|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: That which dies is judged and praised as noble? RICHARD: If you do not find voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice by ‘I’/ ‘me’ (who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) to be noble, to be an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race ... then I guess you would not be willing to cheerfully devote and give over your ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body, eh? RESPONDENT: If a delusion is seen as delusion, it stops. RICHARD: When the delusion of ‘me’ transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘I am That’) is seen ... that is the end of everything thus far known in human history as being the summum bonum of human experience. Thus the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ ends ... being atavistically tied to the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples is finally over. Set free from the apron-strings of spirit ... one can allow the actual to become apparent. RESPONDENT: This is a good example of the straw man argument you for some reason like to use ... first misinterpret and then attack the distorted image you create. RICHARD: I have not created a ‘straw man argument’ in which I ‘first misinterpret’ what you write and then ‘attack the distorted image’ which I supposedly ‘create’. Vis.: [No. 12]: ‘To understand the unknown, one must become the unknown. That K-ism points to what it is to awaken to the timeless dimension’ [endquote]. (Message 00896 of Archive 00/06). You expressly state that ‘one must become the unknown’ . The words ‘become’, ‘transform’ and ‘transmogrify’ are synonymic words and some other names for ‘the unknown’ are ‘Truth’, ‘supreme intelligence’, ‘God’ ... or ‘creative intelligence’ , as you explained so clearly to another poster when discussing Richard’s praise of the ‘I’/‘me’ who was. Vis.: [No. 12]: ‘To take credit by conjuring up an entity that was and is no more is a rather transparent artifice isn’t it? The creative intelligence of the universe that is directly experiencing this flesh and blood body gets all the credit, not some manufactured former ‘me’ that was wise, courageous, and self-sacrificing’. (Message No. 01164 of Archive 00/06). Seeing that you say that ‘the creative intelligence ... gets all the credit’ it would seem that you want me to praise God for deliverance ... rather than praise the intrepid entity who psychologically and psychically ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body, eh? RESPONDENT: What is actual comes into being only if that which is of thought ends entirely. The false includes all ideas and images of God or Self or a separate intrepid entity. So to say that it is me transmogrified into Me is to beg the question. If it is of thought, of course that is so. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... this ‘creative intelligence of the universe’ which you would have me give credit to – and which you say ‘one must become’ – is known by those who do not hold ‘false ideas and images of God or Self’ as ‘that which is sacred, holy’ is it not? Which means that as what you call ‘the unknown’ is indeed ‘that which is sacred, holy’ then what you are actually saying (further above) is:
Seeing that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also names ‘that which is sacred, holy’ as ‘God or truth’ then what you are actually saying (further above) is:
Perhaps the following quote will make what you are saying crystal clear:
If you will acknowledge that he says ‘I say such a thing [‘God or truth’] does exist, I have realised it’ you will see that I have not created a ‘straw man argument’ in which I ‘first misinterpret’ what you write and then ‘attack the distorted image’ which I supposedly ‘create’ after all. * RESPONDENT: The only thing to be set free from is your own confusion. What you imagine as spirit is but a projection of thought. RICHARD: I discovered that it was of the psyche, actually ... but let us do it your way, by all means. Given that you say I am imaging what ‘spirit’ is, by ‘a projection of thought’ , what then is ‘spirit’ according to you who does not imagine by ‘a projection of thought’ ? Also, seeing that the word ‘spiritual’ means ‘of the kind of, or pertaining to, spirit’ what does the word ‘spiritual’ point to if not ... um ... ‘spirit’? Certainly not what the word ‘material’ (‘of the kind of, or pertaining to, matter’) refers to. RESPONDENT: You can’t approach what is not of thought through debate as to what to call it. It has to be realized directly. RICHARD: Yet I did ‘realise it directly’ in 1981 and lived that ‘realisation’, night and day, for eleven years. RESPONDENT: Then there will be no need for a label. What you believed to be ‘spirit’ was indeed of the psyche, i.e. – of thought. RICHARD: Not so ... I do not, as some people do, use the words ‘psyche’ and ‘thought’ interchangeably ... I prefer clarity in communication by using ‘psyche’ in its primary meaning. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: So it was not the unknown, it was a projection of desire. RICHARD: It was so ‘the unknown’ ... all told I lived in the Altered State Of Consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ for eleven years – night and day for eleven years means I have intimate knowledge – thus I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies ... and I know perfectly well what it is the product of. RESPONDENT: To say become the unknown is a subtle statement. You as a pseudo-movement in psychological time can only ‘become’ the unknown if ‘you’ as such are not. RICHARD: Hmm ... it is ‘subtle’ inasmuch as ‘you as a pseudo-movement in psychological time’ can only ‘become the unknown’ if ‘‘you’ as such’ are subtly ‘not’ . If there is no ‘you’ whatsoever (via psychological and psychic ‘self’-immolation) then there is no ‘you’ – be it a subtle ‘you’ or not – to ‘become the unknown’. As it is all so obvious what ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ means that I do wonder why you persist in your trivial obfuscations. * RESPONDENT: Likewise for your idea of love being the opposite of hate. RICHARD: Oh, I do not claim to have originated that ... it is common knowledge. Even the ‘right-click’ thesaurus in this MS Office 2000 word processor says: ‘love; antonym: hate’. Also, the Oxford Dictionary: ‘love; antonyms: hate, loathe, detest’. In fact, what the word ‘love’ points to is the very antidote for what all the words that can be classified under the word ‘malice’ refer to – and not just ‘hate’ – just the same as compassion is the antidote for all the ‘sorrow’ words. I will put it this way: 1. If all 6.0 billion human beings were to have malice extinguished overnight ... where is the need for love tomorrow? 2. If all 6.0 billion human beings were to have sorrow extinguished overnight ... where is the need for compassion tomorrow? Both love and compassion are touted as the solution to the problem ... human suffering is their very raison d’être. Yet eliminate the problem – the human condition is epitomised by malice and sorrow – and where is the need of the (tried and failed) solution? The ‘solution’ disappears along with the problem ... the polar opposites were complementary after all. RESPONDENT: If love or compassion is thought of as a solution, it is really action that is from an ideal, from the known. It is then but an image of what is loving or compassionate. We are taught to love as a commandment by people that are actually clueless as to the nature of love. So maybe if we set aside both the image and the label ‘love’, we can come upon the actuality. RICHARD: Sure ... and ‘the actuality’ of love means:
Similarly, ‘the actuality’ of compassion means:
Both ‘the actuality’ of love and compassion are touted as the solution to the problem by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... human suffering is the very raison d’être of ‘the actuality’ of the love and compassion pointed to by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Yet eliminate the problem – the human condition is epitomised by malice and sorrow – and where is the need of the (tried and failed) solution Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of for 60 plus years? The ‘solution’ (‘the actuality’ of the love and compassion pointed to by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti for 60 plus years) disappears along with the problem ... the polar opposites were complementary after all. Over to you for your next petty obfuscation. * RESPONDENT: It is silly to personify deluded thought and then praise an imaginary being for stopping itself. RICHARD: Why on earth would you say ‘it is silly’? That was how the total, complete, absolute end of illusion came about. That was the finish, the extinction of delusion. Why would you call that which enabled peace-on-earth ‘silly’? RESPONDENT: When a dream ends from realization that ‘this is a dream’ do you credit the imagined character in the dream for letting go of self-delusion? The character never had any inherently real identity although the dream was actually occurring. RICHARD: I was not discussing night-time dreams in the paragraph (at the top of the page) which you chose to respond to but the elimination of the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like ... a vastly different situation. First: I do not have to ‘personify deluded thought’ because personification is already a reality for 6.0 billion human beings ... thought is deluded by the ‘imaginary being’ long before I ever talk with anyone (everybody is born with this instinctual ‘being’). RESPONDENT: One reality is enough. Subjective reality is not truly separate from ‘what is’ no matter how much it seems to be. So to speak of that which is but a creation of thought as being an entity is confusion. RICHARD: Except that I said that thought is deluded by the ‘imaginary being’ in that everybody is born with this instinctual ‘being’ . Which means that, as it is you who is saying that the ‘imaginary being’ is ‘but a creation of thought’ and not me, then you have reduced yourself to criticising your own writing ... presumably by the confusion engendered in negotiating the labyrinth-like dimensions of the maze created by virtue of your predilection to make and re-make immature obfuscations. O what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to believe, eh? * RICHARD: Second: whenever I talk or write to someone I am talking or writing to this ‘being’ inside the body ... because that is who they think they are; that is who they feel they are and that is who they instinctually know they are. Illusion it is, but it is very, very real for 6.0 billion human beings who are living that reality ... hence all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like. Third: I praise this instinctual ‘being’ because I am vitally interested in peace-on-earth for my fellow human being ... and only the altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice of that very ‘being’ whom I am talking to will enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent. Credit is where credit is due ... I have regard for the integrity my fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Why would a human that only knows what you call the instinctive being have any interest in ending his or her psychological existence? RICHARD: In a word: altruism. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it really a matter of realizing on some level that this being is false? And in seeing the false as false, what choice is there? RICHARD: There was only one choice for the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body: total ‘self’-immolation. Whereas your choice is for perpetuity via subtly becoming ‘the unknown’ (which is none other that ‘that which is sacred, holy’) or which is none other than ‘God or truth’. Tat Tvam Asi translates as ‘Thou Art That’ ... and ‘That’ is known as ‘The Brahman’ in Hindi. All of which poignantly points to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of the sages and the seers touting their version of the ‘Ancient Wisdom’. When the delusion of ‘me’ transmogrified into ‘Me’ (‘Thou Art That’ means ‘I am That’) is seen then that is the end of everything thus far known in human history as being the summum bonum of human experience. Thus being atavistically tied to the spirit-ridden experience of the Bronze Age peoples is finally over and being set free from the apron-strings of spirit one can allow the actual to become apparent. Only altruism – total ‘self’-immolation – enables peace-on-earth.
RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. RESPONDENT: If there were no psyche, there would be no thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience. RICHARD: Needless to say, ‘thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience’ occurs in the mind, which is operating spontaneously as this brain in action inside this skull, and not the psyche. I do not, as some people do, use the words ‘psyche’ and ‘mind’ interchangeably ... I prefer clarity in communication by using it in its primary meaning. <snip dictionary definition> RESPONDENT: Are we debating about concepts and definitions or learning from direct observation the nature of the human psyche? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I learnt via direct observation – which observation initiated action – hence I am well aware that ‘thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience’ occurs in the mind which is operating spontaneously as this brain in action inside this skull ... and not in the psyche (which is the intuitive/imaginative facility born of the affective faculty). Anyone who uses the words ‘psyche’ and ‘mind’ interchangeably obviously has no direct experience of what those words point to ... and thus would say to another person words to the effect that ‘if there were no psyche, there would be no thinking about or remembering or writing about past experience’ . In fact, such a person would then say words to the effect that consciousness becomes something that is not imagined as what awakens is beyond being and non-being ... because such a person is unaware that this psychic event (‘beyond being and non-being’) is indeed imagination in action. Oblivious to the workings of their own psyche – which is the human psyche – such a person would then find comfort in another oblivious person’s imagery by saying words to the effect that, as what has continuity begins and accumulates and ends, then that what is constantly renewing itself does not hold on to or accumulate anything. This is because such a person has not bothered to differentiate betwixt the human mind and the human psyche. Such a person would also be oblivious to the actual – which is right under their very nose – and would go seeking in the psyche for that which is timeless and spaceless and formless. And such a person will probably find it ... it being so seductive and all. RESPONDENT: If we are to learn, it has to be clear that knowledge and experience is always limited. RICHARD: It is a mistake to come to a conclusion too quickly, do you not think? Because, when one notices that this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is physical, then it clearly indicates that awareness of the actual is a sensate experience ... and a direct sensate experiencing at that. RESPONDENT: Only then is there an openness to find out something new. RICHARD: If one hastily concludes that experience is always limited then one will seek what one imagines to be unlimited in the realms of their limited psyche – their psyche is limited because it ceases with the death of the body – and will unvaryingly find the same-old same-old: the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘That’ which is constantly renewing itself – until physical death brings their psyche to an end – and fool themselves into imagining that it is true because ‘That’ does not hold on to or accumulate anything. * RESPONDENT: It makes more sense to say that consciousness becomes something that is totally different that is not imagined because what awakens is beyond being and non-being. RICHARD: Why does it? Does not this ‘becomes something’ business have something to do with realizing that ‘what awakens’ is none other than ‘that which is sacred, holy’? How does that ‘make more sense’ than ‘self’-immolating so as to enable peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Isn’t there an obvious contradiction in speaking of doing something to enable the always actually existing peace on earth to be what is? RICHARD: Not at all ... one will never enable the already always existing peace-on-earth in to becoming apparent whilst sitting in a deckchair on the patio waiting for the grace of god to descend. One must get off one’s backside and do something one has never done before ... or will ever do again. ‘Tis a once-in-a-lifetime episode. RESPONDENT: If in fact there is no true division, what is it that acts to self-immolate? RICHARD: The separative identity – ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is truly isolated as it is forever cut off from the magnificence of the actual. To conclude that ‘there is no true division’ is the first step towards the delusion that to understand the unknown one must first subtly become the unknown. This first step into hallucination is the last step as one will then realise that, because wholeness has always been the reality, there never was any separate doer ... as in ‘That Thou Art’. RESPONDENT: To see that wholeness has always been the actuality, is to realize that there never was any separate doer. RICHARD: Hmm ... just as is so eloquently described as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’, eh? * RESPONDENT: What has continuity begins, accumulates and ends. RICHARD: How can you say that it ‘ends’ when you have just said it ‘becomes something’ ? It was me who said it ends (‘extinction’) whereas you would have it go on ... and on and on. RESPONDENT: There is a movement that is an on-going accumulation of impressions from experience and a self-structuring as that observing centre. RICHARD: What is the origin of this ‘movement’ (a movement which is so sticky that impressions instinctively stick to it such as to form an observing centre)? RESPONDENT: That movement of self as ‘the known’ can end or transform to something indescribable. RICHARD: Yes, it can either ‘end’ (altruistic ‘self’-immolation) or it can ‘transform’ (narcissistic ‘self’-aggrandisement). If the origins of this ‘movement of self’ (a movement which is so sticky that impressions instinctively stick to it) are investigated it becomes patently obvious just which action is the salubrious action to have eventuate. * RESPONDENT: What is constantly renewing itself does not hold on to or accumulate anything. RICHARD: Does it ‘constantly renew itself’ even after the physical death of the body called ‘No. 12’ ... or is physical death the end of the constant renewing? RESPONDENT: What is constantly renewing itself is of a different dimension entirely. RICHARD: Let me guess: is it ... um ... the timeless and spaceless and formless dimension? RESPONDENT: It can not be understood in terms of time. RICHARD: Ahh ... so as it is the timeless dimension then that what is ‘constantly renewing itself’ , being a product of the psyche in the body called ‘No. 12’, will cease its constant renewing with the annihilation of the psyche in the body called ‘No. 12’at the physical death of the body called ‘No. 12’. Of course, a variation on the theme will go on ‘constantly renewing itself’ in the 6.0 billion other psyches in the 6.0 billion other bodies though ... just as it has been doing for millennia. This is because the psyche in the body called ‘No. 12’ is the human psyche.
RICHARD: There is no fear here in this actual world where I live – there is no fear in a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock – not even disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, let alone anxiety, angst, fear, terror, horror or dread. RESPONDENT No. 49: If someone breaks into your house at night, if someone kidnaps your wife, if a sudden economical change takes your pension from you ... I hope none of these actually ever happens to you, but if they did how would you feel? How would you re-act? RICHARD: The burglary question I can answer from direct experience ... someone broke into my house at 3.00 AM about six months ago. How did I feel? I did not feel anything. How did I re-act? There was no need of reaction ... I did the obvious in this day and age: I first rang the police and then rang the 24 hour credit-card hotline. The police arrived at the door just as a neighbour was calling to report a similar break-in ... all-in-all there were nine houses broken into that night. The felon has been apprehended <snip>. RESPONDENT: If there is an actual physical threat yet no immediate evaluative (emotional) response to that physical threat gets registered, a valuable feedback loop is absent. RICHARD: Yes ... the instinctual survival passions are what has enabled all sentient beings alive today to be here on the planet: all animals – including the human animal – are the end-result of the ‘success story’ of what you rightly describe as the ‘immediate evaluative (emotional) response to that physical threat’. RESPONDENT: We have the capacity to immediately intuit through feelings what is what without the time and delay required for thinking that there is a threat, calculating the nature of the threat and assessing in a linear manner what is the optimal response to that threat. RICHARD: Yes, those who study these things with precision instruments have repeatedly determined that the non-cognitive or emotional brain receives the perceptive signal 12-14 milliseconds before the cognitive brain. The non-cognitive brain releases chemicals which flood the brain – including the cognitive brain – and the remainder of the body with what is non-cognitively (emotionally) assessed as appropriate ... this is described as ‘the quick and dirty’ response. The perceptive signal takes 24 milliseconds to reach the cognitive brain: by the time thinking commences thought is flooding with chemicals ... and is receiving signals from the emotional brain through a direct neuro-pathway. There is also a neuro-pathway from the cognitive brain back to the non-cognitive emotional brain which transmits signals for the emotional brain to continue, alter or cease the chemical release. This neuro-pathway back to the non-cognitive brain, in contrast to the ‘broadband’ neuro-pathway from the emotional brain to the cognitive brain, is a ‘narrowband’ neuro-pathway ... which is why thought takes time to calm the non-cognitive brain if its emotional reaction is cognitively adjudged inappropriate. If cognitively adjudged appropriate it can signal an increase in the chemical release which, via the broadband/narrowband feed-back loop, can escalate all the way through to what can be called ‘blind rage’ ... as in ‘I saw red’ or ‘I don’t know what came over me’. This is because the considered cognitive response – being flooded with chemicals – cannot necessarily consider with clarity until the chemical release ceases ... which can result in chagrin or mortification (another chemical release) or some other feeling (some other chemical release) after the event if the emotionally reactive behaviour was inappropriate. Shall I follow this through but one of the many, many possible scenarios? The feeling of chagrin or mortification can result in a feeling of shame or guilt (another chemical release); shame or guilt can result in a feeling of regret or remorse (another chemical release); regret or remorse can result in a feeling of penitence or repentance (another chemical release); penitence or repentance can result in a feeling of absolution or forgiveness (another chemical release); absolution or forgiveness can result in a feeling of thankfulness or gratitude (another chemical release); thankfulness or gratitude can result in a feeling of affection or love (another chemical release); affection or love can result in a feeling of belonging or oneness (another chemical release). These chemical floods are so addictive, of course, that they can lead to what could be called continuous substance abuse ... both legally and morally recommended and sanctioned by society at large. RESPONDENT: The absence of fear in a tree or ashtray or armchair implies that intelligence (clear perception of a threat) is not operating on the level of the particular. RICHARD: The neuro-scientists would be hard-pressed to describe the ‘quick and dirty’ response – the non-cognitive emotional reaction – as ‘intelligence’ or ‘clear perception of a threat’ ... if by ‘clear’ and ‘intelligence’ you mean a non-emotional, thoughtful response. And a ‘tree or ashtray or armchair’ are not perceptive at all ... let alone emotional or thoughtful.
RESPONDENT: If there is an actual physical threat yet no immediate evaluative (emotional) response to that physical threat gets registered, a valuable feedback loop is absent. RICHARD: Yes ... the instinctual survival passions are what has enabled all sentient beings alive today to be here on the planet: all animals – including the human animal – are the end-result of the ‘success story’ of what you rightly describe as the ‘immediate evaluative (emotional) response to that physical threat’. RESPONDENT: We have the capacity to immediately intuit through feelings what is what without the time and delay required for thinking that there is a threat, calculating the nature of the threat and assessing in a linear manner what is the optimal response to that threat. RICHARD: Yes, those who study these things with precision instruments have repeatedly determined that the non-cognitive or emotional brain receives the perceptive signal 12-14 milliseconds before the cognitive brain. The non-cognitive brain releases chemicals which flood the brain – including the cognitive brain – and the remainder of the body with what is non-cognitively (emotionally) assessed as appropriate ... this is described as ‘the quick and dirty’ response. The perceptive signal takes 24 milliseconds to reach the cognitive brain: by the time thinking commences thought is flooding with chemicals ... and is receiving signals from the emotional brain through a direct neuro-pathway. There is also a neuro-pathway from the cognitive brain back to the non-cognitive emotional brain which transmits signals for the emotional brain to continue, alter or cease the chemical release. This neuro-pathway back to the non-cognitive brain, in contrast to the ‘broadband’ neuro-pathway from the emotional brain to the cognitive brain, is a ‘narrowband’ neuro-pathway ... which is why thought takes time to calm the non-cognitive brain if its emotional reaction is cognitively adjudged inappropriate. If cognitively adjudged appropriate it can signal an increase in the chemical release which, via the broadband/narrowband feed-back loop, can escalate all the way through to what can be called ‘blind rage’ ... as in ‘I saw red’ or ‘I don’t know what came over me’. This is because the considered cognitive response – being flooded with chemicals – cannot necessarily consider with clarity until the chemical release ceases ... which can result in chagrin or mortification (another chemical release) or some other feeling (some other chemical release) after the event if the emotionally reactive behaviour was inappropriate. The feeling of chagrin or mortification can result in a feeling of shame or guilt (another chemical release); shame or guilt can result in a feeling of regret or remorse (another chemical release); regret or remorse can result in a feeling of penitence or repentance (another chemical release); penitence or repentance can result in a feeling of absolution or forgiveness (another chemical release); absolution or forgiveness can result in a feeling of thankfulness or gratitude (another chemical release); thankfulness or gratitude can result in a feeling of affection or love (another chemical release); affection or love can result in a feeling of belonging or oneness (another chemical release). These chemical floods are so addictive, of course, that they can lead to what could be called continuous substance abuse ... both legally and morally recommended and sanctioned by society at large. RESPONDENT: It seems that what is basically a response to physical threat gets carried over into the psychological realm. If what we are psychologically changes, so does the response. So what is called fear or sadness, etc., in one state of being may be much different in another. It does not follow that the operation of the emotional faculty itself is a disorder. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is entirely natural. The question is: does one wish to continue to be natural or not? * RESPONDENT: The absence of fear in a tree or ashtray or armchair implies that intelligence (clear perception of a threat) is not operating on the level of the particular. RICHARD: The neuro-scientists would be hard-pressed to describe the ‘quick and dirty’ response – the non-cognitive emotional reaction – as ‘intelligence’ or ‘clear perception of a threat’ ... if by ‘clear’ and ‘intelligence’ you mean a non-emotional, thoughtful response. And a ‘tree or ashtray or armchair’ are not perceptive at all ... let alone emotional or thoughtful. RESPONDENT: Of course, so why did you comment that they are without fear? RICHARD: Because I was wishing to demonstrate that there is no fear here in the actual world (and not have someone merely believe me). I live in a perfect world wherein I interact only with flesh and blood bodies – and these bodies tell me that they experience an ‘inner world’ and an ‘inner self’ replete with fear and all the rest of the malicious and sorrowful and antidotally loving and compassionate feelings – but I am unable to intuit their supposed existence or feel their feelings. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (‘self’ and ‘Self’) ‘self’-immolated, along with the entire affective faculty, so too did any connection or relationship with the other 6.0 billion-odd ‘I’s and ‘me’s (‘self’s and ‘Self’s). They are all an illusion and a delusion. RESPONDENT: By intelligence I mean insight into or clear perception of what is. RICHARD: Into or of the physical ‘what is’ ... yes. RESPONDENT: Intelligence or insight perceives actual danger (or psychological error) and responds immediately. RICHARD: The reflex response is immediate ... yes. If by ‘psychological error’ you mean a computational error or a memory error or a forgetfulness error and so on ... not necessarily immediate. If by ‘psychological error’ you mean belief, bias, bigotry, favouritism and so on and so on ... once seen it is gone forever (if it returns it was not actually seen). RESPONDENT: This can be seen to be true from direct observation. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: Emotional response from self-mage is another matter. RICHARD: The ‘emotional response’ is the ‘self-image’ ... because the emotion is the self (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’).
RESPONDENT No. 42: In order to come into contact with nothingness wouldn’t you first have to become nothing? (Becoming not as a goal, but as necessity). RESPONDENT No. 51: Well, you already are nothing, you only think you are something. Just drop this whole idea – if you dare! RESPONDENT No. 42: After you, please. RESPONDENT No. 51: Dropping the idea of being something is a great bliss, and will dissolve this web of duality. So I was just asking: where are you waiting for ? And please, do not follow me, because I’m not on a path, I leave no trail ... RESPONDENT No. 42: That’s a good thing, otherwise you might be spotted by the enlightenment brigade which seeks to eliminate aware people from this list. RESPONDENT No. 51: That’s a good one, the enlightenment brigade ... I must have triggered you a lot, isn’t it? Is it because I’ve told you that you already are nothing? The last thing I would do is to attack someone: I would then attack myself equally. I am the angry in angry people, just as I am the love in loving people. So please let your brigade bring in their verdict of guilty, and eliminate me from this list for being aware, but please realize you eliminate also a part of yourself if you do so. Yes, I know I can be sharp – my archetype is the bald eagle. And we are the same – just like you I have to admit that I have certain expectations of this list (I joined the list only yesterday ...). About 25 years ago I met Krishnamurti a couple of times, and I was just curious what happened in the mean time ... RICHARD: You have caught my interest ... and the term ‘the enlightenment brigade’ is a misnomer because the appellation generally represents ‘the failure brigade’ (you will find that failure is highly revered on this Mailing List and success is dismissively belittled under some bizarre rationale that hails such disparagement of accomplishment as being the hallmark of humility). I find your words transparently revealing – as in attacking another is to attack oneself – inasmuch as you clearly say ‘I am the angry in angry people, just as I am the love in loving people’. I read with equal interest where you wrote, in another thread (Message #00104 of Archive 00/12), ‘I am sinless, and the root of sin derives from me’ and ‘I am peace and war has come because of me’ ... which is also so totally unambiguous as to leave no room to quibble over what you mean. You have a way of explaining/describing which is crystal clear to those who are listening ... in yet another thread (Message #00073 of Archive 00/12) you explained that this comes about ‘only when my mind gets tired of its own merry-go-round’. You say that only then is there ‘the possibility that I can enter the window, the vortex, my soul’ and, in combination with your ‘you already are nothing, you only think you are something’ sentence, this ‘vortex’ – your ‘soul’ – is already nothing. In other words, you are saying you do not have to become it, you already are it (aka ‘being’ rather than ‘becoming’). I appreciate you saying that, upon being this ‘vortex’ (your ‘soul’ ), it then appears ‘there has never been a question, or an answer – and what is left is just at-one-ment with the essence, pure and without words’ ... in other words, as ‘soul’ there is nothing that has to be done or achieved. I see that you expressly say that the mind ‘is nothing more then a movie, presented to me by my senses as something real and tangible. But there is no real thing out there – what evidence is there for something ‘real’, besides my reconstruction based on information coming from my senses ? Without an observer, there is no observed – aren’t we all co-creators in the process of observation?’. (Message #00073 of Archive 00/12). Yes, indeed ‘there is no real thing out there’ when it is seen that the observer is the observed: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says, over and again, that when the observer is the observed there is only observation ... ‘there is only that’ (‘vortex’ or ‘soul’). Indeed you point this out in your first E-Mail: ‘I realized that there is no problem, only my way of dealing with it ... at the end, the mind slows down and eventually gives up, and at that point I realized that I am both the observer and the observed. I am the process, rather then the entity. I’m not the swimmer – I am the swimming, as well as the water I’m swimming in. I experienced that the restless susceptibility of my senses creates all questions and problems, and that there is no need to solve anything, which is a great bliss’. (Message #00024 of Archive 00/12). Once again you are saying, in other words, there is nothing that has to be done or achieved ... there is only ‘great bliss’ . What particularly caught my attention (seeing that you also explained in the other thread (Message #00104 of Archive 00/12) ‘I am the substance and the one who has no substance, for I am the one who alone exists, and I have no one who will judge me’), is your comment further above about meeting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti a couple of times 25 years ago. My question is whether you credit your current dissociated and solipsistic state of consciousness to having listened to him all those years ago? I also ask because this Mailing List is predicated upon ‘listening’ with the totality of your being ... and it would appear that you certainly have. If this is so, then what you have to say is of the utmost importance to this list. The utmost importance. RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place?
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me. RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me. RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Look into a matter directly and there is no tomorrow . RICHARD: There is no tomorrow anyway, whether you ‘look into a matter directly’ or not, as the past is not actual, the future is not actual ... only this moment is actual. Do you ever countenance an end to earnestly enquiring just for the love of truth and busily looking into matters directly so that there will be no tomorrow (when there already is no tomorrow anyway) ... or do you intend to be earnest and enquiring and loving the truth and looking into matters for ever and a day?
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me. RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Look into a matter directly and there is no tomorrow. RICHARD: There is no tomorrow anyway, whether you ‘look into a matter directly’ or not, as the past is not actual, the future is not actual ... only this moment is actual. Do you ever countenance an end to earnestly enquiring just for the love of truth and busily looking into matters directly so that there will be no tomorrow (when there already is no tomorrow anyway) ... or do you intend to be earnest and enquiring and loving the truth and looking into matters for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Attention that ‘sees’ is free of concern about coming or going, staying or arriving. RICHARD: Then why is the ‘attention that ‘sees’’ so busy earnestly enquiring instead of getting on with the business of seeing attentively? Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? (By my estimate you have about 96 more stock-standard responses to work through before you scrape the bottom of the barrel ... shall we take the next 95 as read and thus cut to the chase sooner?) It is the intent that matters ... not this or that looking, seeing, attending and etcetera.
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me. RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Look into a matter directly and there is no tomorrow. RICHARD: There is no tomorrow anyway, whether you ‘look into a matter directly’ or not, as the past is not actual, the future is not actual ... only this moment is actual. Do you ever countenance an end to earnestly enquiring just for the love of truth and busily looking into matters directly so that there will be no tomorrow (when there already is no tomorrow anyway) ... or do you intend to be earnest and enquiring and loving the truth and looking into matters for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Attention that ‘sees’ is free of concern about coming or going, staying or arriving. RICHARD: Then why is the ‘attention that ‘sees’’ so busy earnestly enquiring instead of getting on with the business of seeing attentively? Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? (By my estimate you have about 96 more stock-standard responses to work through before you scrape the bottom of the barrel ... shall we take the next 95 as read and thus cut to the chase sooner?). It is the intent that matters ... not this or that looking, seeing, attending and etcetera. RESPONDENT: To truly listen is to lose interest in giving chase. RICHARD: Are you so sure that by truly listening you will lose interest in ‘giving chase’ and earnestly enquiring for the love of truth so as to not get something for yourself about what it is that is seeking an ending through looking into matters directly in order to banish the tomorrow that has no actuality anyway whilst seeing attentively with the aim of being free of concern about coming or going and staying or arriving? On what do you base your certainty?
RESPONDENT: Earnest inquiry is to inquire into one’s own bias. As they say in Scotland, the rest is just Crrraap! RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: LOL – what is it that seeks an ending? RICHARD: The ‘earnest enquiry’ does ... else why so busy earnestly enquiring in the first place? RESPONDENT: Just for the love of truth, not to get something for me. RICHARD: Do you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry ‘for the love of truth’ ... or do you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Look into a matter directly and there is no tomorrow. RICHARD: There is no tomorrow anyway, whether you ‘look into a matter directly’ or not, as the past is not actual, the future is not actual ... only this moment is actual. Do you ever countenance an end to earnestly enquiring just for the love of truth and busily looking into matters directly so that there will be no tomorrow (when there already is no tomorrow anyway) ... or do you intend to be earnest and enquiring and loving the truth and looking into matters for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: Attention that ‘sees’ is free of concern about coming or going, staying or arriving. RICHARD: Then why is the ‘attention that ‘sees’’ so busy earnestly enquiring instead of getting on with the business of seeing attentively? Do you ever countenance an end to ‘earnest enquiry’ ... or do you intend to procrastinate for ever and a day? (By my estimate you have about 96 more stock-standard responses to work through before you scrape the bottom of the barrel ... shall we take the next 95 as read and thus cut to the chase sooner?). It is the intent that matters ... not this or that looking, seeing, attending and etcetera. RESPONDENT: To truly listen is to lose interest in giving chase. RICHARD: Are you so sure that by truly listening you will lose interest in ‘giving chase’ and earnestly enquiring for the love of truth so as to not get something for yourself about what it is that is seeking an ending through looking into matters directly in order to banish the tomorrow that has no actuality anyway whilst seeing attentively with the aim of being free of concern about coming or going and staying or arriving? On what do you base your certainty? RESPONDENT: There are no means to communicate centre-less awareness to those that assume the duality of experiencer separate from experience. There is no one to give chase and nothing to chase after. RICHARD: Yet I was not assuming ‘the duality of experiencer separate from experience’ ... I was expressing my appreciation to a fellow correspondent for so clearly demonstrating and explicating the outcome of ‘listening’. Vis.:
It was you who came in with all kinds of dualistic notions about earnestly enquiring for the love of truth so as to not get something for yourself about what it is that is seeking an ending through looking into matters directly in order to banish the tomorrow that has no actuality anyway whilst seeing attentively with the aim of being free of concern about coming or going and staying or arriving plus truly listening in order to lose interest in giving chase ... not me. I never have to earnestly enquire; I never have to have a love of truth so as to not get something for myself; I never have to directly look into matters so as to banish the tomorrow that does not exist anyway; I never have to attentively see so as to be free of the concern of coming or going and staying or arriving; I never have to truly listen so as to lose interest in giving chase ... I am already always just here right now. At various points throughout your one-liner dualistic monologues I endeavoured to stem the flow of duality by advocating the activation of the intent to have it not go on for ever and a day – but to no avail – yet now you do some kind of backwards head-flip from the sitting lotus, levitate onto an airy-cushion of aloofness, and attempt to blarney your way out of your own cul-de-sac by telling me that ‘there are no means to communicate centre-less awareness to those that assume the duality of experiencer separate from experience’ ... even though all you are communicating is dualistic advice from your pseudo non-dualistic position. There is a saying: those who can, do; those who cannot, preach.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Ten) 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 |
