|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT: All I’ve even seen in Richards writings is ...... an absolute belief that there is no such happening as God or other dimension besides the human body which he is. <SNIP> RICHARD: It is futile to take up a challenge wherein the challenger first proposes something (such as a god or a goddess or an other dimension) and then says: ‘prove me wrong’. Needless to say, I do know for myself that there are no gods or goddesses or an after-life outside of passionate imagination. <SNIP> RESPONDENT: I’m the one who truly has no beliefs, for I state that I just don’t know. RICHARD: This position is called ‘agnostic’ ...<SNIP>... For something like twenty five years I was agnostic and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in ... until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ under the rug and going around deftly cutting the ‘believers’ down to size (which is all so easy to do). But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than ‘it is unknowable’ – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – all about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being. I now know. RESPONDENT: I find your stance extremely contradictory when you talk about being the universe experiencing itself as this flesh and blood body, and then deny that there is anything beyond what the flesh and blood body can experience – as if there weren’t anything beyond the flesh and blood body, which is an infinitesimally small part of the universe. RICHARD: This is what is called a ‘straw man argument’ (whereupon you invent something I did not say then criticise your own invention as if you were criticising what I actually did say). Thus it is your own assumed ‘stance’ which you find ‘extremely contradictory’ and not what I have to say at all. Therefore, as I have never said words to the effect that ‘there weren’t anything beyond the flesh and blood body’ then I am unable to respond to this paragraph. If you bear in mind that what I do say is that this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is all that is – and that there is nothing beyond this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe – then the conversation will come back on track to what I do discuss without all the needless distractions you have introduced into what I actually write. Perhaps if I were to take the liberty of providing an edited version to demonstrate:
If you find this edited version compatible with what I have actually written, over and again to this mailing list, then you will see that your concerns about what previously appeared as ‘extremely contradictory’ statements only arose because of the ‘all I’ve even seen’ translation. As this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is experiencing itself consciously, as a flesh and blood human being, then this flesh and blood human being is the experience of infinitude being aware of its own infinitude. And awareness does not come bigger than that. * RESPONDENT: I do know this flesh and blood body from moment to moment and all the pleasures of thereof. It is indeed spectacular in all that it can sense and enjoy ... RICHARD: So far so good ... there is a ‘but’ coming, however. RESPONDENT: ... but that is such just a small part of the infinite. RICHARD: ... and here you betray your own avowed ‘I just don’t know’ position by implying there is indeed something beyond the physical. RESPONDENT: Implication? Infinite: 1. lacking limits or boundaries 2. vastness (Webster’s New World Dictionary). A human body is definitely limited. The universe is definitely vast. RICHARD: Okay ... you say that this physical universe ‘is definitely vast’ ... and you provide a dictionary definition of ‘infinite’ (‘lacking limits or boundaries’ ) as well. Does this mean that you are saying that this physical universe is ‘infinite’ (‘lacking limits or boundaries’)? If so, then is:
... an apt description of what a ‘definitely vast’ physical universe means? * RESPONDENT: You may be willing to accept ‘second best’, but I’m not. RICHARD: Again you betray your own avowed ‘I just don’t know’ position by categorising the physical as ‘second best’. It is extremely difficult to maintain an ‘I just don’t know’ stance consistently ... you would make yourself look very silly in your own eyes to maintain an ‘I’m the one who truly has no beliefs, for I state that I just don’t know if Santa Claus exists or not’ stance, eh? RESPONDENT: I know that the human body is limited. The universe is vast. RICHARD: As you say ‘the universe is vast’ does this mean that you are saying that:
* RICHARD: I am taking the opportunity to explore the undertones with you (for as far as you are prepared to go). RESPONDENT: I appreciate the offer, but too many big words tend to make my head spin. I like a very simple phrase with small words, for they are not so distracting from the actual thing, which is not the word. RICHARD: Has there been ‘too many big words’ in what I wrote (above)? If so, I am only too happy to find alternative words.
RICHARD: ... the word generally translated into English as ‘sorrow’ is the Pali word ‘dukkha’. ‘Dukkha’ is inherent in the transitory nature (‘anicca’) of ‘samsara’ (all phenomenon) ... because no self (‘anatta’) is to be found in that which is impermanent. RESPONDENT No. 14: This from ‘What the Buddha Taught’ by Walpola Rahula, Grove Press, 1959, 1974: ‘It is true that the Pali word ‘dukkha’ (or Sanskrit dukkha) in ordinary usage means ‘suffering’, ‘pain’, ‘sorrow’, or ‘misery’, as opposed to the word ‘sikkha’ meaning ‘happiness’, ‘comfort’, or ‘ease’. But the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, which represents the Buddha’s view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term ‘dukkha’ in the First Noble Truth contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘suffering’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘imperfection’, ‘impermanence’, ‘emptiness’, ‘insubstantiality’. It is difficult, therefore, to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term dukkha as the First Noble Truth, and so it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give it a inadequate and wrong idea of by conveniently translating it to mean ‘suffering’ and ‘pain’. RICHARD: I am sure someone else’s viewpoint is of interest to someone, somewhere – anyone’s viewpoint probably is – but as Mr. Walpola Rahula is not subscribed to this Mailing List (quite apart from the fact that he is dead) I cannot have a discussion with him (I have a passing acquaintance with a few of Mr. Walpola Rahula’s ecumenic view-points). If you have something to say on this topic I am more than happy to read it ... in posting a quote sans commentary you present yourself as being nothing more and nothing less than a qwerty. Incidentally, I will not translate the word ‘qwerty’ as it is better to leave it untranslated than to give an inadequate and wrong idea. RESPONDENT: It is true that the Aussie word ‘qwerty’ in ordinary usage means ‘tweety bird; a singing bird, more like the ‘mocking bird’ which imitates other birds. The term ‘qwerty’ as having the Last Word, which represents Richards view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term ‘qwerty’ contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘Wha?’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘Whoa’, ‘wahhhh’, ‘Yikes!; ‘mind your own business’. It is difficult, therefore, to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term ‘qwerty ‘as the absolute take on somebody’s challenge, and so it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give it a inadequate and wrong idea of by conveniently translating it to mean ‘don’t dispute my words you mindless jerk, I mean ‘qwert’. RICHARD: You can have the word mean whatever you wish – what the word points to is ineffable – but I do appreciate you taking the time to display what your feelings dictate your mind to think when presented with something you do not want to consider.
RICHARD: ... as Mr. Walpola Rahula is not subscribed to this Mailing List (quite apart from the fact that he is dead) I cannot have a discussion with him (I have a passing acquaintance with a few of Mr. Walpola Rahula’s ecumenic view-points). If you have something to say on this topic I am more than happy to read it ... in posting a quote sans commentary you present yourself as being nothing more and nothing less than a qwerty. I will not translate the word ‘qwerty’ as it is better to leave it untranslated than to give an inadequate and wrong idea. RESPONDENT: It is true that the Aussie word ‘qwerty’ in ordinary usage means ‘tweety bird; a singing bird, more like the ‘mocking bird’ which imitates other birds. The term ‘qwerty’ as having the Last Word, which represents Richards view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term ‘qwerty’ contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘Wha?’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘Whoa’, ‘wahhhh’, ‘Yikes!; ‘mind your own business’. It is difficult, therefore, to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term ‘qwerty ‘as the absolute take on somebody’s challenge, and so it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give it a inadequate and wrong idea of by conveniently translating it to mean ‘don’t dispute my words you mindless jerk, I mean ‘qwert’. RICHARD: You can have the word mean whatever you wish – what the word points to is ineffable – but I do appreciate you taking the time to display what your feelings dictate your mind to think when presented with something you do not want to consider. RESPONDENT: Dear Richard, as you will probably most effably agree, my post in reply to the word ‘qwerty’ was pure nonsense. RICHARD: You have pulled this stunt before on at least two or three other occasions ... back then you said you were ‘just joking’ and ‘poking fun at you’ and meaning your comments to ‘be silly’. Therefore, by your own description, you present yourself as a person who goes around just joking, poking fun at others, meaning your silly comments and writing pure nonsense. I do wish you every success in your future discussions on human nature with your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: I have observed that what I feel in reading your posts evokes a response of silliness or nonsense in me. RICHARD: As I remarked before: I do appreciate you taking the time to display what your feelings dictate your mind to think when presented with something you do not want to consider. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if you will say that is because I have a silly mind or that I am shallow ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I am clearly talking about what your feelings are doing ... not your mind (be it ‘silly’ or ‘shallow’ or whatever). Your mind, as you have conveyed to me before at least once, is dictated to – or at the mercy of – your feelings. RESPONDENT: ... but, in fact, I cannot take you too seriously at all ... RICHARD: Good, I always advise against seriousness: sincerity, yes ... but seriousness?? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious. RESPONDENT: ... and that is because I do consider you as always wanting to be ‘right’ ... RICHARD: Okay, here is your opportunity: what would you like me to be ‘wrong’ about? RESPONDENT: ... above reproach in everything you write. RICHARD: Again an opportunity for you: what is it that you wish to reproach me about ... speak now or forever hold your piece. RESPONDENT: And, I say, ‘who cares about your vast field of knowledge?’ RICHARD: Well now ... apparently you do, for one: this is the second time in the last twenty four hours that you have cared enough to take the time to write to me about what you call my ‘vast field of knowledge’ (presumably you wish to save me from myself ... else you are poking fun with the intent to hurt). The first time (further above), being based upon fitting your insults into the framework of another’s writing, shows just how much you care as it would have taken more than a few moments to compose. It is this simple: I was having a discussion with another about a revered sage’s take on the human situation and a third person popped a quote in, from a learned Buddhist, so I invited him into the discussion as I have had people say to me before ‘just because I post a quote it does not mean I necessarily agree with it’. In case he refrained from joining the discussion I slipped in the obvious point: if the reader does not have prior knowledge of what the (foreign) term is they will be none the wiser, from reading the Buddhist’s English translations, seeing as he refuses to translate what is a common word into what is a common word. It is no big deal: the Christians have the same-same ‘inner circle’ meaning in regards to their use of the common word ‘suffering’ ... Buddhist scholars do not have the corner on pedagogy. As for me: I simply used the first six letters of the keyboard ... hence ‘ineffable’.
RICHARD: ... as Mr. Walpola Rahula is not subscribed to this Mailing List (quite apart from the fact that he is dead) I cannot have a discussion with him (I have a passing acquaintance with a few of Mr. Walpola Rahula’s ecumenic view-points). If you have something to say on this topic I am more than happy to read it ... in posting a quote sans commentary you present yourself as being nothing more and nothing less than a qwerty. I will not translate the word ‘qwerty’ as it is better to leave it untranslated than to give an inadequate and wrong idea. RESPONDENT: It is true that the Aussie word ‘qwerty’ in ordinary usage means ‘tweety bird; a singing bird, more like the ‘mocking bird’ which imitates other birds. The term ‘qwerty’ as having the Last Word, which represents Richards view of life and the world, has a deeper philosophical meaning and connotes enormously wider senses. It is admitted that the term ‘qwerty’ contains, quite obviously, the ordinary meaning of ‘Wha?’, but in addition it also includes deeper ideas such as ‘Whoa’, ‘wahhhh’, ‘Yikes!; ‘mind your own business’. It is difficult, therefore, to find one word to embrace the whole conception of the term ‘qwerty ‘as the absolute take on somebody’s challenge, and so it is better to leave it untranslated, than to give it a inadequate and wrong idea of by conveniently translating it to mean ‘don’t dispute my words you mindless jerk, I mean ‘qwert’. RICHARD: You can have the word mean whatever you wish – what the word points to is ineffable – but I do appreciate you taking the time to display what your feelings dictate your mind to think when presented with something you do not want to consider. RESPONDENT: Dear Richard, as you will probably most effably agree, my post in reply to the word ‘qwerty’ was pure nonsense. RICHARD: You have pulled this stunt before on at least two or three other occasions ... back then you said you were ‘just joking’ and ‘poking fun at you’ and meaning your comments to ‘be silly’. Therefore, by your own description, you present yourself as a person who goes around just joking, poking fun at others, meaning your silly comments and writing pure nonsense. RESPONDENT: I do sometimes respond to nonsense with nonsense ... RICHARD: If I may point out? What I wrote was not ‘nonsense’ ... nothing I write is nonsensical. You see it as ‘nonsense’ only because your feelings dictate what your mind is to think when presented with something you do not want to consider. RESPONDENT: ... and the word ‘qwerty’ was pure nonsense ... RICHARD: It is the first six letters of the keyboard. RESPONDENT: ... as no one knew the meaning of it, and you knew that we didn’t know the meaning to it ... RICHARD: Aye ... this is entirely my point (I have already explained this in my last post further below) as a practical example is often better than a word description. If the reader does not have prior knowledge of what the (foreign) term is – in this instance the word ‘dukkha’ – they will be none the wiser, from reading the Buddhist’s English translations, seeing as he refuses to translate what is a common word into what is a common word. Try this for size:
I will not translate the word ‘qwerty’ as it is better to leave it untranslated than to give an inadequate and wrong idea. RESPONDENT: ...if there is a meaning. You implied yourself that the word was most likely untranslatable. RICHARD: There is no meaning to ‘qwerty’ ... it is the first six letters of the keyboard. I was doing a direct take of the pomposity of the Buddhist scholar’s ‘inner circle’ condescending and ignorant attitude to a beginner ... I was giving a practical example. Anyone new to Buddhism, reading his translation of the texts into English, would have to go to a dictionary to find what the Buddhist scholar meant by ‘dukkha’ ... and the dictionary would give the common meaning. It is all no big deal ... one has to study Buddhism to gain an appreciation of nuances of meaning just as one has to study Christianity and Hinduism and Taoism and all the others. RESPONDENT: Therefore, I consider your even bringing in such a word to be ‘nonsense.’ RICHARD: What you ‘consider’ and what is actually happening are two entirely different things ... and gets you into endless trouble (on this list). Why pre-suppose the other’s intentions? Why not enquire as to their intent (if it be not clear to you)? Why jump to conclusions with your insults? * RICHARD: I do wish you every success in your future discussions on human nature with your fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: Thank you. We do discuss the nature of human feelings, thinking, and many other aspects of being. RICHARD: May I ask? Has it ever occurred to you to ‘discuss the nature of human feelings, thinking, and many other aspects of being’ without just joking, poking fun at others, meaning your silly comments and writing pure nonsense? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Furthermore, we do it without the necessity of an Oxford dictionary at hand. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you who started this dictionary-quoting business with me and not the other way around ... I merely responded in kind. Here is the way it went (from your third post to me over two years ago):
What was I to do? Just leave it at that? Just let you go on thinking that I was referring to the Webster’s-Collegiate meaning of the word? Of course not ... I value clarity in communication. As do you:
Yea verily, ‘words which are standards in the dictionary’ ... yet by about your tenth post to me you were saying:
And you have never let-up since. Perhaps I can put this problem you have with the Oxford Dictionary at rest once and for all? I only purchased the Oxford Dictionary CD (and the Merriam-Webster’s and The American Heritage) after I had been interacting with my fellow human beings on the internet. This is because, generally speaking, people so dearly love to cover up their ineptitude by using words in a slippery manner. No one, it seems, likes to be pinned down to a clear-cut definition. I also get this a lot in my face-to-face discussions with people here ... they like to ‘keep things open’ or ‘be flexible’ or ‘don’t be so fixed’ or ‘things aren’t black and white’ and so on. I happen to like the English language ... it has upwards of 650,000 words in it and one can clearly communicate with another if a little rigour is applied. However, people like to hide behind words; they like to utter pithy aphorisms like: ‘The Truth is Ineffable’. * RESPONDENT: I have observed that what I feel in reading your posts evokes a response of silliness or nonsense in me. RICHARD: As I remarked before: I do appreciate you taking the time to display what your feelings dictate your mind to think when presented with something you do not want to consider. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if you will say that is because I have a silly mind or that I am shallow ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I am clearly talking about what your feelings are doing ... not your mind (be it ‘silly’ or ‘shallow’ or whatever). Your mind, as you have conveyed to me before at least once, is dictated to – or at the mercy of – your feelings. RESPONDENT: ... but, in fact, I cannot take you too seriously at all ... RICHARD: Good, I always advise against seriousness: sincerity, yes ... but seriousness?? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious. RESPONDENT: I do not doubt your sincerity. It is just that I can’t be serious about what you are sincere about ... RICHARD: But I do not want you to ‘be serious’ about what I write ... I always advise against seriousness: sincerity, yes ... but seriousness?? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious. RESPONDENT: ... and what you are sincere about is presenting your beliefs in a maze of complicated words ... RICHARD: Can we stop this on-going duplicity? You have run the ‘I am a simple country girl from Arkansas and appreciation of your big words is non-existent’ line with me for a long, long time. Yet in one of the very first posts you wrote to this list you reported that you used to be a ‘English teacher’ ... and you have also said that you had a major in English. And if it be not duplicity then it is a dual-personality problem. RESPONDENT: ... dedicated to the purpose of proving your point of view, i.e., what Richard says is the truth, actual, or whatever you want to call it. RICHARD: You know perfectly well what I call it ... do you not make yourself look more and more ridiculous going on and on like this? * RESPONDENT: ... and that is because I do consider you as always wanting to be ‘right’ ... RICHARD: Okay, here is your opportunity: what would you like me to be ‘wrong’ about? RESPONDENT: What a silly question. Nothing. RICHARD: Good ... because there is ‘nothing’ I want to be wrong about also. I am glad we are in agreement ... people are killing each other – and themselves – because they have got it all wrong. This which you call ‘a silly question’ has been going on for thousands of years. RESPONDENT: What is totally right for you, and works for you in your life may not be somebody else’s cup of tea, i.e., ‘Actualism’ – your baby. RICHARD: You see? You do know what I call it after all. * RESPONDENT: ... above reproach in everything you write. RICHARD: Again an opportunity for you: what is it that you wish to reproach me about ... speak now or forever hold your piece. RESPONDENT: As I stated before, I don’t want to reproach you about anything. RICHARD: Good ... because I do not want to have anything in me to reproach myself about either. I am glad we are in agreement ... can you stop running this line? Because the only way peace-on-earth can become apparent is through the complete eradication of anything – anything whatsoever – one nurses within one’s bosom that would be the cause for reproach. RESPONDENT: If your belief in actualism and atheism works for you, I have no problem with that. RICHARD: For a person who says they ‘have no problem with that’ you do seem to go on and on about it. RESPONDENT: It just may be that actualism is not the grand answer to life’s questions that you give to it. RICHARD: Or it just may be that it is ‘the grand answer to life’s questions’ ... but your feelings will not allow you to see that possibility? * RESPONDENT: And, I say, ‘who cares about your vast field of knowledge?’ RICHARD: Well now ... apparently you do, for one: this is the second time in the last twenty four hours that you have cared enough to take the time to write to me about what you call my ‘vast field of knowledge’ (presumably you wish to save me from myself ... else you are poking fun with the intent to hurt). RESPONDENT: Please, Richard. How can I possibly hurt someone who has no feelings? RICHARD: I never said that you could ‘possibly hurt someone who has no feelings’ ... I was talking about your intent. Look, it is your understanding that my being free of feelings is only a belief I have. Viz.:
As I am ‘only adhering to a belief’ – according to you – then you are seeing that I do have feelings and that I only believe I do not ... therefore, you are indeed ‘poking fun with the intent to hurt’ a person who does have feelings (according to you). RESPONDENT: Obviously, that knowledge (your being void of feelings) gives me the green flag to go ahead and poke all the fun I want at your words and the hidden intent that I see in them. RICHARD: Uh huh ... so your intention is indeed to poke hurtful fun at your fellow human being (else why would having ‘the green flag’ mean anything)? It is the intent to hurt which I am talking about ... not whether I get hurt or not (or whether I do have feelings or not). RESPONDENT: My intent was just to poke fun at the word ‘qwerty,’ and in poking that fun was the implication that you were calling No. 14 a name which was ‘up for’ translation. RICHARD: Perhaps it may have become apparent to you by now that I was doing nothing of the sort? It was you who wrote those ‘fun’ insults to No. 14 ... only making it look as if I was saying them. RESPONDENT: I merely offered a translation. I am well aware of that ... shall we look at your ‘translation’ so as to see just what you were calling No. 14?
Now you may very well wriggle out of all this pother you have inveigled yourself into by saying ‘please, Richard, how can I possibly hurt someone who has no feelings’ ... but No. 14 is on record as saying he has feelings – he cherishes sorrow – and, by your own explanation (above) your intent was to poke fun at him ... and in the very first sentence of your paragraph. Whether he is hurt or not is beside the point (that is entirely up to him) ... it is your intent which I am discussing. And your intent is driven by what you are feeling. RESPONDENT: Why don’t you say something that we can all understand rather than, as per your remark to No. 14, ‘you present yourself as being nothing more and nothing less than a qwerty’. RICHARD: As I have explained ... I was demonstrating the uselessness of the advice in the quote he popped into a discussion sans commentary. * RICHARD: The first time (further above), being based upon fitting your insults into the framework of another’s writing, shows just how much you care as it would have taken more than a few moments to compose. RESPONDENT: How can I possible insult someone who has no feelings? RICHARD: You cannot ... which is why I delved deep into myself all those years ago and eradicated everything perpetuating malice and sorrow and everything which prevented peace-on-earth being apparent. People like you cannot ‘press my buttons’, to use the jargon, as there are neither buttons nor feelings to be activated. Just as well I did, eh? RESPONDENT: I was merely having fun with the word ‘qwerty’ and the hidden implications that I saw in it. RICHARD: What you ‘saw in it’ and what is actually happening are two entirely different things. * RICHARD: It is this simple: I was having a discussion with another about a revered sage’s take on the human situation and a third person popped a quote in, from a learned Buddhist, so I invited him into the discussion as I have had people say to me before ‘just because I post a quote it does not mean I necessarily agree with it’. In case he refrained from joining the discussion I slipped in the obvious point: if the reader does not have prior knowledge of what the (foreign) term is they will be none the wiser, from reading the Buddhist’s English translations, seeing as he refuses to translate what is a common word into what is a common word. It is no big deal: the Christians have the same-same ‘inner circle’ meaning in regards to their use of the common word ‘suffering’ ... Buddhist scholars do not have the corner on pedagogy. As for me: I simply used the first six letters of the keyboard ... hence ‘ineffable’. RESPONDENT: This is the second time I’ve had to look up that word – ‘ineffable.’ RICHARD: Hmm ... it looks as if you rushed right past my detailed explanation, of why I wrote that ‘I will not translate’ line, so as to fasten on my very last word in my very last sentence. Maybe this is why I end up writing such long posts full of copy and paste. RESPONDENT: A conversation with you is ‘ineffable,’ and you can prove me wrong all you want. RICHARD: This ‘prove me wrong all you want’ scenario exists only in your vivid imagination ... all I ever did when I came onto this list was to report my experience of peace-on-earth and how I arrived here. It was when others objected that I had no alternative than to quote revered saints, sages and seers, give dictionary definitions, examine another’s understanding and so on. RESPONDENT: I have no need to be right. RICHARD: Okay ... will you be telling me next you are humble as well?
RICHARD: It is this simple: I was having a discussion with another about a revered sage’s take on the human situation and a third person popped a quote in, from a learned Buddhist, so I invited him into the discussion as I have had people say to me before ‘just because I post a quote it does not mean I necessarily agree with it’. In case he refrained from joining the discussion I slipped in the obvious point: if the reader does not have prior knowledge of what the (foreign) term is they will be none the wiser, from reading the Buddhist’s English translations, seeing as he refuses to translate what is a common word into what is a common word. It is no big deal: the Christians have the same-same ‘inner circle’ meaning in regards to their use of the common word ‘suffering’ ... Buddhist scholars do not have the corner on pedagogy. As for me: I simply used the first six letters of the keyboard ... hence ‘ineffable’. RESPONDENT: This is the second time I’ve had to look up that word – ‘ineffable.’ RICHARD: Hmm ... it looks as if you rushed right past my detailed explanation, of why I wrote that ‘I will not translate’ line, so as to fasten on my very last word in my very last sentence. Maybe this is why I end up writing such long posts full of copy and paste. RESPONDENT: A conversation with you is ‘ineffable,’ and you can prove me wrong all you want. RICHARD: This ‘prove me wrong all you want’ scenario exists only in your vivid imagination ... all I ever did when I came onto this list was to report my experience of peace-on-earth and how I arrived here. It was when others objected that I had no alternative than to quote revered saints, sages and seers, give dictionary definitions, examine another’s understanding and so on. RESPONDENT: I have no need to be right. RICHARD: Okay ... will you be telling me next you are humble as well? RESPONDENT: Nope ... just totally uninterested in your point by point debating tactics. RICHARD: Sure ... that is not an insurmountable problem: I am more than happy to switch tactics to those which you are more interested in. Shall we proceed using your snipped-off paragraph-by-paragraph and/or post-by-post one-liner debating tactics instead?
RESPONDENT No. 39: Richard, to try and simplify your message, I think basically what you are saying is that the outer world is the only thing that is actual. The inner world is imaginary and is not actual. Is this basically what you are saying? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: I really think we could say that rather than ‘imaginary’ the inner world is remembered. What man has put together and is actually on the outside has put together by imagination stemming from memory. RICHARD: Bearing in mind that I was answering a particular question – as simply and as briefly as possible – I would like to point out that I have said again and again that there are no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds in actuality ... there is only the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. And this world is marvellous. RESPONDENT: Both Richard’s and No. 4’s long epic posts are put together from memory (imagination), so how can one possibly disallow the inner? RICHARD: The capacity to remember is nothing more exotic than the ability to recall experience ... and experiencing occurs in the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. And this experiencing is marvellous. RESPONDENT: The tears of a child are actual, but they arise from a psychological response to something that happened on the outside. An actual smile is but a response to an extraneous event. Without the dance between the inner and the outer, there is no life at all. RICHARD: Where there are no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds life is the pure perfection of this eternal moment which never goes away. RESPONDENT: Life is that dance. RICHARD: Life ‘is that dance’, for maybe 6.0 billion people alive on this planet today (and the however many billion having lived), yes ... yet it need not be: all suffering is totally unnecessary. RESPONDENT: If one partner tries to lead the other, division occurs, but when the dance is harmonious, there is only one dance, one step. When that fusion of the two dancers occurs, there is that timelessness that K suggests cannot be talked about at all because it is beyond all description and human comprehension. RICHARD: Life ‘is that timelessness’, for maybe 0.0000001 of the population (for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history), yes ... yet it need not be: there is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: I think that is what No. 4 is referring to – something beyond description and which Richard says does not exists simply because it is beyond description, which he wants to call ‘imagination’. RICHARD: I have no difficulty whatsoever describing that ‘something beyond description’ ... and I do not say that it ‘does not exist simply because it is beyond description’ at all. It does not exist because it is an ‘inner world’ reality (just as the ‘outer world’ reality does not exist either). There is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: However, life as we know it now is a matter of one partner leading the other which results in the conflict and crises being exhibited in rapes, child abuse, malice, sorrow, war, etc.. RICHARD: For maybe 6.0 billion people alive on this planet today (and the however many billion having lived), yes ... yet it need not be: all suffering is totally unnecessary. RESPONDENT: Being devoid of feelings and love is not a solution to the world crises ... RICHARD: Indeed not (such a person is described as having a sociopathic personality) as it is only via the extirpation of ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul does the dissolution of the world crises occur (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ personality (a personality ‘devoid of feelings and emotions’). RESPONDENT: ... but the balance of feelings and emotions with the actual results in intelligent action. RICHARD: ‘Tis impossible to balance the ‘feelings and emotions’ with the actual ... for as long as ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul parasitically inhabits the body, thus creating ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ worlds, the actual is nowhere to be found ... nor is ‘intelligent action’ possible. What you speak of here is the attempt to balance the ‘feelings and emotions’ with the ‘real world’ reality which ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul imposes as a veneer over the actual. This fact is stunningly obvious in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). RESPONDENT: When that balance occurs there is a stage on which life is allowed to dance, free and harmoniously – in my opinion. I am still learning to do the ‘two step’. RICHARD: No one needs to learn ‘the ‘two step’’ – as ‘the ‘two step’’ happens naturally – and whatever ‘learning’ occurs is called repetitively refining the previously known Nor is the ‘one step’ the last ... there is a third alternative.
RESPONDENT: Richard is not the only person I know who claims to have no emotions, feelings, or love. I recently met a physicist who said he had no feelings, absolutely none. However, that came about after he drove intentionally head-on into the path of an oncoming truck in a failed suicide attempt. I don’t know him that well, but he is now well respected and working at the university. He did say that he had lost his mind at that time. I don’t know what the correlation is, but it does seem that insanity does have some effect on the complete loss of feelings. RICHARD: There is, of course, no ‘correlation’ whatsoever ... and, furthermore, we have discussed this before, you and I, on more than one occasion. Viz.:
Only a couple of days ago the following exchange occurred:
I cannot do anything other than say it again: often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. RESPONDENT: When there is a distinction between the inner and the outer, there is conflict. RICHARD: When there is no ‘inner and outer’ – when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul cease to parasitically inhabit the body – there is no conflict whatsoever. There is only an on-going pristine perfection.
RESPONDENT: Richard is not the only person I know who claims to have no emotions, feelings, or love. I recently met a physicist who said he had no feelings, absolutely none. However, that came about after he drove intentionally head-on into the path of an oncoming truck in a failed suicide attempt. I don’t know him that well, but he is now well respected and working at the university. He did say that he had lost his mind at that time. I don’t know what the correlation is, but it does seem that insanity does have some effect on the complete loss of feelings. RICHARD: There is, of course, no ‘correlation’ whatsoever ... and, furthermore, we have discussed this before, you and me, on more than one occasion. Viz.: <snip> Only a couple of days ago the following exchange occurred: [Respondent]: ‘Being devoid of feelings and love is not a solution to the world crises ...’. [Richard]: ‘Indeed not (such a person is described as having a sociopathic personality) as it is only via the extirpation of ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul does the dissolution of the world crises occur (‘I’ am ‘my’ feelings and ‘my’ feelings are ‘me’). It is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ personality (a personality ‘devoid of feelings and emotions’). I cannot do anything other than say it again: often people who do not read what I have to say with both eyes gain the impression that I am suggesting that people are to stop feeling ... which I am not. My whole point is to cease ‘being’ – psychologically and psychically self-immolate – which means that the entire psyche itself is extirpated. RESPONDENT: I’m sorry, Richard, but I have read what you wrote above – or tried to read it – and it just does not read well. RICHARD: Would that be because you have convinced yourself that all what I am on about is ‘being devoid of feelings and love’ that when I write that my whole point is to cease ‘being’ it just does not make sense to you that you could be awry in your assessment? RESPONDENT: In fact the more I read the above passage, the more it demonstrates complete nonsense. RICHARD: What I find to be ‘complete nonsense’ is that you can continue to write things like ‘Richard is not the only person I know who claims to have no emotions, feelings, or love’ when I say to you only the day before that it is impossible to be a ‘stripped-down’ personality (a personality totally ‘devoid of feelings and emotions’) and that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul must be extinguished first. This ‘physicist’ whom you recently met who said he had no feelings ... did you ask him whether there was an identity (a ‘personality’ or ‘self’ or ‘ego’ or ‘soul’ or whatever name) still operating? Did you ask him if he lived in a veritable paradise (by whatever name)? Did you ask about perfection and purity and total fulfilment and utter satisfaction and ... and all those other very important facets? Did you ask him about peace-on-earth in this lifetime? RESPONDENT: I don’t know if your purpose in writing as you do is to confuse people or to inform them of something you believe in ... RICHARD: As you know perfectly well (when you want to) what my purpose in writing is this is not even a cheap shot ... ‘tis simply feeble. RESPONDENT: ... but either way, I think you have failed, and continue to fail, to demonstrate anything other than a series of postings which wreak of verbal chest beating for some achievement that nobody understands but you. RICHARD: There are those who do understand what I write ... you are not the only person in the world. RESPONDENT: Your manner of presentation and/or whatever it is you are presenting is totally worthless. RICHARD: Only because you value what your feelings tell you rather than be guided by your commonsense. RESPONDENT: Your message, if there is one, is totally lost in your wordiness and use of words that are not in the common vernacular. RICHARD: Hmm ... thus speaks someone who says they had a major in English and has sometimes worked as an English teacher, eh? RESPONDENT: What is your purpose in writing as you do? RICHARD: To remind you, in a lavish style and flamboyant words, that it is possible to live in that which you have previously called ‘something else’ for the twenty-four hours of the day every day for the remainder of your life. Viz.:
Methinks thou doth protest too much about the idiosyncratic style of writing and the words I use ... but I guess such protesting saves you from having to acknowledge that it is indeed possible to live what the words say. Because this ‘something else’ is ambrosial to say the least.
RESPONDENT No. 4: Matter is an ‘externalization’ of consciousness. The root meaning of the word ‘exist’ is ‘to stand out of’. Matter is what ‘stands out of’ pure energy or consciousness. It is an ‘appearance’ of non-material consciousness: Energy without boundaries, without form and function, or no-thing. In other words, matter is real but not actual, whereas, non-material consciousness is actual, forever unmanifest, non-existent, creative, which means that matter is empty, transparent, without longevity. What ‘stands out’ must inevitably ‘return’. RESPONDENT: I copied this when you wrote it, but I didn’t understand what you are saying here enough to ask a question. I did know that Richard would respond to this post, which he did, and the matter has since not been cleared. What I understand you to be saying is that there is consciousness, and out of that consciousness everything is created. Why do you say that? What proof do you have? Isn’t the discussion between you and Richard merely metaphysical/philosophical? You say ‘yea’, and he says ‘nay’. In what way does this discussion between you two further the cause of seeing oneself, other than in the response to the argument? RICHARD: Maybe it would be of assistance if I were to clearly delineate the difference between what any ‘non-material consciousness’ generally has to say and what this flesh and blood consciousness says? Viz.:
This delineation of the dichotomy may also help to see why I say that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the ‘Tried and True’ ancient wisdom.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused. Hope this explains my views in the matter. RESPONDENT No. 25: So, are you saying that there are many, many paths to truth? That every path is a path to truth? And, doesn’t that then imply, sir, that truth can be said to be pathless land because there is zero distance between thou and that? RICHARD: Am I correct in reading you to be saying that it is indeed so that truth be a pathless land (because there is ‘zero distance between thou and that’)? If so then does this not mean that truth does not lie in any temple, in any mosque, in any church and it has no path to it except through one’s own understanding of oneself, inquiring, studying, learning ... then there is that which is eternal? RESPONDENT: Yes! Yes! That is what Krishnamurti implied. When is the hammer going to fall? RICHARD: Seeing that you asked for precise information ... ‘the hammer’ fell at sunrise on the sixth of September 1981. I lived the truth / was the truth for eleven years, night and day, until it vanished into the trash-bin of history where it belongs. There is no ‘thou and that’ here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT No. 19 (Part Seven) 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 |
