|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT No. 00: Throughout your simultaneous existences you expand your consciousness, your ideas, your perceptions, your values. You break away from self-adopted restrictions, and you grow. RESPONDENT: What is the basis for the assertion that you are an entity that has simultaneous existences, is growing and has a series of lives? What can not be realized as fact in our daily life is either fantasy or belief in some outside authority and leads away from self-knowledge. The energy of insight is not caught up in belief in a self that is expanding. That is the movement of thought. RICHARD: Maybe the title of this thread (‘The Observer Is There’) says it all ... that the ‘basis for the assertion’ has the same basis as your own basis for the saying (the asserting) that there is a ‘the ground’ into which ‘that universal which is material’ (all time and all space and all form) ‘dies to’? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Materialism concludes that matter is the ground. This seems to be Richard’s view. I have not made that assertion. To the contrary I have said that universal which is material dies to the ground’. [endquote]. It is a ‘fantasy or belief’ which requires assertion ... whereas matter is a tangibly observable fact. RESPONDENT: When mind is not caught in the movement of time (no separation of observer from observed) matter is directly seen to arise from and die to the ground or energetic source. The tangible is the intangible. RICHARD: And when ‘mind is not caught in the movement of time’ is it also ‘directly seen’ why matter (all time and all space and all form) would be occasioned to ‘arise from ... the ground or energetic source’ anyway? RESPONDENT: Why do the birds go on singing? Maybe the answer is the song itself. RICHARD: Why do you reply with a question and a ‘maybe’ type of response (in lieu of a ‘matter is directly seen’ type of answer)? If you do not know (if it be not ‘directly seen’) why matter would be occasioned to arise ... then why not just say so? Besides which ... birds neither sing nor have a song anyway. RESPONDENT: Life is its own answer. RICHARD: I am well aware that life is its own answer ... however, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by claiming that it is ‘directly seen’ that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ and not me, it surely falls upon you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such a claim? After all, you yourself wrote to another ‘what is the basis for the assertion that ...’ and I am sure that if your respondent had replied ‘maybe the answer is in the song’ or ‘life is its own answer’ you too would be questioning the intelligence displayed in these philosophical-cop-out type of responses, eh? RESPONDENT: From psychological separation the question is why? RICHARD: As these questions were not being asked ‘from psychological separation’ this is an irrelevant comment. RESPONDENT: When there is no separation, when there is love, there is no such concern. RICHARD: And thus 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 go on for ever and a day ... all because of a lack of concern. As is aptly summarised in the popular expression ‘bliss-ninnies’. * RICHARD: Furthermore, is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ is arising, as human beings, maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring its antidotal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly in the first place? RESPONDENT: Antidotal love and compassion is something false or contrived. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my query: is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ is arising, as human beings, maliciously and sorrowfully (thus necessitating true or uncontrived love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly in the first place? And may I remind you of your very own words to another (further above)? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘What can not be realised as fact in our daily life is either fantasy or belief ...’. RESPONDENT: Antidotal love is a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that true or uncontrived love and compassion is not similarly ‘a contradiction in terms’? RESPONDENT: When someone like K says ‘when there is love there are no problems of self’, it is an observation, not a suggestion that love is something that you as the intellect must try to do like following a commandment carved in stone. RICHARD: As I had never read or heard of ‘someone like K’, when love and compassion first manifested in full bloom, this is an irrelevant comment. RESPONDENT: You do not love as an antidote. RICHARD: Given that human life is plagued by misery and mayhem, what is the basis for your assertion that ‘you do not love as an antidote’ ? RESPONDENT: Love is impersonal, it is when the self is not. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind what the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ is that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? What is intelligent about arising in such an insalubrious manner? * RESPONDENT: If there is a possibility of ecstasy being realised in the particular, there is also the possibility of sorrow and malice and despair. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ is arising with the ‘possibility of ecstasy’ (irrevocably linked with ‘the possibility of sorrow and malice and despair’) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly in the first place? How can this possibly be the action of intelligence? RESPONDENT: The operation of intelligence or the energy of insight within a limited field, the organism, is a possibility and confusion is also quite possible because of the limitations of the organism. RICHARD: However, by your very own account, the ‘limited field, the organism’ is ‘directly seen’ to be arising from ‘the ground or energetic source’ ... therefore the limitations inherent are part and parcel of the action of what you clearly see (further below) as being ‘creative intelligence’. Yet all you can come up with, when queried as to why this be so, is a grade-school type of reply (specifically written as ‘from psychological separation the question is why’ ) which does not take your respondent’s responses into account at all. Again might I remind you of your very own words to another (further above)? Viz.:
* RICHARD: After all, there are a lot of tangible (‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘ground or energetic source’ is arising the way it currently is, eh? RESPONDENT: That occurs because of fear which means there is no direct contact, no sense of a living connection with the source of creative intelligence. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ (now seen to be ‘the source of creative intelligence’) is arising with (a) ‘fear’ ... and (b) ‘no direct contact’ with itself ... and (c) ‘no sense of a living connection’ with itself? As there are a lot of tangible (‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘ground or energetic source’ is arising the way it currently is ... does it not make mockery of the very meaning of what the word ‘intelligence’ stands for? And I am not being frivolous in asking these questions ... these are the type of issues I personally enquired into, relentlessly, for eleven years. I just could not continue to live with such duplicity. RESPONDENT: You are misinterpreting what is meant by intelligence. RICHARD: Apparently so ... it would appear that the intelligence you refer to is quite unconcerned about arising maliciously and sorrowfully (rather than happily and harmlessly). RESPONDENT: The duplicity is in the belief that an imagined psychological entity separate from intelligence inquired for 11 years. RICHARD: As there was no separation ‘from intelligence’ and as there was no imagined ‘psychological entity’ , during that eleven years, this is an irrelevant comment. RESPONDENT: If there is a genuine meaningful inquiry that is a seeing into the field of the known, that is the operation of intelligence which is impersonal. RICHARD: This explains why we are not meeting in this discussion ... the relentless enquiry was a seeing into the field of the unknown. RESPONDENT: The rapes and tortures and violence and all that is action from the centre, from confusion, from the me. RICHARD: And, as it is ‘directly seen’ to be all arising from ‘the ground or energetic source’ , the responsibility for all that action can undeniably be sheeted home to ‘the source of creative intelligence’ itself, eh? It is your call.
RESPONDENT: Life is its own answer. RICHARD: I am well aware that life is its own answer ... however, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by claiming that it is ‘directly seen’ that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ and not me, it surely falls upon you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such a claim? After all, you yourself wrote to another ‘what is the basis for the assertion that ...’ and I am sure that if your respondent had replied ‘maybe the answer is in the song’ or ‘life is its own answer’ you too would be questioning the intelligence displayed in these philosophical-cop-out type of responses, eh? RESPONDENT: To assume responses are a philosophical cop-out is to respond from bias, from belief. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... would it not save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing, if it be not ‘directly seen’ why matter would be occasioned to arise anyway, to just say so? * RESPONDENT: From psychological separation the question is why? RICHARD: As these questions were not being asked ‘from psychological separation’ this is an irrelevant comment. RESPONDENT: The questioning implies that there is a separate entity that cops out or makes serious inquiry for 11 years. RICHARD: Not so ... unless you are of the persuasion that all enquiry ceases forthwith when the ‘separate entity’ is not? RESPONDENT: From that belief an alleged entity that is judged to be copping out is condemned and that which is or was making serious inquiry is praised. RICHARD: Setting aside your assumption regarding ‘serious enquiry’ only being the province of an ‘alleged entity’ ... why is it considered not de rigueur to appraise, to evaluate, to assess, for validity? RESPONDENT: That seems like the belief in self as doer that is central to human programming. RICHARD: Having read thus far through your responses it starts to look as if there is a belief that, once the self is not, all ‘what’, ‘where’, ‘when’, ‘how’ and ‘why’ questions are rendered null and void. * RESPONDENT: [From psychological separation the question is why?] When there is no separation, when there is love, there is no such concern. RICHARD: And thus 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 go on for ever and a day ... all because of a lack of concern. As is aptly summarised in the popular expression ‘bliss-ninnies’. RESPONDENT: There is no such self-concern. Bliss-ninny implies some kind of selfish escape. RICHARD: Exactly. What then is the essential difference between what is conveyed by the words ‘cop-out’ and the word ‘escape’? * RICHARD: Furthermore, is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ is arising, as human beings, maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring its antidotal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly in the first place? RESPONDENT: Antidotal love and compassion is something false or contrived. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase my query: is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind why ‘the ground or energetic source’ is arising, as human beings, maliciously and sorrowfully (thus necessitating true or uncontrived love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly in the first place? And may I remind you of your very own words to another (now snipped)? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘What can not be realised as fact in our daily life is either fantasy or belief ...’. RESPONDENT: Antidotal love is a contradiction in terms. RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that true or uncontrived love and compassion is not similarly ‘a contradiction in terms’ ? RESPONDENT: You have to find out directly. RICHARD: It was already found out directly ... I am asking you. RESPONDENT: Love as I use the term is a state of no separation, no division of self in thought. RICHARD: I am aware of this ... you have made your use of the term quite clear many times before. * RESPONDENT: When someone like K says ‘when there is love there are no problems of self’, it is an observation, not a suggestion that love is something that you as the intellect must try to do like following a commandment carved in stone. RICHARD: As I had never read or heard of ‘someone like K’, when love and compassion first manifested in full bloom, this is an irrelevant comment. RESPONDENT: If it was contrived, why would you take that for what is not a result? RICHARD: As it was not ‘contrived’ your question is a non-sequitur * RESPONDENT: You do not love as an antidote. RICHARD: Given that human life is plagued by misery and mayhem, what is the basis for your assertion that ‘you do not love as an antidote’ ? RESPONDENT: Because the thinker is established in thought as the mover, the impetus of love which is impersonal is not given expression. RICHARD: Aye ... yet when it is ‘given expression’ is it not indeed experienced as being the antidote for all the anger and anguish? * RESPONDENT: Love is impersonal, it is when the self is not. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind what the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ is that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? What is intelligent about arising in such an insalubrious manner? RESPONDENT: There is the human belief that a self exists separately in time that observes the world, the body, the thoughts, etc. From the centre established by brain activity as observer, another kind of attention with qualities that are impersonal is glimpsed. It is then imagined that this attention and these attributes are those of a ‘higher’ separate entity or supreme being separate from man. In essence, man creates god in his own image. If there is no self-image, there is no god-image either. What is occurring in terms of brain activity may be confused or may be the operation of intelligence in the limited field of the human organism. Now what is it that you are asking? RICHARD: Just three straightforward questions:
Basically, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by asserting that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ , and not me, I am asking you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such an addition. Viz.:
And:
It is your call.
RESPONDENT: Love is impersonal, it is when the self is not. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind what the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ is that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? What is intelligent about arising in such an insalubrious manner? RESPONDENT: There is the human belief that a self exists separately in time that observes the world, the body, the thoughts, etc. From the centre established by brain activity as observer, another kind of attention with qualities that are impersonal is glimpsed. It is then imagined that this attention and these attributes are those of a ‘higher’ separate entity or supreme being separate from man. In essence, man creates god in his own image. If there is no self-image, there is no god-image either. What is occurring in terms of brain activity may be confused or may be the operation of intelligence in the limited field of the human organism. Now what is it that you are asking? RICHARD: Just three straightforward questions: 1. What is it that occasions matter (all time and all space and all form) to arise from ‘the ground or energetic source’ anyway? 2. What is the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? 3. As there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’ ) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘ground or energetic source’ is arising the way it currently is ... does it not make mockery of the very meaning of what the word ‘intelligence’ stands for? Basically, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by asserting that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’, and not me, I am asking you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such an addition. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Materialism concludes that matter is the ground. This seems to be Richard’s view. I have not made that assertion. To the contrary I have said that universal which is material dies to the ground’ [endquote]. And: [Respondent]: ‘When mind is not caught in the movement of time (no separation of observer from observed) matter is directly seen to arise from and die to the ground or energetic source’ [endquote]. It is your call. RESPONDENT: What you saw as love blooming ... RICHARD: No ... love was not something seen. There was only love ... there was nothing else but love. RESPONDENT: [What you saw as love blooming] was of thought because it was considered antidote to what you experienced as suffering. RICHARD: There was no thought about it being ‘considered antidote’ ... love was and to even begin to think about it was ludicrous. RESPONDENT: You were miserable and asked what can I or any human do to end misery? RICHARD: On the contrary ... love came unannounced and unexpected. RESPONDENT: The initial answer was to have a feeling of love and compassion for others, for the world. RICHARD: Not so ... there was love and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: But love is not a result, there is no how. RICHARD: There was only love ... love was it and it was love. RESPONDENT: It is not self-motivated; it is not my love of the world. RICHARD: There was no self; there was no world. RESPONDENT: Love is when there is no division of self from world and that can not be described. RICHARD: Love was unspeakable; love was its own language. RESPONDENT: Questions as to why there is human misery are answered when separation stops. RICHARD: There was no ‘human misery’ ... love was everything and everything was love. RESPONDENT: But the answer is existential not conceptual. RICHARD: To say ‘existential’ was to be conceptual ... love was all and all was love. RESPONDENT: To seek conceptual answers as to the nature of love or intelligence or of the source is to get lost in images. RICHARD: There was no seeking of ‘conceptual answers’ ... even to say ‘love was the way; love was the means; love was the end’ was to be saying too much. RESPONDENT: The mind understands the unknown by being unknown. RICHARD: There was a vast understanding that could never be put into words ... but the truth had to be spoken, nevertheless. Hence: ‘love was the way; love was the means; love was the end’. RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history.
RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: The confusion is that what is impersonal, i.e.- intelligence as direct perception and compassion, gets mistaken for something that I am or I was or I experienced. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘I am or I was or I experienced’ at all. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: The central problem is belief in self as a separate mover in psychological time. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘belief in self as a separate mover in psychological time’ whatsoever. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: There is only one movement but within that movement there are organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves. RICHARD: What is it that occasions ‘organisms’ to be within that ‘one movement’ anyway? Furthermore, what is the nature of the ‘one movement’ that there be ‘organisms’ within it which are malicious and sorrowful (thus necessitating that an impersonal intelligence, as direct perception and compassion, be not mistaken) ... rather than being happy and harmless in the first place? Also, as there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘one movement’ has within it ‘organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves’ ... does it not render the very substance, of what the word ‘intelligence’ indicates, preposterous? Let alone what it says about that which the words ‘impersonal intelligence’ supposedly points to.
RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: The confusion is that what is impersonal, i.e.- intelligence as direct perception and compassion, gets mistaken for something that I am or I was or I experienced. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘I am or I was or I experienced’ at all. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: You describe love as something personal ... RICHARD: Not so ... the words ‘there was only love’ literally means that love was all there was: there was only love; there was nothing else but love; love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love ... and, as it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, compassion was not ‘something personal’ either. RESPONDENT: ... something known that you experienced in time before you went to India. RICHARD: There was no ‘time’ and nothing was ‘experienced’ ... there was only love. RESPONDENT: If there is no separation of experiencer from experience ... RICHARD: There was no ‘separation’ and there was no ‘experience’ ... there was only love. RESPONDENT: ... [if there is no separation] of knower from what is known, that is the end of the matter. RICHARD: There was no ‘known’ and there was nothing to ‘end’ ... there was only love. RESPONDENT: What happens is choiceless because you are not there controlling, choosing, seeking to gain or lose anything. RICHARD: There was no ‘controlling’ or ‘choosing’ or ‘seeking to gain anything’ or ‘seeking to lose anything’ ... love came unannounced and unexpected. * RESPONDENT: There is only one movement but within that movement there are organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves. RICHARD: What is it that occasions ‘organisms’ to be within that ‘one movement’ anyway? RESPONDENT: I don’t follow the question. There is one movement, that is all. RICHARD: Oh? Do you mean to say that it only looks as if you really said ‘but within that movement there are organisms ...’ perchance? Maybe if it were to be rephrased like this:
Or like this:
Basically, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by asserting that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ , and not me, I am asking you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such an addition. Ramifications such as how can something that is the ... um ... the intelligence par excellence be so unintelligent? * RICHARD: Furthermore, what is the nature of the ‘one movement’ that there be ‘organisms’ within it which are malicious and sorrowful (thus necessitating that an impersonal intelligence, as direct perception and compassion, be not mistaken) ... rather than being happy and harmless in the first place? RESPONDENT: The question is, what is actually happening? RICHARD: No ... the question is this: what is the nature of the ‘one movement’ that there be ‘organisms’ within it which are malicious and sorrowful (thus necessitating that an impersonal intelligence, as direct perception and compassion, be not mistaken) ... rather than being happy and harmless in the first place? RESPONDENT: It seems that within one movement there are organisms capable of self-reflection which means there is a possibility of creativity on the level of the particular but also means there is the possibility of psychological confusion. RICHARD: Okay ... and what is the nature of the ‘one movement’ that there be ‘organisms capable of self-reflection’ within it which are in ‘psychological confusion’ (née malicious and sorrowful) thus necessitating ‘creativity on the level of the particular’ (née an impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than being happy and harmless in the first place? * RICHARD: Also, as there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘one movement’ has within it ‘organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves’ ... does it not render the very substance, of what the word ‘intelligence’ indicates, preposterous? Let alone what it says about that which the words ‘impersonal intelligence’ supposedly points to. RESPONDENT: I hear what you are saying. Why pray to a loving intelligent Father or God asking that ‘Thy Will be done on earth as it is in Heaven’ when an intelligent loving God would make it so without a lot of begging for it. RICHARD: Ahh ... but it is already being ‘done on earth as it is in Heaven’ (to use your analogy) is it not? All the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on are the very nature of the ‘intelligent Father or God’ (to use your analogy). The enlightened ones really mean it when they say that the lotus has its roots in mud (aka good has its roots in evil). RESPONDENT: What is the disorder, the confusion that is inherent in a realm where intelligence is not directly operating? RICHARD: But there is no ‘realm where intelligence is not directly operating’ according to you (you specifically assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’ ). This is what I mean by the ramifications implicit in adding an extra element to life by asserting that matter arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ . Viz.:
And:
It is your call.
RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: The confusion is that what is impersonal, i.e.- intelligence as direct perception and compassion, gets mistaken for something that I am or I was or I experienced. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘I am or I was or I experienced’ at all. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: The central problem is belief in self as a separate mover in psychological time. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘belief in self as a separate mover in psychological time’ whatsoever. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT: Love as you are explaining it is a projection of the self. RICHARD: Not so ... the words ‘there was only love’ literally means that love was all there was: there was only love; there was nothing else but love; love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love ... and, as it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, compassion was not ‘a projection of the self’ either. RESPONDENT: That completely misses the mark. Love is when the self is not. RICHARD: Aye, there was no ‘self’ ... there was only love. RESPONDENT: Your statement that love went to India reveals that what you took for love was based on self-image. RICHARD: There was no ‘self-image’ for love to be ‘based on’ ... there was only love. RESPONDENT: But that image you say at some point was exposed and dropped away. RICHARD: Ahh ... apperception, which reveals the nature of love, compassion, intelligence and truth, required much more than the exposure of a mere ‘image’ (aka ‘becoming’). Much, much more ... an insight into ‘being’ itself. * RESPONDENT: There is only one movement but within that movement there are organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves. RICHARD: What is it that occasions ‘organisms’ to be within that ‘one movement’ anyway? Furthermore, what is the nature of the ‘one movement’ that there be ‘organisms’ within it which are malicious and sorrowful (thus necessitating that an impersonal intelligence, as direct perception and compassion, be not mistaken) ... rather than being happy and harmless in the first place? Also, as there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘one movement’ has within it ‘organisms that can invent virtual realities with imagined separate selves’ ... does it not render the very substance, of what the word ‘intelligence’ indicates, preposterous? Let alone what it says about that which the words ‘impersonal intelligence’ supposedly points to. RESPONDENT: Love and intelligence are usually not operating on the level of the particular. RICHARD: Indeed not ... ‘tis a strange goings-on for a supposedly intelligent ‘ground or energetic source’ to be arising like that (rather than arising already loving and intelligent), eh? Let alone arising happily and harmlessly in the first place. RESPONDENT: You misunderstand what is meant by personal. RICHARD: Apparently so ... for even though you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’ – which implies that the ‘personal’ is the impersonal – you go on (immediately below) in a circumventive explaining away of this dichotomy which is staring you in the face. RESPONDENT: What is personal is of the past, biased, operating from the known toward the known. Insight is not personal. It is from not knowing. The rapes and murders etc are actions from the known, from conditioning. One who learns greed, fear, or cruelty carries over that experience into present behaviour as long as there is no insight into what he is doing and why. RICHARD: Yet all this is arising from ‘the ground or energetic source’ , no? RESPONDENT: You are really asking why doesn’t the intelligence in nature operate more fully in man? RICHARD: Not ‘the intelligence in nature’, no ... nor merely ‘more fully’ . Look, what I am asking is three straightforward questions:
Basically, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by asserting that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’ , and not me, I am asking you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such an addition. Viz.:
And:
Put simply: I do not posit and/or claim and/or assert that the source of life is intelligent ... that is what you do. RESPONDENT: Rather than seek conceptual conclusions, we can observe what is actually happening within man, within ourselves. RICHARD: It has already been observed (and it was not sought as a ‘conceptual conclusion’ either) ... I am asking you.
RESPONDENT: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: The confusion is that what is impersonal, i.e.- intelligence as direct perception and compassion, gets mistaken for something that I am or I was or I experienced. RICHARD: No ... there was no ‘I am or I was or I experienced’ at all. There was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. RESPONDENT No. 21: Why do you call it ‘love’ instead of some feeling? RICHARD: This was the deepest feeling possible; an enduring, timeless passion quite removed from the norm ... it was an unsurpassable state of being: it was The Ultimate, The Supreme, The Absolute. The phrase ‘Love Agapé’ was best fitted as being an apt description. RESPONDENT No. 21: What was the experience like? RICHARD: It was an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss: Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion poured forth, unconditionally, for all suffering sentient beings twenty four hours of the day. It was a truly euphoric state of being (there was no more ‘becoming’). RESPONDENT No. 21: It would seem that if you had love, you would not give it up unless you found something wrong with it. RICHARD: Indeed ... this is a very perspicacious observation. RESPONDENT No. 21: If there was something wrong with it, it could not be real love ... RICHARD: Ha ... this is quite humorous (for all its in inaccuracy) yet serves to show why it is difficult for some to comprehend what I have to report. RESPONDENT No. 21: ... so what do you think really happened? RICHARD: There was something beyond Love Agapé and its Divine Compassion (which was God, which was The Truth, which was the Ground Of Being) ... something beyond enlightenment which was of such a magnitude as to be unimaginable, inconceivable, incomprehensible and unbelievable. The condition experienced was of the nature of some ‘Great Beyond’ (I have to put it in capitals because that is how it was experienced it at the time) and it was of the nature of which has always been ascribed, in all the spiritual/mystical writings I had read, as being ‘That’ which one merges with at physical death when one ‘quits the body’. Sometimes known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ or ‘Parinirvana’, it seemed so extreme that the physical body must surely die for the attainment of it. There was to be seven more years before fruition ... but that is another story. RESPONDENT: You can read a similar tale of glory written in many books by Osho on esoteric psychology. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... I have read approximately 90 of his books and there is no ‘similar tale’ at all. RESPONDENT: He writes that love can be transcended (and was supposedly by Osho) and explains this with great verbosity. RICHARD: Yes ... ‘supposedly’ is the appropriate word. He remained the same until his dying day and personally dictated the words to be chiselled on his marble memorial: ‘Never Born; Never Died; Only Visited This Planet’. Quite clearly the classical Indian ‘immortal enlightenment’ story. RESPONDENT: He said the final transcendence is beyond the duality of being and non-being. RICHARD: That is nothing more and nothing less esoteric than his version of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s more rarefied teachings. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti entered into this type of rather abstract territory in some of his discussions with Mr David Bohm. RESPONDENT: He says it can not be sought after, but there is still a subtle tension until it just happens. RICHARD: Whether it can or can not be is beside the point ... none of this relates to what I am talking of. There are others who claimed to be ‘beyond enlightenment’ also – Mr. H. W. L Poonja is one who springs to mind – but as their actions, attitude and essential teaching changed not one jot it is more or less a lot of highly rarefied talk. An actual freedom is new to human experience ... there is no precedent to go by.
RICHARD: ... it is impossible for a flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to be or ‘become aggressive’ . RESPONDENT No. 21: Why would it be impossible? RICHARD: Because when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (born of the rudimentary animal self) became extinct all of its instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – simultaneously became extinct. In other words: ‘I’ am aggression and aggression is ‘me’. RESPONDENT: When there is a real physical threat to the organism, fear or aggression are natural responses. RICHARD: Yes, this is blind nature’s ‘software’ package ... genetically-inherited as a rough and ready start to life. RESPONDENT: This is only problematic when those responses are carried over into the psychological realm. RICHARD: I have no interest in living as animals do. * RESPONDENT No. 21: A body needs food and water and space to live in and it competes with other bodies for those things. RICHARD: Now that intelligence has developed in the human animal it can cooperate rather than compete ... and where there is a freed intelligence cooperation can operate unimpeded by ‘me’ and ‘my’ pitiful demands and pathetic desires. RESPONDENT No. 21: A body can become aggressive. RICHARD: No ... only ‘I’/‘me’ can be or ‘become aggressive’ . RESPONDENT No. 21: You still have a brain. When a brain gets hungry and tired and someone is moving on it’s territory, the brain may get angry and attack. RICHARD: No ... it is impossible for a brain sans identity in toto to be or ‘get angry’. When ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (born of the rudimentary animal self) became extinct all of its instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – simultaneously became extinct. In other words: ‘I’ am anger and anger is ‘me’. RESPONDENT: The absence of such a natural response to an actual physical threat indicates aberration because there is a disconnect. RICHARD: Not a ‘disconnect’ , no ... it indicates the extinction of the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire): hence it is not an ‘aberration’ but rather a (long-awaited) mutation. RESPONDENT: That deprives the organism of the energy needed to meet a life-threatening challenge. RICHARD: My hands-on day-to-day experiencing, for many years now, shows your theory to be just that: a theory. There is all the energy of the universe, as it were, available as and when it is needed. RESPONDENT: Anger or fear in response to perceived danger to self-image is another matter. RICHARD: Surely you mean ‘ill-perceived’ danger? When there is no ‘self’ (thus no ‘self-image’ either) perception operates accurately, unimpeded by ‘me’ and ‘my’ pathetic desires and demands. * RESPONDENT No. 21: Your claim ... you say you do not have an ego or a soul and that there is no good nor evil, love nor hate in your world. Yet you claim good will toward all and a benevolent nature. RICHARD: The word ‘goodwill’ means generosity of character, kindness, amity and the word ‘benevolent’ literally means well-wishing, humane ... neither of which require any ‘love’ (the antidote to hate) or any ‘good’ (the antidote to evil) for their existence. Quite the contrary actually. RESPONDENT No. 21: Both of those are qualities are obviously essential elements of ‘love’. RICHARD: Yet love does not have the corner on well-wishing, amity, cordiality, affability, amiability, bonhomie, geniality, congeniality, hospitality, kindliness, helpfulness and so on. RESPONDENT No. 21: Without them there is no love. Love has good will and is benevolent. RICHARD: Hmm ... love also has ill-will and malevolence. Have you not heard of the ‘crimes of passion’? Even the gods are not immune. RESPONDENT No. 21: Untrue ... love has no ill will at all, and cannot or it is not love. RICHARD: If that be the case then no person – and no god – has ever had or has ever been love. RESPONDENT: So-called love that is personal is emotional reaction. RICHARD: Indeed ... however, as I am not speaking only of a ‘so-called love that is personal’ (‘even the gods are not immune’), your comment is a meaningless red-herring. RESPONDENT: What is seen as benevolent toward me and mine is called good and what is perceived as malevolent toward me and mine is called evil. RICHARD: Also true ... however, as I am not speaking of ‘towards me and mine’ your comment is another irrelevant red-herring (unless you are referring to god as ‘me’ and god’s children as ‘mine’ , of course). RESPONDENT: But what is without division (genuine love) has no opposite. RICHARD: And therein lies the rub: as a generalisation there are at least four varieties of love – Love Storge (the instinctual maternal, paternal or familial love), Love Eros (the passionate sexual, amorous or romantic love), Love Philios (the affectionate friendship, societal or humanitarian love) and Love Agapé (the supernatural godly, divine or sacred love) – and they all have their dark side, their not-so-hidden under belly. Or, rather, not-so-hidden to those who dare to care ... and thus care to dare.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Fourteen) 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 |
