|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
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? <snipped for space> RESPONDENT: Wisdom is openness to ‘what is’ which is ever-changing. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I started being open to the ever-changing ‘what is’ in January 1981; earnest enquiry led to ‘what is’ blossoming and by September 1981 ‘what is’ flowered into the full bloom of its wisdom; earnest enquiry into the fully blooming wisdom of ‘what is’ flourished throughout the ‘eighties; earnest enquiry into the flourishing wisdom of ‘what is’ led to ‘what is’ beginning to wilt early in the ‘nineties ... and ‘what is’ died towards the end of October 1992. Thus ‘what is’ RESPONDENT: When we do not earnestly enquire, there is no interest in truth. RICHARD: Speaking personally, earnest enquiry into ‘what is’ in January 1981 rapidly led to an interest in ‘truth’ ; earnest enquiry and an interest in ‘truth’ led to ‘what is’ blossoming and by September 1981 ‘what is’ flowered into the full bloom of ‘truth’ ; earnest enquiry and an intense interest in the fully blooming ‘what is’ of ‘truth’ flourished throughout the ‘eighties; earnest enquiry into the flourishing ‘what is’ of ‘truth’ led to ‘truth’ beginning to wilt early in the ‘nineties ... and the ‘truth’ died towards the end of October 1992. Thus the ‘truth’ RESPONDENT: Do we see our aggressiveness, our ambition, our compulsion to dominate? RICHARD: You will need to indicate what you mean by ‘we’ ... is it the royal ‘we’ aka No. 12? If so, as you have already informed me that you are earnestly enquiring into ‘what is’ (for the love of truth and not to get something for yourself) then it would appear that you apparently do see (or partly see) your aggressiveness, your ambition, your compulsion to dominate and etcetera. If by ‘we’ you mean to indicate ‘humanity’ at large then ... some of them do and most of them do not (at a guess). If by ‘we’ you mean you and me ... then, apart from your own seeing (or part seeing) of yourself, you have obviously not been reading my words with both eyes open: I see that I specifically wrote, in my previous E-Mail, ‘I never have to earnestly enquire ... I am already always just here right now’. Plus I have oft-times mentioned to you, in many, many past exchanges that, concomitant to the extinction of identity in toto (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in 1992, the entire affective faculty vanished, never to return. Thus ‘what is’ and the ‘truth’ is dead, extinct RESPONDENT: It is clear that often do not, and it shows in our behaviour. RICHARD: There may be a typo in ‘often do not’ ? Apart from that ... yes, ‘what is’ does show in the behaviour of ‘humanity’ at large. As for yourself ... that supple attempt in the previous E-Mail to blarney your way out of your own cul-de-sac, even though all you were communicating was dualistic advice from your pseudo non-dualistic position, certainly gives the impression that the ‘what is’ you nurse to your bosom (and which you are earnestly enquiring into for the love of truth) is firing on all cylinders. 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: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here.
RESPONDENT: Wisdom is openness to ‘what is’ which is ever-changing. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I started being open to the ever-changing ‘what is’ in
January 1981; earnest enquiry led to ‘what is’ blossoming and by September 1981 ‘what is’ flowered into the
full bloom of its wisdom; earnest enquiry into the fully blooming wisdom of ‘what is’ flourished throughout the ‘eighties;
earnest enquiry into the flourishing wisdom of ‘what is’ led to ‘what is’ beginning to wilt early in the ‘nineties
... and ‘what is’ died towards the end of October 1992. Thus ‘what is’ RESPONDENT: Do we see our aggressiveness, our ambition, our compulsion to dominate? RICHARD: You will need to indicate what you mean by ‘we’ ... is it the royal ‘we’ aka No. 12? If so, as you have already informed me that you are earnestly enquiring into ‘what is’ (for the love of truth and not to get something for yourself) then it would appear that you apparently do see (or partly see) your aggressiveness, your ambition, your compulsion to dominate and etcetera. If by ‘we’ you mean to indicate ‘humanity’ at large then ... some of them do and most of them do not (at a guess). If by ‘we’ you mean you and me ... then, apart from your own seeing (or part seeing) of yourself, you have obviously not been reading my words with both eyes open: I see that I specifically wrote, in my previous E-Mail, ‘I never have to earnestly enquire ... I am already always just here right now’. Plus I have oft-times mentioned to you, in many, many past exchanges that, concomitant to the extinction of identity in toto (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in 1992, the entire affective faculty vanished, never to return. Thus ‘what is’ and the ‘truth’ is dead, extinct RESPONDENT: It is clear that [we] often do not, and it shows in our behaviour. RICHARD: Yes, ‘what is’ does show in the behaviour of ‘humanity’ at large. As for yourself ... that supple attempt in the previous E-Mail to blarney your way out of your own cul-de-sac, even though all you were communicating was dualistic advice from your pseudo non-dualistic position, certainly gives the impression that the ‘what is’ you nurse to your bosom (and which you are earnestly enquiring into for the love of truth) is firing on all cylinders. 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: That which by its very nature is not striving can not be made into a continuity. The striving mind is that which seeks continuity as if peace could be imposed through choice or intent. What is not of time has its own constancy but it can not be rightly claimed as yours or mine. If there is insight into the nature of the problem of self, it is clear that it can not be solved through effort. RICHARD: Yet all that I am asking is whether you ever countenance an end to an earnest enquiry into ‘the ever-changing ‘what is’’ or whether you intend to earnestly enquire for ever and a day. Perhaps some words from the man you like to quote may ease your way to addressing this simple question? Viz. (emphasis added):
It is the intent that matters ... not just this or that truly listening, looking directly, attentively seeing or any other method.
RESPONDENT: Wisdom is openness to ‘what is’ which is ever-changing. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I started being open to the ever-changing ‘what is’ in January 1981; earnest enquiry led to ‘what is’ blossoming and by September 1981 ‘what is’ flowered into the full bloom of its wisdom; earnest enquiry into the fully blooming wisdom of ‘what is’ flourished throughout the ‘eighties; earnest enquiry into the flourishing wisdom of ‘what is’ led to ‘what is’ beginning to wilt early in the ‘nineties ... and ‘what is’ died towards the end of October 1992. Thus ‘what is’ is dead, extinct ... and its wisdom is no more. RESPONDENT: In regard to holistic observation, learning is not an accruing of experience that we possess that we can pass on to others through our words. RICHARD: Agreed ... in regard to ‘holistic observation’ the word ‘learning’ as it is ordinarily used is a misnomer (there is no ‘accruing of experience’ in ‘holistic observation’). And that which is observed, in regard to ‘holistic observation’ is not something that a ‘we’ can possess ... let alone pass on to others as a possession through their words. I do understand this. RESPONDENT: What usually occurs is that we learn and then that learning becomes knowledge and in acting from that knowledge, learning stops. RICHARD: Agreed ... in regards to ‘holistic observation’ what usually occurs (for the dilettante) is what the word ‘learning’ ordinarily means (an accruing of experience and knowledge). And, in acting from that accrued experience and knowledge, then what the word ‘learning’ ordinarily means goes on ... and on ... and on. I do understand this. RESPONDENT: So it is difficult but necessary to always return to looking from ‘not knowing’ to use K’s expression. RICHARD: If there is a ‘return to looking’ then it is not ‘looking from not knowing’ (to use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s expression) ... and probably never has been a ‘looking from not knowing’ in the first place. Because the ‘looking from not knowing’ and its action are indistinguishable ... no ‘return’ is possible. It is a one-way trip. RESPONDENT: Some call it beginner’s mind. In the beginner’s mind there are many possibilities, but in the expert’s mind there are few. RICHARD: Might I suggest that the ‘beginner’s mind’ is nothing more and nothing less than a sophisticated ‘expert’s mind’ ? Naiveté is essential. RESPONDENT: In your above message, you relate a chronology of events. RICHARD: Yes. Generally speaking I use my own descriptive phrases to convey what is experienced. In this particular thread I opted for using phrases you may be more familiar with or comfortable with. This is because you had introduced the phrase ‘what is’ – which has a specific meaning given to it by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – so I expressed what I normally convey otherwise in that terminology. RESPONDENT: Clear seeing of what is actually happening in terms of thought as you relate that chronology is openness to what is. RICHARD: Not so ... I provided a particular quote of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s (from among many, many such quotes) that specifically stated unambiguously what he meant by the phrase ‘what is’ so that it would be clear what is being conveyed: (he said: ‘... my loneliness, emptiness, sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, fear, that is actually ‘what is’’ ). I cannot be open to something that does not exist. RESPONDENT: It is not a state to arrive at after a linear process of learning. RICHARD: Given that you are au fait with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words I did not consider it necessary to include a quote detailing his ‘let it flower’ methodology ... I chose to plaster my ‘chronology of events’ with words like blossoming, flowered, flourishing, fully blooming, wilting and died ... in the (apparently misguided) expectation that you, of all people, would understand. And, as it is so well known, I am not about to provide such a quote, either. RESPONDENT: It is there is the beginning and now and now. RICHARD: Again, this is not so. I even provided another quote For this flesh and blood body ‘what is’
RESPONDENT: Do we see our aggressiveness, our ambition, our compulsion to dominate? RICHARD: You will need to indicate what you mean by ‘we’ ... is it the royal ‘we’? If so, as you have already informed me that you are earnestly enquiring into ‘what is’ (for the love of truth and not to get something for yourself) then it would appear that you apparently do see (or partly see) your aggressiveness, your ambition, your compulsion to dominate and etcetera. If by ‘we’ you mean to indicate ‘humanity’ at large then ... some of them do and most of them do not (at a guess). If by ‘we’ you mean you and me ... then, apart from your own seeing (or part seeing) of yourself, you have obviously not been reading my words with both eyes open: I see that I specifically wrote, in my previous E-Mail, ‘I never have to earnestly enquire ... I am already always just here right now’. Plus I have oft-times mentioned to you, in many, many past exchanges that, concomitant to the extinction of identity in toto (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in 1992, the entire affective faculty vanished, never to return. Thus ‘what is’ and the ‘truth’ is dead, extinct. RESPONDENT: The movement of thought is one movement, human programming. RICHARD: Maybe for 6.0 billion-odd people it is, yet for this flesh and blood body thought is a delightful episodic event that occurs of its own accord as the situation and circumstances require. Large parts of my daily life are comprised of no thoughts whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Holistic observation is not looking from that movement, it is an impersonal seeing or insight into that movement. RICHARD: Aye ... whereas apperceptive awareness is an ever-current experiencing of being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... and it is full, complete, utter. Neither thought nor no-thought has anything to do with this operating ... nor can they ever disturb this on-going awareness of infinitude. RESPONDENT: Your assumptions reveal that you do not understand what is meant by centre-less awareness. RICHARD: Yet when I read through the (further above) paragraph I can detect no assumptions whatsoever. You have already informed me that you are earnestly enquiring into ‘what is’ (for the love of truth and not to get something for yourself) and, as ‘what is’ has a specific meaning given to it by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, you are telling me that you are ‘earnestly enquiring’ into (for example) your ‘loneliness, emptiness, sorrow, pain, suffering, anxiety, fear’ as per Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s description. Where are the assumptions?
RESPONDENT No. 39: Richard, to try and simplify your message, I think basically what you are saying is that the outer world is the only thing that is actual. The inner world is imaginary and is not actual. Is this basically what you are saying? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: As long as there is any division between an inner world and outer world, both are imaginary ... RICHARD: Bearing in mind that I was answering a question – as simply and as briefly as possible – I would like to point out that I have said over and again that there is no ‘inner world and outer world’ in actuality ... there is only the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. This sensuous world – the world of the senses – can in no way be described as being ‘imaginary’ ... it is stunningly obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: ... and the empty nature of the actual undivided world remains hidden. RICHARD: Of course you may use words any way you deem to be appropriate – as I do with ‘real’ versus ‘actual’ and ‘true’ versus ‘fact’ – yet given my oft-provided distinction betwixt ‘real’ and ‘actual’ on this Mailing List over the past two or so years I find, once again, what you are attempting to do here to be shoddy ... and when mutual ‘thank you’s and ‘thanks’ are swapped in regard to such trickiness I have no hesitation in describing such behaviour as adolescent simpering. For example: when you use such a phrase as ‘the empty nature of ...’ it invokes the Buddhist understanding that the physical world, as seen through their ‘sense-doors’, is impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence ... whereas this actual world of direct sensate experiencing – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – is already always here being substantial, enduring, and having nothing but inherent existence. The ‘undivided world’ you refer to is only revealed when an oceanic feeling of oneness occurs ...
and such an artificial intimacy It is all so very simple.
RESPONDENT No. 39: Richard, to try and simplify your message, I think basically what you are saying is that the outer world is the only thing that is actual. The inner world is imaginary and is not actual. Is this basically what you are saying? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: As long as there is any division between an inner world and outer world, both are imaginary ... RICHARD: Bearing in mind that I was answering a question – as simply and as briefly as possible – I would like to point out that I have said over and again that there is no ‘inner world and outer world’ in actuality ... there is only the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. This sensuous world – the world of the senses – can in no way be described as being ‘imaginary’ ... it is stunningly obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: Why assume that emptiness is a projection that is separate from the sensuous world of trees and flowers? RICHARD: I am not assuming that ‘emptiness is a projection’ ... it is indeed a projection (a projection of one’s inner emptiness onto the fullness of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe). A culturally endorsed projection called ‘universal emptiness’, in other words. RESPONDENT: Anyone that makes such an assumption is obviously just conceptualising. RICHARD: Of course. * RESPONDENT: [As long as there is any division between an inner world and outer world, both are imaginary] and the empty nature of the actual undivided world remains hidden. RICHARD: Of course you may use words any way you deem to be appropriate – as I do with ‘real’ versus ‘actual’ and ‘true’ versus ‘fact’ – yet given my oft-provided distinction betwixt ‘real’ and ‘actual’ on this Mailing List over the past two or so years I find, once again, what you are attempting to do here to be shoddy ... and when mutual ‘thank you’s and ‘thanks’ are swapped in regard to such trickiness I have no hesitation in describing such behaviour as adolescent simpering. RESPONDENT: You agreed with a statement that the inner world is false. RICHARD: I also said that there is no ‘inner world and outer world’ in actuality ... to see the falsity of the ‘inner world’ is to simultaneously see the falsity of its ‘outer world’. Which means that an ‘undivided world’ (a blending or merging of the false ‘inner world’ with its false ‘outer world’ ) can never, ever be called actual ... unless one wishes to fool oneself by fooling others that it is so. RESPONDENT: This implies only the so-called outer world is actual ... RICHARD: No, the ‘so-called outer world’ (popularly known as the ‘real world’) is as false as the ‘inner world’ which creates it. Hence such everyday statements as ‘it’s dog eat dog in the real world’ and ‘you’ve gotta be tough to survive in the real world’ and so on. Whereas this actual world is an ambrosial paradise. RESPONDENT: ... which is absurd as there is no true division. RICHARD: As both the ‘inner world’ and its ‘outer world’ are false there is neither ‘no true division’ nor an ‘undivided world’ (wherein the observer, the ‘inner’, and the observed, the ‘outer’, are one). The culturally endorsed ‘undivided world’ is also called ‘wholeness’ or an ‘holistic’ world-view. RESPONDENT: As far as your past pronouncements and opinions, I recommend a general housekeeping of all that on a regular basis. RICHARD: This that is actual never needs a ‘general housekeeping on a regular basis’ at all ... a fact not only needs no modification it brooks no manipulation either. A fact just sits there making your ‘housekeeping’ look silly. * RICHARD: For example: when you use such a phrase as ‘the empty nature of ...’ it invokes the Buddhist understanding that the physical world, as seen through their ‘sense-doors’, is impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence ... whereas this actual world of direct sensate experiencing – this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – is already always here being substantial, enduring, and having nothing but inherent existence. RESPONDENT: That simply means that for you, the state of emptiness is just an idea. RICHARD: No, I lived that ‘state of emptiness’ night and day for eleven years ... I am well aware of what the physical world is seen as when seen through their ‘sense-doors’ (it is seen as impermanent, lacking in substance, having no inherent existence and so on). RESPONDENT: You mistakenly believe that emptiness is some kind of projection or modification of consciousness. RICHARD: I do not ‘mistakenly believe’ that ‘emptiness is some kind of a projection’ as it is indeed a projection (a projection of one’s inner emptiness onto the fullness of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe and thus only seeing a ‘universal emptiness’). Nor do I ‘mistakenly believe’ that ‘emptiness is some kind of a modification of consciousness’ as it is indeed a modification (a modification of one’s inner emptiness into being a ‘universal emptiness’). ‘Tis but an anthropocentric view of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe * RICHARD: The ‘undivided world’ you refer to is only revealed when an oceanic feeling of oneness occurs ... and such an artificial intimacy that the ‘undivided’ feeling of oneness provides is a pathetic substitute for the actual intimacy which becomes apparent when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul cease to parasitically inhabit the body creating the division in the first place. It is all so very simple. RESPONDENT: It has nothing to do with a ‘feeling’. RICHARD: It has everything to do with ‘feeling’ ... except that the ‘undivided’ feeling of oneness is experienced as a state of being (the deep feeling of being ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself projected universally as ‘Being’). RESPONDENT: There is direct perception that there is no true division between things. RICHARD: Shall we stay with ‘there is no true division’ between ‘inner world and outer world’ issue for now rather than argue the toss about there being ‘no true division between things’ in a projected ‘outer world’? RESPONDENT: Likewise it has nothing to do with a theory or belief. RICHARD: True ... I usually use words such as grandiose illusion, massive delusion and calentural hallucination to describe those who are in an advanced state of ‘being’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’). ‘Tis only the dilettantes who are still at the stage of it being ‘a theory or belief’. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is seen directly to be its contents. RICHARD: May I propose something? If you find that you want to dismiss all that I have said (above) when you come to read it, as you usually do, then why not take this last sentence of yours and make it into the topic instead? That is, I will consider it as already been said that all I have written (above) is, according to you, just ‘theory’, ‘belief’, ‘idea’, ‘assumption’, ‘projection’ and your remaining 96 stock-standard responses so as to save you having to type it all out E-Mail after E-Mail once again. If you can successfully describe what the phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ means in words I will be only too happy to respond to that and leave this ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ issue for a later date.
RESPONDENT No. 4: Matter is an ‘externalization’ of consciousness. The root meaning of the word ‘exist’ is ‘to stand out of’. Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative, which means that matter is empty, transparent, without longevity. What ‘stands out’ must inevitably ‘return’. RESPONDENT No. 19: I copied this when you wrote it, but I didn’t understand what you are saying here enough to ask a question. I did know that Richard would respond to this post, which he did, and the matter has since not been cleared. What I understand you to be saying is that there is consciousness, and out of that consciousness everything is created. Why do you say that? What proof do you have? Isn’t the discussion between you and Richard merely metaphysical/philosophical? You say ‘yea’, and he says ‘nay’. In what way does this discussion between you two further the cause of seeing oneself, other than in the response to the argument? RICHARD: Maybe it would be of assistance if I were to clearly delineate the difference between what any ‘non-material consciousness’ generally has to say and what this flesh and blood consciousness says? Viz.: This flesh and blood consciousness: This physical universe is the source of human life (matter gives rise to consciousness). Any non-material consciousness: God (by whatever name) is the source of both the universe and human life (consciousness gives rise to matter). This flesh and blood consciousness: This physical universe is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless). Any non-material consciousness: God (by whatever name) is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless) <snip>. RESPONDENT: There is no true division between material and non-material consciousness. RICHARD: Translation: ‘there is no true division between the false inner world and its false outer world’. RESPONDENT: The illusion of division is brought about by self-thought. RICHARD: Translation: ‘the illusion of division is brought about by ‘me’ being in ‘my’ inner world and superimposing ‘my’ outer world over the actual world in the first place’. RESPONDENT: Every apparent manifestation is empty of linear form and arises from a ‘ground’ that can not be known objectively. RICHARD: Translation: ‘the three-dimensional physical world is only an ‘apparent manifestation’ because ‘me’ in ‘my’ inner world superimpose ‘my’ outer world over the top of the actual world ... and then ‘I’ posit a ‘ground’ that cannot be known objectively from which ‘my’ outer world ‘arises’. RESPONDENT: Love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, and true attention are of that mind which is non-local and in constant renewal. RICHARD: May I propose something? If you find that you want to dismiss what I have said (above) when you come to read it, as you usually do, then why not take the phrase ... um ... ‘consciousness is its contents’ and make it into the topic instead? That is, I will consider it as already been said that what I have written (above) is, according to you, just ‘theory’, ‘belief’, ‘idea’, ‘assumption’, ‘projection’ and your remaining 96 stock-standard responses so as to save you having to type it all out, E-Mail after E-Mail, over and again. If you can successfully describe what the phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ means in words I will be only too happy to respond to that and leave this ‘material and non-material consciousness’ issue for a later date.
RESPONDENT No. 4: Matter is an ‘externalisation’ of consciousness. The root meaning of the word ‘exist’ is ‘to stand out of’. Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative, which means that matter is empty, transparent, without longevity. What ‘stands out’ must inevitably ‘return’. RESPONDENT No. 19: I copied this when you wrote it, but I didn’t understand what you are saying here enough to ask a question. I did know that Richard would respond to this post, which he did, and the matter has since not been cleared. What I understand you to be saying is that there is consciousness, and out of that consciousness everything is created. Why do you say that? What proof do you have? Isn’t the discussion between you and Richard merely metaphysical/philosophical? You say ‘yea’, and he says ‘nay’. In what way does this discussion between you two further the cause of seeing oneself, other than in the response to the argument? RICHARD: Maybe it would be of assistance if I were to clearly delineate the difference between what any ‘non-material consciousness’ generally has to say and what this flesh and blood consciousness says? Viz.: This flesh and blood consciousness: This physical universe is the source of human life (matter gives rise to consciousness). Any non-material consciousness: God (by whatever name) is the source of both the universe and human life (consciousness gives rise to matter). This flesh and blood consciousness: This physical universe is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless). Any non-material consciousness: God (by whatever name) is infinite and eternal (boundless and limitless) <snip>. RESPONDENT: There is no true division between material and non-material consciousness. RICHARD: Translation: ‘there is no true division between the false inner world and its false outer world’. RESPONDENT: Translation – here is another stock-standard ‘actualist’ interpretation. RICHARD: Hmm ... where I said (further below) that if you find that you want to dismiss what I have said when you come to read it as being just ‘theory’, ‘belief’, ‘idea’, ‘assumption’ and ‘projection’ I obviously should have included ‘interpretation’ in the list. RESPONDENT: The illusion of division is brought about by self-thought. RICHARD: Translation: ‘the illusion of division is brought about by ‘me’ being in ‘my’ inner world and superimposing ‘my’ outer world over the actual world in the first place’. RESPONDENT: Translation – here is another stock-standard ‘actualist’ interpretation. RICHARD: But, then again, upon reflection I do recall that I did indicate that if you find that you want to dismiss what I have said when you come to read it as being just ‘interpretation’ by saying ‘... and your remaining 96 stock-standard responses’ (thus you have 95 left). RESPONDENT: Every apparent manifestation is empty of linear form and arises from a ‘ground’ that can not be known objectively. RICHARD: Translation: ‘the three-dimensional physical world is only an ‘apparent manifestation’ because ‘me’ in ‘my’ inner world superimpose ‘my’ outer world over the top of the actual world ... and then ‘I’ posit a ‘ground’ that cannot be known objectively from which ‘my’ outer world ‘arises’ . RESPONDENT: Translation – here is another stock-standard ‘actualist’ interpretation. RICHARD: Alternate translation: never, ever contemplate for a moment that it actually may be correct that the ‘‘ground’ that can not be known objectively’ is nothing other than ‘me’ in disguise ... for it would be the beginning of the end of everything ‘you’ hold dear. RESPONDENT: Love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, and true attention are of that mind which is non-local and in constant renewal. RICHARD: May I propose something? If you find that you want to dismiss what I have said (above) when you come to read it, as you usually do, then why not take the phrase ... um ... ‘consciousness is its contents’ and make it into the topic instead? That is, I will consider it as already been said that what I have written (above) is, according to you, just ‘theory’, ‘belief’, ‘idea’, ‘assumption’, ‘projection’ and your remaining 96 stock-standard responses so as to save you having to type it all out, E-Mail after E-Mail, over and again. If you can successfully describe what the phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ means in words I will be only too happy to respond to that and leave this ‘material and non-material consciousness’ issue for a later date. RESPONDENT: What is the point, when it is clear that there is no looking into a matter anew but rather the same stock-standard ‘actualist’ doctrine is typed out or cut and pasted, E-Mail after E-Mail, over and again? RICHARD: I looked into the matter of ‘love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, and true attention’ being ‘of that mind which is non-local and in constant renewal’ night and day for eleven years – I lived them, breathed them, ate them and drank them continuously – and I have as much interest in ‘looking into them anew’ as I have in looking anew into the factuality of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you do not wish to read the same ‘stock-standard ‘actualist’ doctrine’ then why write to me? As we have shared umpteen E-Mails, you and I, over the past couple of years you must surely know what to expect by now. Also, I copy and paste so as to save typing out again what I have previously written ... I will not pretend, that by disingenuously re-arranging the same points, that I am either saying something new or that I have looked at something anew. The point of discussing the topic of what the phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ means comes from you writing to me recently that direct perception shows there is no true division between things and then implying that this ‘undivided world’ is what ‘consciousness is its contents’ means. Viz.:
As this is not what ‘consciousness is its contents’ means
When ‘consciousness’ is seen to be ‘its contents’ there is no consciousness at all ... and not just the absence of ‘that consciousness called me’ (an ‘undivided world’ consciousness). This consciousness-less state is what the Sanskrit word ‘dhyana’ (mistranslated as ‘meditation’) refers to in the East (known as ‘jhana’ in Pali). It is otherwise known as ‘entering into samadhi’, a trance state (called catatonia in the West) wherein ‘Form’ and ‘Feeling’ and ‘Perception’ and ‘Mental Fabrications’ and ‘Consciousness’ cease to exist totally. Onlookers can see the body is totally inward-looking, totally self-absorbed, totally immobile, totally functionless: the body cannot and does not talk, walk, eat, drink, wake, sleep ... or type E-Mails to mailing lists. A never-ending ‘dhyana’ or ‘samadhi’ would result in the body wasting away until its inevitable physical death ... as a means of obtaining peace-on-earth it is completely useless. And I know intimately what I write of: for example, in 1981 I was rushed to a hospital by a frantic wife who, thinking that because I was in a coma (her impression), I was thus going to die ... and I was held in the intensive care ward for about four hours before ‘coming to’. However, ‘dhyana’ or ‘samadhi’, the action or practice of a profound spiritual or religious state for whose description words are considered to be totally inadequate, is the highest state of direct mystic absorption into Reality. This consciousness-less state cannot be obtained until a condition of mindlessness has been created through the deliberate elimination of the objects of thought from consciousness. The organs of sense perception are so controlled that they no longer pass to the mind their reactions to what is perceived. The mind loses its identity by absorption into a higher state which precludes any awareness of duality and the heart is felt as being wider than the universe and there is infinite bliss, euphoria and rapture ... and immense power exceeding any occult power. It is a ‘no-mind’ state of formless ecstasy wherein there is amalgamation in divine reality and a total loss of body sense, physical perception and consciousness per se. In this state one rests in the highest Being for one has become lord and master of Reality. Very few spiritual seekers have reached this level for one is manifesting God timelessly – there is absolute identification as the transcendent radiant Being – for the divine self is realised beyond the perspective of the physical body, or the mind, or consciousness.
RESPONDENT: Love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, and true attention are of that mind which is non-local and in constant renewal. RICHARD: May I propose something? If you find that you want to dismiss what I have said when you come to read it, as you usually do, then why not take the phrase ... um ... ‘consciousness is its contents’ and make it into the topic instead? That is, I will consider it as already been said that what I have written is, according to you, just ‘theory’, ‘belief’, ‘idea’, ‘assumption’, ‘projection’ and your remaining 96 stock-standard responses so as to save you having to type it all out, E-Mail after E-Mail, over and again. If you can successfully describe what the phrase ‘consciousness is its contents’ means in words I will be only too happy to respond to that and leave this ‘material and non-material consciousness’ issue for a later date. RESPONDENT: What is the point, when it is clear that there is no looking into a matter anew but rather the same stock-standard ‘actualist’ doctrine is typed out or cut and pasted, E-Mail after E-Mail, over and again? RICHARD: I looked into the matter of ‘love, compassion, beauty, intelligence, and true attention’ being ‘of that mind which is non-local and in constant renewal’ night and day for eleven years – I lived them, breathed them, ate them and drank them continuously – and I have as much interest in ‘looking into them anew’ as I have in looking anew into the factuality of Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy. If you do not wish to read the same ‘stock-standard ‘actualist’ doctrine’ then why write to me? As we have shared umpteen E-Mails, you and I, over the past couple of years you must surely know what to expect by now. Also, I copy and paste so as to save typing out again what I have previously written ... I will not pretend, that by disingenuously re-arranging the same points, that I am either saying something new or that I have looked at something anew. RESPONDENT: You are saying ‘I looked ...’. RICHARD: Indeed I am ... and once seen it does not have to be seen over and again (just like the Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy example I gave). RESPONDENT: You’re speaking from past experience and the interest here is freedom from the known, freedom from the personal, from the me. RICHARD: Of course I am speaking from past experience ... ‘the known’, ‘the personal’, ‘the me’ (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) are all extirpated, extinguished. Extinct. RESPONDENT: I could relate a narrative of awakening experiences but that is knowledge not intelligence which is impersonal. RICHARD: Okay ... then there is something more to happen (‘freedom from the known, freedom from the personal, from the me’) is there not? RESPONDENT: If there is insight into the nature of intelligence, there is no interest in taking a path to freedom, be it actualism or whatever. RICHARD: Which is my point exactly in the Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy example I gave ... the insight into the nature of impersonal intelligence was the ending of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (the insight happened in a deserted cow-paddock in late 1992). Thus I have no need for any path whatsoever.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Eleven) 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 |
