|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: People say they experience God or love or they want to have or know love. But what is known is of thought and memory, it is rooted in time, i.e.- the self. RICHARD: Hmm ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, using ‘thought and memory’, could readily recognise that which he variously called god, truth, that which is sacred, holy, the presence, the otherness and etcetera, each time again. For an example: [quote]: ‘That presence which was at il L. [two months previously at Il Leccio, Italy] was there, waiting patiently, benignly, with great tenderness. It was like lightening on a dark night but it was there, penetrating, blissful’. (June 27 1961; page 14, ‘Krishnamurti’s Notebook’, Harper & Row, New York 1976). It does pay to read with both eyes open (rather than listen only to the ‘he who says he knows does not know’ style of rhetoric), eh? RESPONDENT: There is a difference between the state of guest within guest, host within guest, guest within host and host within host. There is a relationship between the known and the unknown but ultimately the absolute is when the relative is not. RICHARD: As in ‘There is only That’? The enlightened being who was inhabiting this body for eleven years would say ‘There is only The Absolute’. RESPONDENT: That was a mistake – what is known is not the absolute. Any truly enlightened being knows that. ;-) RICHARD: Of course it was a mistake to say ‘There is only The Absolute’ (or ‘There is only That’) as there is something else – beyond enlightenment – but no ‘truly enlightened being’ wants to know that. * RESPONDENT: K speaks of the otherness which implies a duality but it is not the duality of the centre or guest within guest. RICHARD: I can be in broad agreement with this way of putting it. RESPONDENT: Each state of being has its own art, religion, philosophy, etc. These matters have been discussed in depth by Taoist and Buddhist writers, by Ouspensky and Fourth Way writers, and by Osho for instance. RICHARD: I am familiar with most of the writings you mention bar Mr. Petyr Ouspensky ... I have only had a brief look at his work as it struck me as being a mixture of philosophy, psychology, theology, science – and even politics – all wrapped up in some form of intellectual gnosis. I have never been particularly taken by Mr. George Gurdjieff’s approach anyway. RESPONDENT: Same here. But Ouspensky’s ‘The Fourth Way’ is definitely a worth while read in my opinion. RICHARD: Maybe ... I recall speaking with a number of people, probably 17-18 years ago, over a number of evenings who were readers of Mr. Petyr Ouspensky (which is when I briefly looked at his work) and all the conversations were dry, intellectual, conceptual. It read as being a structured work ... not a lived writing. * RESPONDENT: It is necessary to consider the state of the listener if there is to be any communication. RICHARD: Of course ... yet you often pull me up for doing so. RESPONDENT: What do you mean? RICHARD: On August 03 2000, for example:
* RESPONDENT: So sometimes there is pointing to nonduality as the absolute and at other times, pointing is to the relative truth of the state of those involved. RICHARD: I would be pleased if this commonsense approach were to continue. RESPONDENT: Take the subject of awakening or PCE’s as you call them. RICHARD: Except that a PCE is not an ‘awakening’ ... for a PCE to occur an ending happens (an ending of ‘I’/‘me’). RESPONDENT: One approach is to seek to have as many PCE’s as possible strung together through use of various techniques. RICHARD: The only method I advocate is asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (usually experienced through a feeling, if not a belief, rather than directly). Thus through the exposure of whatever stands in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent a PCE may occur. And until it does one is as free of malice and sorrow and as happy and harmless as is humanly possible ... a win/win situation. RESPONDENT: There are inherent problems with such ‘positive’ approaches as K pointed out. RICHARD: You have to be talking of an ‘awakening’ here as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti never spoke of a PCE. And in regards to an ‘awakening’ there are inherent problems with the ‘via negativa’ approach as well ... to each their own, I guess. RESPONDENT: Another ‘approach’ is to examine what is and in seeing the false as false, a PCE comes about on its own without effort. RICHARD: Yet a PCE always comes about without effort ... ‘tis a wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: The PCE is direct experience of that which is not of thought ... of that which is inherently capable of renewing itself. RICHARD: And neither that which is of feeling also (lest it be the ‘awakening’ you refer to above). RESPONDENT: A PCE might mean host within guest or guest within host. RICHARD: An ‘awakening’ could be described as either of those ... whereas a PCE means all identity comes to an end (where neither host nor guest in any combination has any existence). If this discussion ever moves on to an actual freedom from the human condition this thread (originally entitled ‘The Observer Is There’ which you changed to ‘No Separate Observer’ many posts ago) would be better retitled ‘No Observer At All’. RESPONDENT: From those states there can be discussion of a blissful, sacred, penetrating presence. RICHARD: Sure ... however anyone who has had such an event happen can also discuss the happening (which is what I took you to be saying when you said that ‘it is necessary to consider the state of the listener if there is to be any communication ... so sometimes there is pointing to nonduality as the absolute and at other times, pointing is to the relative truth of the state of those involved’ ). This is what I said was a commonsense approach ... it is having regard for one’s fellow human being’s experience.
RESPONDENT: There is a difference between the state of guest within guest, host within guest, guest within host and host within host. There is a relationship between the known and the unknown but ultimately the absolute is when the relative is not. RICHARD: As in ‘There is only That’? The enlightened being who was inhabiting this body for eleven years would say ‘There is only The Absolute’. RESPONDENT: That was a mistake – what is known is not the absolute. Any truly enlightened being knows that. ;-) RICHARD: Of course it was a mistake to say ‘There is only The Absolute’ (or ‘There is only That’) as there is something else – beyond enlightenment – but no ‘truly enlightened being’ wants to know that. RESPONDENT: There is no separation between an ‘enlightened being’ in here and that out there. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: There is just formless energy and no one separate to go beyond anything. RICHARD: Indeed ... the ‘no one separate’ (the egoless ‘being’) and/or the ‘formless energy’ can only disappear – what I call the extinction of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) – and the something else which is beyond enlightenment becomes apparent of its own accord. It was just here at this place in infinite space, right now at this moment in eternal time, all along. * RESPONDENT: It is necessary to consider the state of the listener if there is to be any communication. RICHARD: Of course ... yet you often pull me up for doing so. RESPONDENT: What do you mean? RICHARD: On August 03 2000, for example: [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? (...) It is silly to praise an imaginary being for stopping itself. 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]: ‘... 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. 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: Ego-death seems more like a surrender than some kind of noble accomplishment. RICHARD: I am not talking of ‘ego-death’ but of the next step after such a surrender. RESPONDENT: Why is it a noble sacrifice to realize what is actual and thus ‘lose’ what never really was? RICHARD: There is no realising of what is actual: the actual becomes apparent of its own accord when the realiser (the enlightened ‘being’ inhabiting the body) sacrifices itself for the benefit of the body and every other body ... the extinction of ‘being’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’). RESPONDENT: I don’t know where credit (or blame for that matter) is ultimately due. RICHARD: It is ultimately due (both credit and blame) to the enlightened ‘being’. * RESPONDENT: So sometimes there is pointing to nonduality as the absolute and at other times, pointing is to the relative truth of the state of those involved. RICHARD: I would be pleased if this commonsense approach were to continue. RESPONDENT: Take the subject of awakening or PCE’s as you call them. RICHARD: Except that a PCE is not an ‘awakening’ ... for a PCE to occur an ending happens (an ending of ‘I’/‘me’). RESPONDENT: The flesh and blood body awakens at least momentarily to what is actual. RICHARD: The flesh and blood body is already always aware of the actual – I have been here for 54 years having a ball – it is that (firstly) ‘I’ as ego blocked this pure awareness and (then) ‘me’ as soul, awakened at ego-death, usurped this pure awareness ... trumpeting ‘choiceless awareness’ or ‘unitary perception’ whilst doing so. I call this pristine awareness an apperceptive * RESPONDENT: One approach is to seek to have as many PCE’s as possible strung together through use of various techniques. RICHARD: The only method I advocate is asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive (usually experienced through a feeling, if not a belief, rather than directly). Thus through the exposure of whatever stands in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent a PCE may occur. And until it does one is as free of malice and sorrow and as happy and harmless as is humanly possible ... a win/win situation. RESPONDENT: There are inherent problems with such ‘positive’ approaches as K pointed out. RICHARD: You have to be talking of an ‘awakening’ here as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti never spoke of a PCE. And in regards to an ‘awakening’ there are inherent problems with the ‘via negativa’ approach as well ... to each their own, I guess. RESPONDENT: K spoke of transformation of consciousness in which there is no separation between experiencer and experience. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: How is that different from a pure consciousness experience? RICHARD: There is no ‘transformation’ (of the old consciousness) in a PCE ... it is the ending of both the old and the transformed consciousness. * RESPONDENT: Another ‘approach’ is to examine what is and in seeing the false as false, a PCE comes about on its own without effort. RICHARD: Yet a PCE always comes about without effort ... ‘tis a wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: The PCE is direct experience of that which is not of thought ... of that which is inherently capable of renewing itself. RICHARD: And neither that which is of feeling also (lest it be the ‘awakening’ you refer to above). RESPONDENT: Awakening need not imply the self becoming. RICHARD: Indeed not – there is no ‘becoming’ in an awakening – there is only ‘being’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’). * RESPONDENT: A PCE might mean host within guest or guest within host. RICHARD: An ‘awakening’ could be described as either of those ... whereas a PCE means all identity comes to an end (where neither host nor guest in any combination has any existence). If this discussion ever moves on to an actual freedom from the human condition this thread (originally entitled ‘The Observer Is There’ which you changed to ‘No Separate Observer’ many posts ago) would be better retitled ‘No Observer At All’. RESPONDENT: You may call that the universe experiencing itself as a human body or K may call that observation the awakening of intelligence. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly distinguished the difference between himself and the body ... there are those various occasions, detailed in several accounts, whereupon he left the body to be worked on, or instructed, on another level or in another dimension. RESPONDENT: Without the brain, there is no such observation occurring. RICHARD: Precisely ... in deep sleep, unconsciousness (through fainting, by being knocked out, via anaesthesia) or death, there is no ‘observation occurring’ . RESPONDENT: So for all practical purposes, there is a human observer. RICHARD: Yes ... in actuality there is nothing metaphysical at all. * RESPONDENT: From those states there can be discussion of a blissful, sacred, penetrating presence. RICHARD: Sure ... however anyone who has had such an event happen can also discuss the happening (which is what I took you to be saying when you said that ‘it is necessary to consider the state of the listener if there is to be any communication ... so sometimes there is pointing to nonduality as the absolute and at other times, pointing is to the relative truth of the state of those involved’ ). This is what I said was a commonsense approach ... it is having regard for one’s fellow human being’s experience. RESPONDENT: Yes, and for differing ways of understanding and expressing that experience. RICHARD: Aye ... and for ‘differing ways of understanding and expressing’ different kinds of experience as well.
RICHARD: The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality? RESPONDENT: The universe aware of itself as an apperceptive human being is consciousness that includes but is not limited to the apperceptive human being. RICHARD: No, it is a consciousness which only exists as an apperceptive human being (as far as space exploration has thus far discovered). RESPONDENT: Centreless awareness is not bounded by anything, not contained within anything because the experiencer is the experience. RICHARD: A disembodied ‘awareness’ , in other words, that a human being can be contacted by ... and then be (‘I am That’). RESPONDENT: That means that although the world of separate things (flora and fauna) can be perceived as physically separate and solid, in terms of the absolute, all experience (flora and fauna) is empty or formless, i.e.- without any inherently true division. RICHARD: This is an intriguing translation ... usually ‘empty’ means without self (the self is not to be found in the material world) and usually ‘formless’ means without form (the material world is an illusion) and usually ‘without any inherently true division’ means no separation from the god of one’s choice (the last time I looked there were 1200-odd gods to choose from). The giveaway is where you say the material world ‘can be perceived ...’ as solid (rather than saying that it is indeed solid). So ... does the physical world exist in its own right (independent of any god or ground of being) or not?
RESPONDENT No. 33: [Richard]: ‘Tis the universe which is immortal ... not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes]. Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So, which one is it, [A] or [B]? RESPONDENT: A good question. How is it that mortals somehow exist apart from an immortal universe? RICHARD: But this flesh and blood body does not ‘somehow exist apart from an immortal universe’ at all ... it is only the particular shape or form, which the immortal (perpetual) stuff takes on, that is mortal (transitory). RESPONDENT: To say that I am the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body is to imply that I partake of that immortality. How could I not? RICHARD: Indeed ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am the very stuff of this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe: the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. RESPONDENT: Otherwise, I would have no basis in experience from which to make that assertion. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: And that very realization is what ‘Thou Art That’ points to. RICHARD: No ... what ‘Thou Art That’ points to is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahman’ (Consciousness). I will re-post the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism I posted earlier, to another, for your perusal:
And ‘Brahman’ (or any other god or ground of being by whatever name) has no existence outside of the human psyche.
RICHARD: The stuff of this flesh and blood body is the very stuff of the universe ... the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. As this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being ... as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. Now do you comprehend what ‘absolute’ means in actuality? RESPONDENT: The universe aware of itself as an apperceptive human being is consciousness that includes but is not limited to the apperceptive human being. RICHARD: No, it is a consciousness which only exists as an apperceptive human being (as far as space exploration has thus far discovered). RESPONDENT: One of the hallmarks of awakening is an intuitive knowing that consciousness is not limited to what is of time. A different dimension is realized and becomes part of daily life. It is what gives life meaning because there is a direct energetic connection to all that is. RICHARD: That is the experience of ‘awakening’, yes ... it is just that I was responding to your comment on an ‘apperceptive human being’ and not an awakened human being in this section of this e-mail. The entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being ... and the actual meaning of life is apparent as an on-going experiencing. * RESPONDENT: Centreless awareness is not bounded by anything, not contained within anything because the experiencer is the experience. RICHARD: A disembodied ‘awareness’, in other words, that a human being can be contacted by ... and then be (‘I am That’). RESPONDENT: It is not experienced as disembodied awareness. RICHARD: It is easy to check your experience for validity: does it die when the body dies? RESPONDENT: It includes but is not limited to what we consider the physical universe. RICHARD: Does it exist prior to (or independent of) the physical universe? RESPONDENT: What we know as ‘the universe’ is limited by human perception. RICHARD: Whereas the universe itself cannot be limited by ‘human perception’ ... such a person as you describe is missing out on the on-going and direct experiencing of infinitude. RESPONDENT: You could say that centreless awareness is another aspect of the universe that we are starting to realize. RICHARD: Oh? ‘Centreless awareness’ has been realised for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history ... it is a very long ‘starting to’. RESPONDENT: With that realization there are new modes of perception. RICHARD: Yet intuitive ‘modes of perception’ are inherently unreliable. * RESPONDENT: That means that although the world of separate things (flora and fauna) can be perceived as physically separate and solid, in terms of the absolute, all experience (flora and fauna) is empty or formless, i.e.- without any inherently true division. RICHARD: This is an intriguing translation ... usually ‘empty’ means without self (the self is not to be found in the material world) and usually ‘formless’ means without form (the material world is an illusion) and usually ‘without any inherently true division’ means no separation from the god of one’s choice (the last time I looked there were 1200-odd gods to choose from). The giveaway is where you say the material world ‘can be perceived ...’ as solid (rather than saying that it is indeed solid). So ... does the physical world exist in its own right (independent of any god or ground of being) or not? RESPONDENT: You can’t approach these matters as philosophies or theories to logically debate. RICHARD: I was merely pointing out what those terms usually mean ... if you wish to invent new meanings you will need to convincingly explain why (if they are to have an improved meaning). Meanwhile ... back to the question: Does the physical world exist in its own right (independent of any god or ground of being) or not? RESPONDENT: Emptiness is an existential state. It is ultimately subjective because it can not be taught or communicated, proven or disproved, except in the experiencing. RICHARD: I demur ... one can present a reasoned account that can be grasped intelligently without any experiencing – which comprehension can certainly clear the way for an experiencing – and all communicated by carefully detailed description. The only proof, of course, that is worthy of the name is direct experience. RESPONDENT: There is an immeasurable dimension that is not of thought that can not be adequately described and really no description is necessary. RICHARD: You and I have already acknowledged, in another thread, that there are experiences in common which can indeed be discussed ... I commended that commonsense approach at the time and remarked that I would like to see it continue. The ‘immeasurable dimension’ you speak of has no existence outside of the human psyche.
RESPONDENT No. 33: [Richard]: ‘Tis the universe which is immortal ... not some god (or ground of being by whatever name). [A]. I am mortal. [B]. [endquotes]. Can mortality ever know that which is immortal? [A] and [B] are mutually contradictory statements, my friend. So, which one is it, [A] or [B]? RESPONDENT: A good question. How is it that mortals somehow exist apart from an immortal universe? RICHARD: But this flesh and blood body does not ‘somehow exist apart from an immortal universe’ at all ... it is only the particular shape or form, which the immortal (perpetual) stuff takes on, that is mortal (transitory). RESPONDENT: Doesn’t ‘the universe experiencing itself as a flesh and blood body’ point to the fact that the perpetual is the transitory ... RICHARD: Specifically, the stuff of the transitory (mortal) body is the very stuff of the perpetual (immortal) universe. There is no thing which is not the universe: the stuff of these pixels you are reading, and the stuff of the building you are sitting in, is perpetual (immortal) stuff ... even though the shape or form of the pixels and the building are transitory (immortal). RESPONDENT: ... and this actuality is understood because it is being experienced as such? RICHARD: Yes ... it is thus intimately known each moment again (instantly verifiable without recourse to memory). * RESPONDENT: To say that I am the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body is to imply that I partake of that immortality. How could I not? RICHARD: Indeed ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am the very stuff of this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe: the stuff of this flesh and blood body has been virtually everywhere and everything at everywhen. RESPONDENT: Otherwise, I would have no basis in experience from which to make that assertion. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: And that very realization is what ‘Thou Art That’ points to. RICHARD: No ... what ‘Thou Art That’ points to is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahman’ (Consciousness). I will re-post the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism I posted earlier, to another, for your perusal: 1. ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ (Consciousness is Brahman). (Aitareya Upanishad). 2. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad). 3. ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art). (Chhandogya Upanishad). 4. ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ (Atman is Brahman). (Mandukya Upanishad). And ‘Brahman’ (or any other god or ground of being by whatever name) has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: The ground in being is where the perpetual and the transitory are realized to be one. RICHARD: Not the perpetual stuff that is this universe and not the transitory form this perpetual stuff takes each moment again ... the ground of being (god by whatever name) is timeless and spaceless and formless. RESPONDENT: Form is seen directly as emptiness. The ideas of Brahman and Atman introduce a duality which is confusion. RICHARD: Anyone who attempts to marry Buddhism and Hinduism is bound to be confused.
RICHARD: ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. RESPONDENT No. 33: Tagore expressed very similar sentiments in the following words (In Gitanjali): ‘I stand under the golden canopy; Of thine evening sky; And life my eager eyes towards thine face ... I have come to the brink of eternity; From which nothing can vanish ...’. Different metaphor, same sentiments. RICHARD: Are you so sure? To whom was Mr. Rabindranath Tagore referring when he penned the words ‘thine evening sky’ and ‘thine face’ (the word ‘thine’ is synonymous with the word ‘thy’ and with the word ‘your’). Here is the verse in full: [quote]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not. My house is small and what once has gone from it can never be regained. But infinite is thy mansion, my lord, and seeking her I have to come to thy door. I stand under the golden canopy of thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to thy face. I have come to the brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish; no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears. Oh, dip my emptied life into that ocean, plunge it into the deepest fullness. Let me for once feel that lost sweet touch in the allness of the universe’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: ‘Once she came into my room, feathered hat and all; wearing a warm wool shawl wrapped around her shoulders. Two eyes like lights, milky marble whites looking up at me. All I knew was with her then, no I couldn’t see the time, as we drank down the wine, to the last sweet scarlet ... Come let us drink again, before the second show. I want you so to know, there’s no bridge between us. All those gates have opened now, and through the light has shown, ah but the song carries on, so holy’. RICHARD: May I ask why you posted, under the title ‘Angel Sea’, some of the lyrics of the song ‘Sweet Scarlet’ (a song written by Cat Stevens for, or about, Carly Simon) into a discussion about standing naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) before the infinitude of the universe? Incidentally, here are the lyrics to ‘Angel Sea’:
I cannot see what either song has to do with the topic.
RICHARD: May I ask why you posted, under the title ‘Angel Sea’, some of the lyrics of the song ‘Sweet Scarlet’ (a song written by Cat Stevens for, or about, Carly Simon) into a discussion about standing naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) before the infinitude of the universe? Incidentally, here are the lyrics to ‘Angel Sea’: ‘She moves like an angel; And seven evening stars; Dance through the window; Of her universal house. Her voice a crystal echo; Lies humming in your soul; So patiently awaiting; For your ears to behold. She ripples on the water; Leaves diamonds on the shore; And fish from every distance; Watch her ocean cellar door. Her breath a warm fire; In every lovers’ heart; A mistress to magicians; And a dancer to the gods. Her clothes are made of rainbows; And twenty thousand tears; Shine through the spaces; Of her golden ochre hair. Ooh my babe I want you; And on my life I swear; My conscience will I follow you forever; If you meet me everywhere; Yes if you if you meet me everywhere’. (from the Cat Stevens’ ‘Catch Bull At Four’ album; released 12/01/1972). I cannot see what either song has to do with the topic. RESPONDENT: It may seem strange to western ears, but some refer to soul/spirit as a lover as in Sweet Scarlet and Angel Sea. RICHARD: It should not sound strange to the western ears that are familiar with the ‘Songs Of Solomon’. RESPONDENT: I understand it is common in Sufi prose for example. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: I am agreeing with your interpretation of the poem. RICHARD: Good ... I am pleased that someone can read what is written as it is written. RESPONDENT: It is about infinite spirit (the immensity to use K’s term) and not merely about the physical universe as people ordinarily perceive it. RICHARD: Aye ... broadly speaking a Western spiritualist will not see the actual universe at all (they will see their god’s universe and a reflection of his/her glory) and an Eastern spiritualist will not see the actual universe either (they will see their god instead or an illusion or a void empty of self). And, also broadly speaking, a materialist will see a random, chance event ... a meaningless universe. RESPONDENT: The ocean and mansion metaphors also make that clear in my opinion. RICHARD: Indeed ... yet the topic is standing naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) before the infinitude of the actual universe. An amazing experiencing that leaves one simply marvelling in wonder.
RICHARD: ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. (snip discussion about Mr. Rabindranath Tagore’s poetry). RESPONDENT: It [‘Angel Sea’] is about infinite spirit (the immensity to use K’s term) and not merely about the physical universe as people ordinarily perceive it. RICHARD: Aye ... broadly speaking a Western spiritualist will not see the actual universe at all (they will see their god’s universe and a reflection of his/her glory) and an Eastern spiritualist will not see the actual universe either (they will see their god instead or an illusion or a void empty of self). And, also broadly speaking, a materialist will see a random, chance event ... a meaningless universe. RESPONDENT: I understand you to be saying that either a materialist perceptual view or a spiritualist view (whether it is typical of eastern or western traditions) are just metaphysical projections and these projected interpretations have no actual existence. RICHARD: This is an accurate understanding of what I report. RESPONDENT: They ‘exist’ only in thought. RICHARD: They exist in both thought and feeling ... primarily in feeling (thought mainly organises the feeling into word pictures). RESPONDENT: And you base this conclusion upon the fact that you discovered after several years that your particular spiritualist view was merely projection. At some point something ‘turned over in the brain stem’ and that projection ended completely leaving only the actual universe. RICHARD: Yes, but not my ‘particular spiritualist view’ ... spiritualism per se ended completely. RESPONDENT: But your supposition is that what you ultimately found to be false is representational of what others including K and the Buddha pointed to. RICHARD: It is no ‘supposition’ ... it is something I verified over eleven years of personal investigation, face-face discussions with (and observations of) various saints, sages and seers, and an extensive examination of all the relevant media that I could lay my hands upon. ‘Tis no rushed – or rash – thing that I did ... I wanted to know for sure. RESPONDENT: Yet many including K and Buddhist teachers warn of the danger of false samadhis. RICHARD: If only they would listen to their own advice, eh? RESPONDENT: Taking what you say at face value, there was some kind of mutation or rewiring of the brain. But giving others the benefit of the same doubt, you must equally concede that there may be other kinds of transformations impacting the brain in different ways that account for a human capacity to come in contact with energetic dimensions that you have not encountered. RICHARD: No ... eleven years, night and day, was more than enough to experience all that there is to experience in regards to the variations and nuances in what is popularly called ‘spiritual enlightenment’. RESPONDENT: Indeed, there is no way of knowing what a wide variety of experiencing is possible for human beings. RICHARD: Of course – I never got into experiencing all that which may be called the ‘New Age’ and Shamanistic type of materialisations for example – but in the area that counts (spiritual enlightenment) it is indeed possible. And it was an incredible voyage.
RESPONDENT: They [metaphysical projections] ‘exist’ only in thought. RICHARD: They exist in both thought and feeling ... primarily in feeling (thought mainly organises the feeling into word pictures). RESPONDENT: Of course. By thought I mean the separative thought-feeling-sensation complex as a psychological movement. RICHARD: And by ‘primarily in feeling’ I mean the unifying complex as a psychic movement. * RESPONDENT: And you base this conclusion upon the fact that you discovered after several years that your particular spiritualist view was merely projection. At some point something ‘turned over in the brain stem’ and that projection ended completely leaving only the actual universe. RICHARD: Yes, but not my ‘particular spiritualist view’ ... spiritualism per se ended completely. RESPONDENT: A view is particular. RICHARD: I am not talking about ‘a view’ here (be it ‘particular’ or not) ... I clearly said ‘spiritualism per se’. RESPONDENT: It may be representative of the perceptual views of others but it may not. RICHARD: You are talking to yourself about your own ideas ... this has nothing to do with what I said at all. * RESPONDENT: But your supposition is that what you ultimately found to be false is representational of what others including K and the Buddha pointed to. RICHARD: It is no ‘supposition’ ... it is something I verified over eleven years of personal investigation, face-face discussions with (and observations of) various saints, sages and seers, and an extensive examination of all the relevant media that I could lay my hands upon. ‘Tis no rushed – or rash – thing that I did ... I wanted to know for sure. RESPONDENT: Someone else may say based on a lifetime of experience that you are wrong in your conclusions. RICHARD: Mostly everyone I speak with conclusively says this ... the exceptions are those that recall their own pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) upon hearing what I have to report. RESPONDENT: You would each be left with the authority of your limited experiences. RICHARD: The other is (in the situation you describe) ... I am left with the authority of the on-going experiencing of the perfection of the purity of the already always existing peace-on-earth. * RESPONDENT: Yet many including K and Buddhist teachers warn of the danger of false samadhis. RICHARD: If only they would listen to their own advice, eh? RESPONDENT: Maybe they saw something you do not. RICHARD: No ... they could not, or would not, see beyond true samadhi. * RESPONDENT: Taking what you say at face value, there was some kind of mutation or rewiring of the brain. But giving others the benefit of the same doubt, you must equally concede that there may be other kinds of transformations impacting the brain in different ways that account for a human capacity to come in contact with energetic dimensions that you have not encountered. RICHARD: No ... eleven years, night and day, was more than enough to experience all that there is to experience in regards to the variations and nuances in what is popularly called ‘spiritual enlightenment’. RESPONDENT: But it seems from what you write that you don’t understand what K and Buddhist teachers pointed to. RICHARD: I understand it intimately and express this intimate understanding clearly and consistently ... those with the eyes to see have no difficulty whatsoever in comprehending what I report. RESPONDENT: Your idea of being ‘twice removed’ for example completely misses the mark ... RICHARD: It is not ‘an idea’ ... it was a living reality that can easily be described as dissociation (estrangement from both reality and actuality). RESPONDENT: ... as does the idea of peace on earth not being on some kind of agenda. RICHARD: Again it is not ‘an idea’ ... peace-on-earth is indeed not on the spiritual agenda. * RESPONDENT: Indeed, there is no way of knowing what a wide variety of experiencing is possible for human beings. RICHARD: Of course – I never got into experiencing all that which may be called the ‘New Age’ and Shamanistic type of materialisations for example – but in the area that counts (spiritual enlightenment) it is indeed possible. And it was an incredible voyage. RESPONDENT: The separation between a desired destination from the journey is false. RICHARD: The ‘desired destination’ was the already always existing peace-on-earth ... that it took eleven years to be become apparent, as an on-going experiencing, is a fact that renders your theorising invalid. RESPONDENT: In that separation in pseudo-time there is a duality. RICHARD: No ... it all happened in real-time (to use the popular jargon) and only when the separative identity ‘self’-immolated in toto was the journey over (for the identity). Whereas I have been just here, right now, all the while.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Sixteen) 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 |
