|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RICHARD: ... 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: Being is what is occurring in terms of consciousness. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘being’ cannot exist without consciousness (whereas consciousness can exist without the ‘being’). RESPONDENT: Consciousness being conscious of being consciousness is one state of being. RICHARD: No ... it is only where ‘being’ has ceased to exist that consciousness can be aware of itself as consciousness (rather that the usual case of ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious). RESPONDENT: Consciousness entangled in a variety of ways with thought and emotion and related sensations is another. RICHARD: It is a consciousness that is encumbered by a ‘being’ which is a ‘state of being’ . * 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: How can there be a ‘step’ after surrender? RICHARD: Simple: ‘self’-sacrifice. RESPONDENT: A step implies moving toward something in time. RICHARD: Well now ... everything happens in time. RESPONDENT: Surrender means that attachment, that grasping movement has ended. RICHARD: Yes ... whereas sacrifice means the ending of the entity who has surrendered. RESPONDENT: So the first step is the last. RICHARD: Not for the enlightened being ... there is one more step to have happen. RESPONDENT: Or perhaps the term step is a misnomer. RICHARD: I could have as easily said the next stage or the next event or the next occurrence or the next happening. RESPONDENT: How do you step from somewhere into nowhere? RICHARD: One does not ‘step’ (as in move) anywhere ... I am speaking of ‘self’-immolation. RESPONDENT: You as an encapsulated movement in time stop. RICHARD: Both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul cease to exist ... it is the extinction of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself). * 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: Impersonal intelligence is awakening or evolving in nature and specifically in humanity. RICHARD: Such has been the case for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history ... something new to human experience has occurred, however. RESPONDENT: Those traits that we find admirable or noble in man are aspects of that awakening. RICHARD: You may be better off speaking for yourself ... I do not find such traits ‘admirable or noble’ at all. RESPONDENT: Transcending the self is a painful sacrifice from the perspective of the me, i.e.- of identity established in the known. RICHARD: Aye ... whereas the elimination of ‘self’ (and ‘Self’) is a blessed release into oblivion. RESPONDENT: It is analogous to the healing process for people with multiple personality disorder. To end the disorder which is severe fragmentation, personalities that can exist only in isolation from others must end. Those ‘entities’ may have served a vital survival need at one time but they must ‘die’ for the good of the whole. RICHARD: Yes ... then the next step is for ‘the whole’ to die for the benefit of the body and every other body. RESPONDENT: It is very interesting that these personalities have distinct qualities and unique abilities that will end along with them. RICHARD: Just as it is fascinating that ‘the whole’ has distinct qualities (such as love and compassion) and unique abilities (such as intuition and omniscience) which will end along with it. RESPONDENT: So are these entities real? RICHARD: They may be ‘real’ – very ‘real’ at times – but they are not actual. RESPONDENT: What is based on something false actually exists nonetheless. RICHARD: No ... the identity does not ‘actually’ exist ... there is no ‘self’ (or ‘Self’) here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: It is not such a simple matter. RICHARD: It is surprisingly simple ... so simple as to have been overlooked for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history. The flesh and blood body is already always just here right now – I have been here for 54 years having a ball – it is that (firstly) ‘I’ as ego blocked the pure consciousness and (then) ‘me’ as soul, awakened at ego-death, usurped this pure consciousness ... trumpeting ‘choiceless awareness’ or ‘unitary perception’ whilst doing so. I call this pristine consciousness apperceptive awareness.
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. RESPONDENT: What awakens is impersonal but operates in the particular. RICHARD: Aye ... and when that which is ‘impersonal’ then sacrifices itself, for the benefit of the body and every body, an apperceptive human being becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: The personal is biological or cultural conditioning. RICHARD: So too is the ‘impersonal’ ... one needs to dig deeper than what the many and varied saints, sages and seers have done so far in human history. RESPONDENT: Creative activity comes from outside the known as opposed to activity that is merely replication, imitation, invention, patterning, etc. RICHARD: Whereas apperception lies beyond both the known and the unknown ... it lies in that area which is called ‘the unknowable’ (to use the religio-spiritual jargon). * RICHARD: 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: You seem to assume that your way of experiencing is the same as the way others experience. RICHARD: It is not an assumption ... this is something I have checked at length with many of my fellow human beings when discussing the characteristics of the pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: But there is no reason to assume that any way of being is ‘right’ for anyone else or some kind of ideal for humanity to pattern itself after. RICHARD: There is every reason in the world ... there is the on-going experiencing of the perfection of the purity of the already always existing peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: The psyche is established in the known. RICHARD: Also in the unknown ... primarily in the unknown, in fact. RESPONDENT: It is a certain kind of development. RICHARD: Basically ‘the psyche’ is a state of being ... it is the source of ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: If there is a highly developed intuition, that operates in an apperceptive human. RICHARD: Again ... the entire intuitive faculty is non-existent in an apperceptive human being (‘the psyche’ itself disappears). RESPONDENT: If there is a more highly developed analytical capacity, then that function will more naturally be employed. RICHARD: The ability for analysis has nothing to do with ‘the psyche’ ... intellectual scrutiny is but one of the functions of human intelligence. * 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: Death only has meaning in the context of what is part of the movement of time. RICHARD: Ahh ... then ‘centreless awareness’ is indeed a disembodied awareness after all. * 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: It neither exists nor is it non-existent. RICHARD: This response smacks of the rarefied epistemological thought that Buddhism is notorious for indulging in ... whereas I was asking an ontological question regarding the conditions required for ‘centreless awareness’ to subsist. RESPONDENT: It is non-linear. RICHARD: Okay ... I will put it this way then: is ‘centreless awareness’ dependant on the existence 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: What ‘exists’ is actually transitory and is empty of any inherently true existence. RICHARD: Surely you are not going to try to make the case that this physical universe neither exists nor is non-existent as well? RESPONDENT: To see physical forms as solid static objects is to miss the on-going and direct experiencing of infinitude. RICHARD: Indeed ... actualism is all about the direct perception that matter is not merely passive (aka static). RESPONDENT: Back to you. <g> RICHARD: Ha ... as I have never claimed that physical forms are ‘static objects’ your badly-pitched ball never came my way at all. * 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: Long compared to what? RICHARD: It is ‘long’ compared to one lifetime (70-80 years on average). RESPONDENT: Very short in terms of physical evolution. RICHARD: Very long in terms of persisting in ignoring common human suffering for selfish reasons (one’s after-death peace). * RESPONDENT: With that realization there are new modes of perception. RICHARD: Yet intuitive ‘modes of perception’ are inherently unreliable. RESPONDENT: All human perception is limited and subject to bias, error, distortion, etc. RICHARD: Not ‘all human perception’ is limited ... apperception is unlimited. * 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: As you change, your ideas of the ground in being, God, or the physical world change. RICHARD: Whereas when ‘you’ immolates in toto any god or ground of being instantly disappears. RESPONDENT: First perception, then conception. That is why I don’t see much merit in debating these matters. RICHARD: Then why raise ‘these matters’ in the first place then? It was you who said ‘centreless awareness is not bounded by anything, not contained within anything (...) that means that (...) in terms of the absolute, all experience (flora and fauna) is empty or formless, i.e.- without any inherently true division’ ... and not me. I had simply written to another reporting that as this flesh and blood body only I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being – that as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude – and it was you who bought into the thread busily engaged in [quote] ‘debating these matters’ [endquote]. And when I engage in an investigative discussion you shrink back into the shell whence you emerged muttering that it [quote] ‘can not be taught or communicated, proven or disproved’ [endquote] and that it is [quote] ‘beyond any accounting’ [endquote] and that it [quote] ‘can not be adequately described and really no description is necessary’ [endquote]. It has got me beat why you even write at all. RESPONDENT: Each speaks from the pseudo authority of his or her own limited experience. RICHARD: There is nothing ‘pseudo’ or ‘limited’ about apperceptive experiencing. 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: I hear what you are saying but a reasoned account can only be made of what lies within the field of the known. RICHARD: I consistently and cogently provide a reasoned account of that which lies beyond both the known and the unknown ... and there are those that do grasp it intelligently (which intelligent grasp has cleared the way for their own direct experiencing). Otherwise I would have ceased writing (and talking) long ago. RESPONDENT: There is a realm of experiencing that is beyond duality ... RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: ... beyond thought ... RICHARD: And beyond feeling (beyond ‘being’) as well. RESPONDENT: ... beyond any accounting. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no difficulty with the ‘accounting’ ... and neither do those with the eyes to see what is being consistently and cogently provided. * 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: The experiencing here is that it is an on-going direct perception when consciousness is not fragmented. RICHARD: Aye ... but the ‘immeasurable dimension’ being thus narcissistically perceived has no existence outside of the human psyche.
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: The psyche can mean the experience of being an observing entity that is separate and isolated from what is observed. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: Or it can be integrated as part of an awareness that is not self-enclosed. RICHARD: In other words: the observer is the observed. RESPONDENT: In that sense, the immeasurable has no existence apart from the human psyche ... RICHARD: Exactly my point ... the ‘immeasurable dimension’ you speak of has no existence outside of the human psyche (whereas this immeasurably vast physical universe has). RESPONDENT: ... and there never was any true separation. RICHARD: Indeed not ... there never was a ‘true separation’ in the psyche. RESPONDENT: Where there is order there is no division in thought and hence there is vast space. RICHARD: A psychic ‘space’ , yes ... but not the vastness of actual space (and time and form) as the universe is narcissistically seen as having no inherent (aka ‘true’) existence when there is no ‘true separation’ in the psyche. * RESPONDENT: The experiencing here is that it is an on-going direct perception when consciousness is not fragmented. RICHARD: Aye ... but the ‘immeasurable dimension’ being thus narcissistically perceived has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: The immeasurable which is nothingness is not realized if identity is established in the known, in somethingness, in being something special. RICHARD: Are you so sure about not being ‘something special’ Viz.:
That easily fits this description:
Put simply: as it is an ‘integrated’ psyche observing its own psychic projection (its own ‘vast space’ ) it is nothing other than narcissism (self-adoration) writ large. The extinction of the psyche brings such self-aggrandisement to an abrupt end ... then the infinitude of this physical universe becomes apparent as an on-going actuality.
RICHARD: ... The ‘immeasurable dimension’ you speak of has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: The psyche can mean the experience of being an observing entity that is separate and isolated from what is observed. RICHARD: Agreed. RESPONDENT: Or it can be integrated as part of an awareness that is not self-enclosed. RICHARD: In other words: the observer is the observed. RESPONDENT: Yes, which is to say there is no sense of being an isolated observer. RICHARD: An integrated entity is still an entity, nevertheless. * RESPONDENT: In that sense, the immeasurable has no existence apart from the human psyche ... RICHARD: Exactly my point ... the ‘immeasurable dimension’ you speak of has no existence outside of the human psyche (whereas this immeasurably vast physical universe has). RESPONDENT: The physical universe as we know it is a perceptual interpretation. Consciousness is not really separate from the physical universe. The way the universe is perceived is shaped by the mind that perceives. RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that this immeasurably vast physical universe has no existence outside of the human psyche? Palaeontology evidences that it existed long before humans came on to the scene. RESPONDENT: But when there is no separation between subject and object, there is a new dimension that comes into being that is without boundaries. RICHARD: Aye ... and that ‘new dimension’ has no existence outside of the human psyche (whereas this immeasurably vast physical universe has). RESPONDENT: It is neither in here nor out there. RICHARD: Does it exist independent of this immeasurably vast physical universe? * RESPONDENT: ... and there never was any true separation. RICHARD: Indeed not ... there never was a ‘true separation’ in the psyche. RESPONDENT: And no separation of the psyche from what is. RICHARD: True ... the psyche is ‘what is’ when integration occurs (whereas all the while the universe carries on being the universe). RESPONDENT: No isolated self. RICHARD: A non-isolated self is still a self, nevertheless. * RESPONDENT: Where there is order there is no division in thought and hence there is vast space. RICHARD: A psychic ‘space’ , yes ... but not the vastness of actual space (and time and form) as the universe is narcissistically seen as having no inherent (aka ‘true’) existence when there is no ‘true separation’ in the psyche. RESPONDENT: Narcissism involves a vain self-reflection. RICHARD: Indeed ... and such a ‘vain self-reflection’ is ably expressed as ‘That Thou Art’ (aka ‘I Am God’). RESPONDENT: Where there is self-reflection there is identity established in the known which is division of self in thought, division of thinker from the thought. RICHARD: I understood that we had progressed onto discussing the identity established in the unknown (‘there never was any true separation’ and ‘there is no division in thought and hence there is vast space’ ) ... why the retrogression? RESPONDENT: If the experience is that I am this vast space standing apart from the physical universe, I agree that would be some kind of narcissism because the self is established in it. RICHARD: When someone says (in words to the effect) ‘I Am God’ you can bet your last dollar they are saying (in words to the effect) that ‘I am this vast space standing apart from the physical universe’ ... unless they are a pantheist. RESPONDENT: But we have clearly said that there is no such subject/object division that is pointed to. RICHARD: Only if one is a pantheist ... and even so there is thus no actual intimacy (to see the universe as being god is to miss the actual universe). RESPONDENT: The direct perception is that physical form is emptiness. RICHARD: The religio-spiritual meaning of the word ‘emptiness’ is that the material world is empty of ‘self’. RESPONDENT: Consciousness is its contents. RICHARD: As consciousness exists even in the absence of content this is patently incorrect. RESPONDENT: But it is not ‘my’ consciousness. RICHARD: A disembodied ‘consciousness’ , in other words. RESPONDENT: That is why I asked what you mean when you say that the physical universe experiences itself as this flesh and blood body called Richard. RICHARD: And I mean what I say ... the universe also experiences itself as cats and dogs and so on. RESPONDENT: The physical universe experiencing implies an impersonal consciousness operating in the particular. RICHARD: It does not imply that at all ... this physical universe is time and space and form (and not ‘an impersonal consciousness’). RESPONDENT: But apparently that is not what you mean. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is only as an apperceptive human being that this universe is impersonally conscious. * RESPONDENT: The experiencing here is that it is an on-going direct perception when consciousness is not fragmented. RICHARD: Aye ... but the ‘immeasurable dimension’ being thus narcissistically perceived has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: The immeasurable which is nothingness is not realized if identity is established in the known, in somethingness, in being something special. RICHARD: Are you so sure about not being ‘something special’ ? Viz.: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence, operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state’. (‘Krishnamurti – His Life and Death’; Mary Lutyens p. 206. © Avon Books; New York 1991). That easily fits this description: [Dictionary definition]: ‘special: distinguished from others of the kind by a particular quality or feature; distinctive in some way’. (© 1998 Oxford Dictionary). Put simply: as it is an ‘integrated’ psyche observing its own psychic projection (its own ‘vast space’) it is nothing other than narcissism (self-adoration) writ large. The extinction of the psyche brings such self-aggrandisement to an abrupt end ... then the infinitude of this physical universe becomes apparent as an on-going actuality. RESPONDENT: I don’t accept the writings of Lutyens as reliable reports of what K said. RICHARD: Why not? Ms. Mary Lutyens wrote three biographies all told – the first two of which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself read through in their entirety and did not refute – and thus so as far as it can be ascertained she is a reasonably credible reporter of events ... most of her quotes come from hand-written letters or from tapes. RESPONDENT: Stories of K’s alleged prophesies aside, the claim of psychological extinction seems more like some kind of delusion of grandeur and narcissism. RICHARD: How so? I am not claiming to be god (by whatever name) ... I am this flesh and blood body only and will die some day. RESPONDENT: The very assertion (or rather self-assertion) that ‘there is no human psyche operating in this human body’ I find to be patently absurd and contradictory. RICHARD: I am simply reporting my experience ... what others do with this report is entirely their business.
RESPONDENT No. 42 Richard, I did read your responses, but found them a bit unmanageable, and so I delayed. As I’ve mentioned before, I have an aversion to long threads. At the same time, I don’t want to withdraw from the discussion. So I’ll just select a few items from memory to respond to. It seems to me that we have come across an number of semantic differences. Our definition of intelligence is different. You seem to see it as a faculty we have, and animals don’t have – not to mention an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. That quality to me is not to be confused with pantheism, etc. Then there is this bit about my ‘anthropomorphism’ I am not projecting human intelligence on animals. Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected. It operates in our brain absent thought. It operates in plants, animals, things, according to the laws of their nature. It operates in our instinct when there is no suppression. I hope you can accept my approach and, if I’m omitting something that you would like to put back on the table, please do so. RICHARD: You can have any approach you wish as far as I am concerned as all my ‘unmanageable’ responses are encapsulated in the very first sentence I wrote to you at the beginning of this thread anyway: [Richard]: ‘A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in the absolute was’. [endquote]. I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’. RESPONDENT No. 42 You’re not responding to my discussion of our differences in the meaning we give to the word ‘intelligence’. RICHARD: I was keeping my response short as you said you had an aversion to long threads ... plus I was agreeing with you that the metaphysical meaning you give to it was the same as I started off with. Viz.: [No 42]: ‘... an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. (...) Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected’. [Richard]: ‘I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’. RESPONDENT: You started with a religious bias, heartfelt conviction, and intuitive belief. In dropping belief as to an omniscient deity, you nevertheless continue to operate from assumption as to the nature of the absolute. Otherwise, you would simply state the obvious ... that the essential nature of the absolute is beyond human comprehension. RICHARD: But what if the essential nature of the absolute is not beyond human comprehension ... do you see how you close the door on enquiry by saying that it be obvious that it is?
RICHARD: ... I was agreeing with you that the metaphysical meaning you give to the word intelligence was the same as I started off with. Viz.: [No. 42]: ‘... an all pervasive intelligence which operates outside of thought. (...) Intelligence to me is not a material quality that can be projected’. [Richard]: ‘I too had started out with the heart-felt conviction that the nature of that movement was that of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’ . RESPONDENT: You started with a religious bias, heartfelt conviction, and intuitive belief. In dropping belief as to an omniscient deity, you nevertheless continue to operate from assumption as to the nature of the absolute. Otherwise, you would simply state the obvious ... that the essential nature of the absolute is beyond human comprehension. RICHARD: But what if the essential nature of the absolute is not beyond human comprehension ... do you see how you close the door on enquiry by saying that it be obvious that it is? RESPONDENT: It is quite evident when you are at the end of the rope of thought. RICHARD: Only where thought is tethered by the ‘Self’ (aka ‘That Thou Art’) is it experienced as a ‘rope of thought’ . RESPONDENT: You can examine and know or comprehend objectively only when you are there as an observing subject separate from what is observed. But what is absolute is beyond any such subject/object split. RICHARD: You are now providing the ‘tried and true’ reason as to why you have closed the door on enquiry into the nature of the absolute ... for example:
Obviously something else, other than the traditional way of comprehension, is required if the enquiry is to proceed ... I call it apperception (which is what occurs when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die). It takes great daring to move out past one’s comfort zone.
RICHARD: What if the essential nature of the absolute is not beyond human comprehension ... do you see how you close the door on enquiry by saying that it be obvious that it is? RESPONDENT: It is quite evident when you are at the end of the rope of thought. RICHARD: Only where thought is tethered by the ‘Self’ (aka ‘That Thou Art’) is it experienced as a ‘rope of thought’ . RESPONDENT: Only where the absolute is conceived as idea or image can it be made an object of some kind of inquiry. RICHARD: Only where ‘the absolute’ ceases to exist can genuine enquiry proceed ... otherwise one is too narcissistically self-absorbed (‘That Thou Art’) to observe that one has closed the door on enquiry. For example:
* RICHARD: ... obviously something else, other than the traditional way of comprehension, is required if the enquiry is to proceed ... I call it apperception (which is what occurs when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul die). It takes great daring to move out past one’s comfort zone. RESPONDENT: Why isn’t it evident that if you are there to inquire as to the absolute, the object of inquiry is NOT the absolute but rather it is something relative, within the field of the known? RICHARD: I noticed when I checked my above sentence on-line that it would have been better to have phrased it differently so as to make it crystal-clear that the absence of ‘you’ in toto is required for apperception to occur ... which condition is indelibly evident in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Viz.:
As I said before ... it takes great daring to move out past one’s comfort zone.
RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. RESPONDENT No. 33: Correctly speaking, though, identity itself is an illusion. RICHARD: Yes, although the illusion, just like all psychosomatic illnesses, somatises noticeable effects (such as emotional beliefs and passional truths) which in turn affect behaviour ... and which is especially noticeable when the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion (such as ‘Tat Tvam Asi’). RESPONDENT No. 33: Therefore, there is nothing that is rotten or not-rotten to the core. RICHARD: I beg to differ: it is a rotten illusion – just as its delusional core is – which rottenness is evidenced by its effects. RESPONDENT No. 33: There is no core even. RICHARD: Exactly ... which means that Brahman, for example, has no existence outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: If we believe there is a rotten core we make efforts to chip away at it and remove it. If we see directly that in fact there is no core, there is no effort to sustain what is really illusion. RICHARD: As one can only ‘see directly that in fact there is no core’ when that coreless condition is actually happening – else the word ‘directly’ is being misused – the remainder of your sentence is irrelevant ... because then there is no illusory identity in situ to either sustain itself or not sustain itself (be it with or without effort). Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway. As will any other advice you may come up with.
RESPONDENT: If we believe there is a rotten core we make efforts to chip away at it and remove it. If we see directly that in fact there is no core, there is no effort to sustain what is really illusion. RICHARD: As one can only ‘see directly that in fact there is no core’ when that coreless condition is actually happening – else the word ‘directly’ is being misused – the remainder of your sentence is irrelevant ... because then there is no illusory identity in situ to either sustain itself or not sustain itself (be it with or without effort). RESPONDENT: It is the other way around. If there were a core, there could be no direct seeing because a core has to first be removed. Looking into the matter directly, we find there never was a separate identity from the first. There was only fragmented consciousness which is a kind of confusion. RICHARD: You are apparently now using the word ‘directly’ in another sense: to ‘see directly that in fact there is no core’ carries a different connotation to what ‘looking into the matter directly’ does ... wherein the former is to see experientially and the latter is to see diagnostically. The problem with the diagnostic seeing is that the presence of the seer corrupts the seeing. * RICHARD: Furthermore, to advise making ‘no effort to sustain what is really illusion’ – in preference to making ‘efforts to chip away at it and remove it’ – is to tacitly acknowledge a belief in a rotten core, anyway. As will any other advice you may come up with. RESPONDENT: The confusion is one of establishing identity in psychological time. That confusion may actually be occurring but that doesn’t mean there ever was a separate entity in time. Is the observer really separate from the observed? No. RICHARD: Here the presence of the corrupting seer – the identity who is that ‘confusion’ (despite trying to redefine it out of existence further above) – becomes even more evident than what your ‘separate identity’ and ‘fragmented consciousness’ phraseology displayed. Not only has the coupling of the word ‘separate’, to what was initially a stand-alone identity/entity, crept in twice – thus implying divided from or split off from something as yet unnamed – but the implication of divided from or split off from also contained in the word ‘fragmented’ has been adroitly established by coupling it with what was heretofore a stand-alone consciousness as well. Thus with the stage comfortably set up to produce the desired result ... now comes the blatant identification of the seer (aka the observer) with the seen (aka the observed). This is but a hop, skip and a jump away from realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom ... which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion. RESPONDENT: All at once the division ends and truth or the other which is undivided is realized. RICHARD: Did you notice that what ends is the division (aka the separation) and not the identity itself ... and that an undivided identity is still an identity nevertheless? Which just goes to show that, despite a sinuous redefinition halfway through the discussion, there was a rotten core all along.
RESPONDENT: The confusion is one of establishing identity in psychological time. That confusion may actually be occurring but that doesn’t mean there ever was a separate entity in time. Is the observer really separate from the observed? No. RICHARD: Here the presence of the corrupting seer – the identity who is that ‘confusion’ (despite trying to redefine it out of existence further above) – becomes even more evident than what your ‘separate identity’ and ‘fragmented consciousness’ phraseology displayed. Not only has the coupling of the word ‘separate’, to what was initially a stand-alone identity/entity, crept in twice – thus implying divided from or split off from something as yet unnamed – but the implication of divided from or split off from also contained in the word ‘fragmented’ has been adroitly established by coupling it with what was heretofore a stand-alone consciousness as well. Thus with the stage comfortably set up to produce the desired result ... now comes the blatant identification of the seer (aka the observer) with the seen (aka the observed). RESPONDENT: That is a misinterpretation. To say the observer is the observed does not mean identification of seer with seen. It means that subject and object exist in relationship and that which sees what is occurring in relationship is free of that, is not centred in thought. There is attention or insight that is impersonal operating that is not bounded by the psyche or anything else. The term relationship as used by K in this context is not quite right. Unitary perception is more evocative of the state. RICHARD: As what the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ means to you is that the observer and the observed exist in relationship then it is understandable why you would find my words to be a misinterpretation. If you do not see that the phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ unambiguously expresses that the observer *is* the observed – meaning no separation whatsoever – then that is your business, of course. In view of the fact that you have brought Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti into this discussion you may find the following illuminating:
If your terminology (subject and object) refers to what his terminology refers to (inside and outside) then, where you are saying that the object and subject exist in relationship, he is saying that the object *is* the subject ... or, to put that the other way round, where he is saying that the outside *is* the inside, you would (presumably) be saying that the outside and the inside exist in relationship. Another example of you saying that the observer and the observed exist in relationship would be (presumably) to say that the thinker and the thought exist in relationship also ... whereas when the thinker *is* the thought there is no separation whatsoever (as in they are inseparable, one and the same thing, indistinguishable). Viz.:
As it is only when the observer *is* the observed that duality is transcended (aka nonduality), and as it is only in nonduality that there is the true religious experience (aka spiritual enlightenment), then it is no wonder you also find the expression ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art) is being misunderstood too. * RICHARD: This is but a hop, skip and a jump away from realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom ... which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion. RESPONDENT: Fragmentation of consciousness involves an illusion of being separate in psychological time. Thou art That can be misunderstood and become a delusion that I am God. Is that what you mean? If both God images and self images drop away, what is left is undivided. What is without division is complete and does not seek wholeness. RICHARD: No, I do not mean that it becomes a delusion when it is misunderstood ... realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom (which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion) is a profound realisation wherein there is absolutely no misunderstanding whatsoever of what the sages and seers were pointing to. Then, and only then, is there the living experiencing of the ancient ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ wisdom. * RESPONDENT: All at once the division ends and truth or the other which is undivided is realized. RICHARD: Did you notice that what ends is the division (aka the separation) and not the identity itself ... and that an undivided identity is still an identity nevertheless? Which just goes to show that, despite a sinuous redefinition halfway through the discussion, there was a rotten core all along. RESPONDENT: A core implies something centred within a limited isolated space. It is a core in a way but in another way it is illusory mind state. That mind state is gone. As indicated in another thread, at the centre so to speak is awareness or energy without form or image. The content of consciousness in terms of thoughts and feelings is on the periphery and not at the centre. They arise like a superficial ripples in a pond. My statement above that all at once division ends sounds like a casual affair. It is not. It is a tremendous psychological upheaval, a kind of death and a kind of birth. RICHARD: Maybe what you refer to as ‘at the centre so to speak’ is what I refer to with the word core – ‘core’ as in ‘centre of being’ – and the reason why it is a rotten core (the word ‘rotten’ is being used as in ‘corrupt’ or ‘tainted’) is plain to see in what you wrote in the other thread you mentioned:
‘Tis no wonder that spiritual enlightenment has never brought about peace on earth.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Seventeen) 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 |
