translating, correlating, referring what is said to what you already know – to what Shankara, Buddha or someone else has said, and in that process there is no attention. You are already away, off in thought, and if you approve or disapprove you have already ceased to listen. But if you can listen with that attention which is not translating what is being heard, which does not compare, which is really giving the whole of its being to what is being said, in that attention there is listening. I do not know if you have ever tried to listen to somebody with your total being. So if I may, I most respectfully suggest that you listen to see the truth of what is being said. ... That requires a great deal of attention, a great alertness of mind, and you cannot understand it or allow it to come to you if you merely quote authorities, merely speculate as to whether there is or is not God. You must as an individual experience it, or rather, allow that thing to come to you. You cannot possibly go to it. Please let us be clear on this point, that you cannot by any process, through any discipline, through any form of meditation, go to truth, God, or whatever name you like to give it. It is much too vast, it cannot possibly be conceived of; no description will cover it, no book can hold it nor any word contain it. So you cannot by any devious method, by any sacrifice, any discipline or through any guru go to it. You must await, it will come to you, you cannot go to it. ... All knowledge is within the field of the known and from that centre you try to move into the Unknown. You cannot. You cannot invite the Unknown, the Immeasurable, that which is Inconceivable, into the known. That is why the mind must free itself from the known ... It is there, if you are interested, if you have eyes to see, if you say, ‘I must find out’. Then you will see that such a mind is the Unknown. All this I have been talking about is not a theory, it is not something for you to learn and repeat. It is something for you to go into’. [endquote]. www.kfa.org/poona58.html (6 Public Talks at Poona; 7th September 1958 – September 24, 1958; ©1996 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT No. 31: Listening has nothing to do with all this. Satsang is ‘exclusive’, listening is not. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti expressly stated that the person listening to him was to exclude everything they had ever heard, read, experienced or otherwise learned in their life-time thus far ... or else they were not ‘listening’. I do not know about you, but that sounds absolutely ‘exclusive’ to me. In fact, according to him, the listener is not to compare, evaluate or judge in any way, shape or form. Viz.: • [quote]: ‘The speaker is either talking out of the silence of truth or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth ... which is it that he is doing? ... You hear him talking about these things and you wonder if he is really speaking out of that extraordinary silence of truth ... How will you find out? ... What is the criterion, the measure that you can apply so that you can say: ‘Yes, that is it’ ... I will tell you what I would do ... I am not going to accept or reject, I am listening to find out ... am I listening to him with all the knowledge I have gathered ... have I rejected it ... or am I listening to him with all that? If I have rejected all that then I am listening. Then I am listening very carefully to what he has to say. ... Am I listening to him with the knowledge of what I have acquired through books, through experience, and therefore I am comparing, judging, evaluating? Then I can’t possibly find out whether what he is saying is the truth’ [endquote]. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’ (pp 221-223); © 1979 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd; Published by HarperSanFrancisco). I see that he is clearly and unambiguously ‘exclusive’ ... he effectively says that if one excludes all the knowledge one has gathered; what one has acquired through books, through experience then one is listening (whereas if one does not exclude all the knowledge one has gathered; the knowledge of what one has acquired through books, through experience, therefore because one is comparing, judging, evaluating then one can’t possibly find the truth). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: Good. When one’s plan is to be the divine (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) the method one uses to be ‘That’ is vital. As the divine cannot be when the thinker is ... then it behoves one to listen to the living master in a state of ‘not knowing’ (and it is really not different when the master has quit the body because one then reads the master’s words with the same identical ignorance). RESPONDENT: The question is, does the listener have ears to hear? RICHARD: Yes (otherwise they are not a ‘listener’ and are not following the method as per instructions). RESPONDENT: Or is receptivity blocked? RICHARD: No (otherwise they are not ‘listening’ and are not following the method as per instructions). RESPONDENT: The energy that hears and perceives is not the movement of self-thought with all its opinions and beliefs based on memory and experience. RICHARD: Indeed not ... the energy that ‘listens’ is the same-same energy that is being ‘listened’ to. Which is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti states so well (as quoted further above). Viz.:
The ‘I am God made manifest’ delusion is the glamorised, glorified and fully glitzed-up version of what Mr. Narcissus did of yore on the mundane level ... but in the divine case swooning and basking in one’s own beatified self-reflection. An NDA pamphlet was slipped into my mailbox the other day, which in its eager gullibility to up there with the best of them, exemplifies this smug self-love so well. Viz.:
As it is on earth so shall it be in heaven.
RICHARD: I see that he is clearly and unambiguously ‘exclusive’ ... he effectively says that if one excludes all the knowledge one has gathered; what one has acquired through books, through experience then one is listening (whereas if one does not exclude all the knowledge one has gathered; the knowledge of what one has acquired through books, through experience, therefore because one is comparing, judging, evaluating then one can’t possibly find the truth). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT: Agreed. RICHARD: Good. When one’s plan is to be the divine (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) the method one uses to be ‘That’ is vital. As the divine cannot be when the thinker is ... then it behoves one to listen to the living master in a state of ‘not knowing’ (and it is really not different when the master has quit the body because one then reads the master’s words with the same identical ignorance). RESPONDENT: Look at the above statement. It is merely an expression of opinion, criticism of what differs from your ideas and experience. That is what fills most of your lengthy posts. There is no openness to connect or commune but rather eagerness to debate and compete. And that is the very movement that is a block to hearing and feeling what is behind another’s words. RICHARD: I must acknowledge being somewhat bemused at your response ... I am, indeed ‘looking at the above statement’ and for the life of me I cannot see where it is ‘merely an expression of opinion, criticism of what differs from my ideas and experience’ at all. Where am I showing ‘eagerness to debate and compete’ in that statement you ask me to ‘look at above’? I am endorsing the most effective method to bring about the state of being enlightened (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) which is to be in the presence of a living master (being ‘in the company of the truth’) which is what ‘satsang’ is all about. I then detail how vital it is to listen to the living master in a thoughtless state ... because that which is sacred, holy, cannot be when the thinker is. I even went on to stress how important it is to read the words of the dead master with the same total lack of knowledge. And even when I look back at all I wrote before in response to another correspondent (to which you wrote ‘agreed’), I do not see a single trace of an ‘eagerness to debate and compete’ whatsoever. Incidentally, I do not have to ‘hear and feel’ what is behind another’s words ... they are blatantly open to view. * RESPONDENT: The question is, does the listener have ears to hear? RICHARD: Yes (otherwise they are not a ‘listener’ and are not following the method as per instructions). RESPONDENT: The bee goes to the flower, it doesn’t have to be forced by a method. RICHARD: Whoever said anything about being ‘forced’? But seeing as how you have brought the subject up ... are you interested in finding out the implications and ramifications of being as much run (forced) by the instinctual passions that you were born with as is the bee is with respect to the flower (or perhaps ‘moth to the flame’ may be more apt)? * RESPONDENT: Or is receptivity blocked? RICHARD: No (otherwise they are not ‘listening’ and are not following the method as per instructions). RESPONDENT: Listening can be superficial or it can be with the whole being. When really what is happening is a waiting for an opportunity for more self-assertion, there is no listening but only a lull in verbalization. RICHARD: Not so ... ‘listening’ can never ‘be superficial’ or ‘a lull in verbalization’ (otherwise it is not ‘listening’ and is not a following of the method as per instructions). * RESPONDENT: The energy that hears and perceives is not the movement of self-thought with all its opinions and beliefs based on memory and experience. RICHARD: Indeed not ... the energy that ‘listens’ is the same-same energy that is being ‘listened’ to. RESPONDENT: Yes, but the danger is that may be adopted as merely a belief and not a genuine insight. RICHARD: Not so ... ‘listening’ can never be ‘adopted as merely a belief’ (otherwise it is not ‘listening’ and is not a following of the method as per instructions). * RICHARD: Which is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti states so well (as quoted further above). Viz.: • [quote]: ‘It is there, if you are interested, if you have eyes to see, if you say, ‘I must find out’. Then you will see that such a mind is the Unknown’ [endquote]. The ‘I am God made manifest’ delusion is the glamorised, glorified and fully glitzed-up version of what Mr. Narcissus did of yore on the mundane level ... but in the divine case swooning and basking in one’s own beatified self-reflection. RESPONDENT: This is simply your own distorted imagery being projected upon what another has said. RICHARD: I will freely acknowledge being expressive with my use of words (I am somewhat chuffed at the amount of adjectives I managed to pack into that sentence without losing the plot) but I do fail to see where it is a case of my ‘distorted imagery being projected upon what another has said’ . If someone effectively says to me that they are god-on-earth (a manifestation of the ‘supreme intelligence’) and tells me that I can be similarly deluded (as expressed with ‘the mind must free itself from the known ... then you will see that such a mind is the Unknown’) by rejecting all the knowledge I have gathered (the knowledge of what I have acquired through books and through experience) because therefore I am comparing, judging, evaluating, then I consider that I can indulge in the most vivid prose that I can lay my hands upon. Especially when ‘such a mind’, (the sublimated ‘I’ as ego identifying totally as ‘me’ as soul when thinking ceases and the feelings dominate) by this process of transcendence, experiences ecstasy, euphoria, bliss and rapture when contemplating itself as the transcendental ‘Self’ (sometimes known as ‘No-Self’ by the really cunning) that brings forth and sustains the entire universe. So just where do you see my ‘distorted imagery being projected upon what another has said’? RESPONDENT: Your projections are hardly the unknown. RICHARD: Whereas yours are, I suppose? RESPONDENT: In regard to religious belief, thou doth protest too much. You don’t stick to a materialist viewpoint ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... I am an actualist, not a materialist. In view of our extensive correspondence, you and I, how could you possibly have missed this? I have explained it to you time and time again (and I am quite happy to re-post if it were not that it would make this post yet another of my ‘lengthy posts’). RESPONDENT: ... but speak of life for you as the physical universe experiencing itself as you. RICHARD: Aye ... it is patently obvious that this very physical universe is experiencing itself as a flesh and blood human body (a carbon-based life-form) being apperceptively aware. The stuff of this body is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of this infinite and eternal universe, in that I come out of the ground in the form of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever, combined with the air that I breath and the water that I drink and the sunlight that I absorb ... I was not placed ‘in here’ from ‘outside’ of this universe (there being no ‘inside’ and ‘outside’ for infinitude) by some inscrutable god for some mysterious purpose. This very physical universe is also experiencing itself as cats and dogs and so on (all sentient beings) but only as humans is this universe intelligent (as far as space-exploration has discovered so far). The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of blind nature (as is so far discovered) to evolve intelligence ... and if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to blind nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time and maybe that carbon-based life-form will not be so stupefied as the carbon-based life-form as is currently epitomised by those so narcissistically inclined to regard their ‘Super-Self’ in such self-fulfilling adoration. Blind nature has all the time in the universe to personify perfection ... and that is eternal time. Whereas you have perhaps eighty or so years. RESPONDENT: How do you know that if you are not one with the creative energy of the universe? RICHARD: Because there is no ‘I’ as ego to be separate and no ‘me’ as soul to be ‘one’ ... and just what would that ‘creative energy’ be when it is at home? God (by whatever name)? RESPONDENT: The implication is no different than what you ascribe to so-called God-men. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘so-called’ when they say that they are because they have realised that they are ... and when the gullible recognise that they are and worship them for being that and in so doing support them in their realisation? Are you suggesting that there are some – or one – who are/is the true God-Men/God-Man? Or are the whole lot ‘so-called’? Are you saying that anyone who ... um ... experiences that the ‘sacred that calls to or silently contacts the ever-changing body/brain – the human being’, for example, is only narcissistically experiencing the ‘so-called’ divine too? Or is there an actual divinity?
RICHARD: One is always here and it is already now ... there can be nothing more permanent, more perpetual a continuity, than this very place here in infinite space now at this very moment in eternal time. What ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was searching for in the ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’ dimension was already always here in time and space as form ... for there is nothing else than this actual world. And this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that form is realized as formless, or that there is no formlessness to be realized? RICHARD: There is no ‘formless’ outside of a person’s intuitive/imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: This very time and space is the formless dimension ... RICHARD: You are shifting the descriptions around of what is being described. I said that it was form that was not ‘formless’ ... not time and space. It is eternal time that is not ‘timeless’ and infinite space that is not ‘spaceless’ RESPONDENT: ... but it is undiscovered if there is only perception of material reality consisting of separate objects, one of which seems to be ‘me’. RICHARD: Yet ‘me’ is subjective (a psychological and/or psychic ‘subject’) and not an object. And infinitude is ‘undiscovered’ so long as identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) stubbornly persists in either ‘becoming’ or ‘being’. And the infinitude thus discovered upon the extinction of identity in its sordid totality is a very material infinitude (the only actual infinitude). It is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. It don’t come bigger than that.
RICHARD: One is always here and it is already now ... there can be nothing more permanent, more perpetual a continuity, than this very place here in infinite space now at this very moment in eternal time. What ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was searching for in the ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’ dimension was already always here in time and space as form ... for there is nothing else than this actual world. And this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that form is realized as formless, or that there is no formlessness to be realized? RICHARD: There is no ‘formless’ outside of a person’s intuitive/ imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: You said above that what I was searching for in the formless was always here in time and space as form. That seems to be saying form is emptiness. But then you clarify that you mean there is no actual formlessness. RICHARD: Yes, ‘formlessness’ resides only in the intuitive/ imaginative faculty ... for where else could it reside? As the physical infinitude that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time, then one must posit another realm other than actuality. Therefore it can only be fantasy and not fact ... and from whence comes fantasy? The intuitive/ imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: Form relates to division, isolation. RICHARD: Not so ... the stuff of this body (form) is the very same-same stuff as the stuff of this infinite and eternal physical universe (form), in that I come out of the ground (form) as a variety of carrots and lettuce and milk and cheese and whatever (form), combined with the air (form) that I breath and the water (form) that I drink and the sunlight (form) that I absorb. As such there is no ‘isolation’ or ‘division’ whatsoever and as this flesh and blood body (form) I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human (form). This very physical universe is also experiencing itself as cats and dogs and all other sentient beings (form). RESPONDENT: To say there is no formless seems to be saying that the dimension of the known that is a perception of physical separateness (and the fear and sorrow that goes with it) is all there is. RICHARD: That is not what I am saying at all ... what you describe belongs to or is the subjective entity (a psychological and/or psychic ‘being’) who is lurking about inside a flesh and blood human being creating all sorts of mischief. RESPONDENT: Infinite space points to formlessness ... RICHARD: Maybe to you it ‘points to formlessness’ but when I use the words ‘infinite space’ I am quite clearly describing the very physical space of this very physical universe. The infinitude that this very physical universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. RESPONDENT: ... but not an infinite space out there with ‘me’ (form) in here. RICHARD: Yet ‘me’ is a subjective entity (a psychological and/or psychic ‘being’) and not an objective entity (form) called a flesh and blood human being. RESPONDENT: If as you assert the me ends leaving only the already always existing infinite space ... RICHARD: Not only infinite (physical) space but eternal (physical) time and innumerable (physical) forms as well ... the actual infinitude of this very material universe, in fact. And this actuality is enormous ... staggeringly stupendous. So staggering that it makes the humility (pride standing on its head) so praised by mystics seem trite in comparison. There is no comparison, actually. RESPONDENT: ... is there yet the experience of being just the limited space and form of a human body? RICHARD: No, I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human ... apperceptive awareness, in other words. As such I delight in being this specific form existing for a specific time at a specific place ... as me this universe can know itself intelligently. * RESPONDENT: This very time and space is the formless dimension ... RICHARD: You are shifting the descriptions around of what is being described. I said that it was form that was not ‘formless’ ... not time and space. It is eternal time that is not ‘timeless’ and infinite space that is not ‘spaceless’. RESPONDENT: This was only to clarify what you are asserting. Timelessness and formlessness mean no thought or experience of being separate in a time and space imputed by thought. RICHARD: Okay ... the difficulty with using the words ‘timelessness and formlessness’ is that they are the generally accepted mystical words used for describing a metaphysical dimension that is beyond or transcending the physical time and physical form of this physical universe, and the mystical word ‘spacelessness’ refers to a metaphysical dimension that is beyond or transcending the physical space of this physical universe. For ease of communication, and for the sake of clarity in what is a very complex subject for more than a few people, I always plunk for using physical words for physical dimensions and metaphysical words for metaphysical dimensions. For just one example: the word ‘intelligence’ is the physical word for a physical phenomenon in the human cerebral faculty and the word ‘god’ is the metaphysical word for the metaphysical epiphenomenon in the intuitive/imaginative faculty ... which is mistakenly called ‘intelligence’. RESPONDENT: The dual state is ‘me’ observing what is. That split implies form (experiencer) apart from what is experienced. RICHARD: Yet ‘me’ is a subjective entity (a psychological and/or psychic ‘experiencer’) and not an objective entity (form) as in a flesh and blood human being. RESPONDENT: If form is seen as formlessness, observation is not bounded by thought of being in time and space. RICHARD: If one denies the actuality of physical form (and physical time and physical space) then yes ... whereupon who one is, is a formless ‘being’ (no longer ‘becoming’) existing in or as the metaphysical timeless and spaceless dimension as the ‘supreme intelligence’ – the supreme god – which is unborn and undying and so on. Which metaphysical realm is what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan called the ‘Deathless’ and which is accessible only after physical death (‘Parinirvana’) to the one who has attained ‘Nirvana’ in this current life-time. Otherwise one is fated to be re-born again and again until the craving for physical existence is ‘blown out’. Whereas in this actual world death is the end, finish, extinction.
RICHARD: One is always here and it is already now ... there can be nothing more permanent, more perpetual a continuity, than this very place here in infinite space now at this very moment in eternal time. What ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was searching for in the ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’ dimension was already always here in time and space as form ... for there is nothing else than this actual world. And this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that form is realized as formless, or that there is no formlessness to be realized? RICHARD: There is no ‘formless’ outside of a person’s intuitive/imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: You said above that what I was searching for in the formless was always here in time and space as form. That seems to be saying form is emptiness. But then you clarify that you mean there is no actual formlessness. RICHARD: Yes, ‘formlessness’ resides only in the intuitive/imaginative faculty ... for where else could it reside? As the physical infinitude that this very material universe actually is, is comprised of an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time, then one must posit another realm other than actuality. Therefore it can only be fantasy and not fact ... and from whence comes fantasy? The intuitive/imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: Isn’t an interpretation of what is constantly changing as consisting of solid, static, and unchanging forms an image-based fantasy? RICHARD: Yes ... because everything is actually in a constant state of flux. Nothing stays the same, each moment again everything is novel, fresh, vital, dynamic. One can never, ever be bored. RESPONDENT: We know that in fact there is no ‘thing’ that exists separately in time, yet that is the way that reality is ordinarily perceived. RICHARD: Yes ... the form, time and space of this very material universe is seamless. RESPONDENT: The tree is never twice the same, each moment the tree is unique just as it is. RICHARD: The tree has never been here before ... right now. We are all being in this particular moment at this particular place for the very first time ... this particular moment and this particular place has never been before and therefore exists at the ‘cutting-edge’ of certainty each moment again. This is thrilling, to say the least. RESPONDENT: So is the form of tree perceived as on-going real or is it but a projection of thought and memory? RICHARD: All form (an unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranging and rearranging itself in endless varieties) is as actual as the immeasurable extent of eternal time is actual and is as actual as the unbounded reaches of infinite space is actual. And this actuality is enormous ... staggeringly stupendous. So staggering that it makes the humility (pride standing on its head) so praised by mystics seem trite in comparison. There is no comparison, actually. * RESPONDENT: If as you assert the me ends leaving only the already always existing infinite space ... RICHARD: Not only infinite (physical) space but eternal (physical) time and innumerable (physical) forms as well ... the actual infinitude of this very material universe, in fact. RESPONDENT: ... is there yet the experience of being just the limited space and form of a human body? RICHARD: No, I am this very material universe experiencing its own infinitude as a sensate and reflective human ... apperceptive awareness, in other words. As such I delight in being this specific form existing for a specific time at a specific place ... as me this universe can know itself intelligently. RESPONDENT: If the physical universe is conscious of itself as manifesting into the temporal ... RICHARD: Yet this physical universe is already always temporal and spatial ... there is no ‘manifesting into’ anything by something. An unlimited amount of matter perpetually arranges and rearranges itself in endless varieties of form all over the unbounded reaches of infinite space throughout the immeasurable extent of eternal time. As sensate animate matter (life) the universe is conscious ... and as intelligent sensate animate matter (human life) the universe is conscious of being conscious. As me, this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware, the universe is constantly aware of its own infinitude (which means that it is the universe that is unborn and undying and not me). I am mortal. RESPONDENT: ... as individualized form and the form is somehow aware of its link with the universal ... RICHARD: There is no need of a ‘link with the universal’ ... an ‘individualised form’ is the universe being a flesh and blood human (no separation whatsoever) and when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul self-immolate in their entirety, one is apperceptively aware of this each moment again. RESPONDENT: ... that is mysticism with a little actualism on the side. <g> RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, No. 12, nice try.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Eight) 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 |
