|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT No. 25: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RICHARD: Aye, he certainly did. Whereas, in actuality, this planet grows human beings in time (and space), just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers in time (and space), although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is our base as it ‘grows’ the suns and the planets in time (and space) ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term. There is no ‘Creation’ here in time (and space) ... this universe is perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What do you think creation is if not ‘perpetuus mobilis’ when there is not time? Of course, we’re talking of psychological time, not actual time. RICHARD: First, the phrase ‘psychological time’ is obviously a sop to the intellect, a paying of lip-service
to rationality RESPONDENT: Sure it is. It doesn’t fit in with your rational description of a Richard ‘sans ego as self, me as soul’ that can perpetually exist as a body while denying psychological existence, or a thing such as. RICHARD: It is nothing more complicated than this: my use of the phrase ‘perpetuus mobilis’ was in reference to the very stuff of this physical universe perpetually rearranging itself in time and space (and this flesh and blood body is nothing other than this very stuff existing in time and space) whereas what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti refers to is not of actual time and space and matter. Viz.:
At a guess I would say that the phrase ‘psychological time’ may sound feasible enough at first sight ... but ‘psychological matter’ would be too much to swallow, eh? * RICHARD: Second, I do not need to ‘think’ what ‘creation is if not ‘perpetuus mobilis’ when there is not [psychological] time’ as I know what it is (I lived it/was it for eleven years): it is a disassociated delusion, a massive hallucination. In other words: human vanity writ large. RESPONDENT: If you said it, you would have had to think it ... RICHARD: To live it is to intimately know it ... thought and words come only when describing or explaining it. RESPONDENT: ... unless, of course, that ‘talking’ is the universe ‘perfectly taking care of itself’. By speaking from past knowledge, which is the base of an ego in action – ego of which you have none – you have assiduously undone yourself – AND not your ‘self’, as in, ‘the ‘self’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul)’. RICHARD: I do not have amnesia ... and neither am I going to pretend to just to meet your expectations. * RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti on time (and space): [quote]: ‘You will find, if you have gone that far, that there is a movement of the unknown which is not recognised, which is not translatable, which cannot be put into words – then you will find that there is a movement which is of the immense. That movement is of the timeless because in that there is no time, nor is there space’. (December 29: ‘The Book of Life: Daily Meditations with J. Krishnamurti’; Published by HarperSanFrancisco. ©1999 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). RESPONDENT: Obviously, you have not ‘gone that far’ as to discover a movement which is not of blood and bones body. RICHARD: At the very least you are acknowledging that he is referring to something that is ‘not of blood and bones
body’ (which is, of course, matter). All that is needed now is to acknowledge that he is referring to something that is not of time and space
(actual time and space) as well and thus clarify what he means by the word ‘creation’ Which is most definitely not what I was describing with the phrase ‘perpetuus mobilis’.
RESPONDENT No 25: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RICHARD: Aye, he certainly did. Whereas, in actuality, this planet grows human beings in time (and space), just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers in time (and space), although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is our base as it ‘grows’ the suns and the planets in time (and space) ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term. There is no ‘Creation’ here in time (and space) ... this universe is perpetuus mobilis. RESPONDENT: What do you think creation is if not ‘perpetuus mobilis’ when there is not time? Of course, we’re talking of psychological time, not actual time. RICHARD: The phrase ‘psychological time’ is obviously a sop to the intellect, a paying of lip-service to rationality: (Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti on time and space): [quote]: ‘You will find, if you have gone that far, that there is a movement of the unknown which is not recognised, which is not translatable, which cannot be put into words – then you will find that there is a movement which is of the immense. That movement is of the timeless because in that there is no time, nor is there space’. (December 29: ‘The Book of Life: Daily Meditations with J. Krishnamurti’; Published by HarperSanFrancisco. ©1999 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). RESPONDENT: Obviously, you have not ‘gone that far’ as to discover a movement which is not of blood and bones body. RICHARD: At the very least you are acknowledging that he is referring to something that is ‘not of blood and bones body’ (which is, of course, matter). All that is needed now is to acknowledge that he is referring to something that is not of time and space (actual time and space) as well and thus clarify what he means by the word ‘creation’: (Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti on the origin of all matter): [K]: ‘There is something sacred, untouched by man (...) and that may be the origin of everything. [B]: ‘If you say the origin of all matter, all nature ... . [K]: ‘Everything, all matter, all nature. [B]: ‘All of mankind. [K]: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’; J. Krishnamurti; pages 135-136; HarperCollins, New York; 1979). Which is most definitely not what I was describing with the phrase ‘perpetuus mobilis’. RESPONDENT: To me, ‘the very stuff of this physical universe perpetually rearranging itself in time and space (and this flesh and blood body is nothing other than this very stuff existing in time and space)’ simply means that the universe is perpetually creating itself. RICHARD: Do you mean by this (apparent) agreement that there is nothing other than physical time, physical space and physical matter? Do you mean by this (apparent) agreement that ‘the universe is perpetually creating itself’ out of itself (and not out of something physically timeless, physically spaceless and physically matterless)? Do you mean by this (apparent) agreement that, in actuality, this planet grows human beings in time (and space), just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers in time (and space)? Do you mean by this (apparent) agreement that, in the final analysis, it is the universe itself which is our base as it ‘grows’ the suns and the planets in time (and space) ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term? In short: do you mean by this (apparent) agreement that there is no ‘creation’ here in time (and space) as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti means by his usage of the word ... and that this universe is indeed perpetuus mobilis? RESPONDENT: The ‘movement which is beyond ‘time and space’ is a movement which is not limited to the psychological which is the thinking mind. RICHARD: I can comprehend that both the phrase ‘psychological time’ and a phrase such as ‘psychological space’ may sound feasible enough at first sight ... but would not ‘psychological matter’ be too much to swallow (as in ‘a movement which is not limited to the psychological’ time and the psychological space and the psychological matter)? Viz.:
Is what is detailed in this quote not quite explicit? That is, not only does the universal mind emerge from the movement as a ground – and not only having its being in that movement but dying back into that movement – but matter has/does also? And where Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti states (in the ‘origin of matter’ quote further above) that there is something sacred, untouched by man, that may be the origin of everything, of all matter, all nature, of all mankind, it must be obvious, surely, that he is not speaking of ‘psychological matter’ any more than he is speaking of ... um ... ‘psychological nature’, ‘psychological mankind’ and ‘psychological everything’? RESPONDENT: I don’t think K ever denied a physical (actual) time. RICHARD: I have never said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘ever denied physical (actual) time’. Indeed, I expressly wrote the following on this Mailing List (23 January 2001):
You may or may not have noticed it ... it was in the post you responded thus to:
Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: You just cannot prove, Richard, that there is nothing beyond the blood and bones body which may exist in another dimension. RICHARD: Hmm ... and as you cannot ‘prove’ that there is ‘another dimension’ then this is a ‘Mexican Stand-Off’, eh? Howsoever, I have responded to you before on this issue:
All I endeavour to do is to get the other’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and come down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time as matter. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice RESPONDENT: You appear to be a very three dimensional person, and I think that you deliberately complicate and argue the issues so that you can debate them [and win]. LOL. RICHARD: If you would care to cease cackling for a moment and even casually peruse the sequence (all of the above) and elsewhere you will find that it is the other person that ‘deliberately complicates’ the issue through prevarication and obfuscation ... and not me. ‘Tis you who is prattling on about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s usage of the word ‘creation’ meaning only ‘no psychological time’ when it is clearly not the case at all ... which case is also evidenced by your ‘you appear to be a very three dimensional person’ and your ‘you just cannot prove, Richard, that there is nothing beyond the blood and bones body which may exist in another dimension’. Whereas I am always out-in-the-open and up-front in my agenda: It is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only.
RICHARD: I had occasion, recently, to provide the following explanation in regard to a bibliography I had appended as an adjunct to a response to a query: [Richard]: ‘I provided a ‘lengthy bibliography’ because my experience on this Mailing List has shown that my reports of what I experientially discovered for myself – an intimate ‘hands-on’ experiencing – are capriciously dismissed as being ideas, beliefs, opinions, viewpoints, points of view, concepts, theories, conjectures, speculations, assumptions, presumptions, suppositions, surmises, thoughts, inferences, judgements, positions, mind-sets, stances, images, intellectualising, analyses ... the entire 101 stock-standard denials of the possibility of being happy and harmless, here on earth in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body’ [endquote]. Perhaps this is an opportune moment to flesh this (apparently) insufficient explanation out a trifle: actualism is not, and has never been, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. RESPONDENT: Why, then, is what you are explaining have an ‘ism’ attached to the end of it? RICHARD: Because in the English language the application of ‘-ism’ (and ‘-ist’) has a very common usage ... it enables someone to say, for example, ‘I am studying feudalism’ or ‘I am learning about existentialism’ or ‘I am interested in relativism’ or ‘I am exploring actualism’ and so on (and ‘I am an artist’ or ‘I am a scientist’ or ‘I am a pianist’ or ‘I am an atheist’ or ‘I am a communist’ or ‘I am an actualist’ and all the rest). In other words it is a name, a classification, a descriptive label, of what would otherwise be a long-winded explanation each time one talked about oneself and one’s interests, simplified into a single word. I chose the name rather simply from a dictionary definition which said that actualism was ‘the theory that matter is not merely passive (now rare)’. That was all ... and I did not investigate any further for I did not want to know who formulated this theory. It was that description – and not the author’s theory – that appealed. And, as it said that its usage was now rare, I figured it was high-time it was brought out of obscurity, dusted off, re-vitalised ... and set loose upon the world (including upon those who have a conditioned abhorrence of labels) as a third alternative to materialism and spiritualism. My memory of the dictionary definition was obviously somewhat hazy as I see from my records that I first re-formulated it thus:
Some years later someone told me they had heard about a ‘Philosophy of Actualism’. The ‘Encyclopaedia Britannica’ CD reports:
I could not disagree more (he also has a philosophy called ‘Actual Idealism’) ... also, there is a Web Page in the US of A titled ‘Actualism’ which I found via a search engine. But it is religious and spiritual ... which I find strange as the word ‘actual’ commonly means ‘existing in act or fact; practical; in action or existence at the time; present, current and not merely potential or possible’ and usually means being objectively accessible sensately or sensuously. I am yet to find the origin of the dictionary’s definition. RESPONDENT: The world is actual. RICHARD: Not for maybe 6.0 billion human beings ... they live in the ‘real world’, a grim and glum illusion pasted over this pristine actual world, by the affective filters of the entity within their flesh and blood bodies, as a veneer that obscures the already always existing peace-on-earth. Which is why I say that naiveté is essential less all the misery and mayhem continue. RESPONDENT: We do not need a doctrine to explain that. RICHARD: I see that I inadvertently left ‘a doctrine’ and its synonyms off my list ... I appreciate you drawing this to my attention and will amend my paragraph forthwith: actualism is not, and has never been, a doctrine, a policy, a canon, a dogma, a code, a tenet, a creed, a credo, a rule, a principle, an ideology, a faith, an act of faith, an article of faith, a philosophy, a religion, a metaphysics, a psychology, a mind-set, a state-of-mind, a frame-of-mind, a view, a view-point, a point of view, a world-view, a perspective, a standpoint, a position, a posit, a precept, a stance, an opinion, a belief, an imagining, an intellectual understanding, an idea, a concept, a theory or a cult. ‘Tis no wonder my E-Mails become more and more lengthy, eh? RESPONDENT: There are actual murders; actual rapes; actual child abuse; actual joy; etc. RICHARD: Indeed (apart from the ‘actual joy, etc.’ ) ... and even though I only ever get to meet flesh and blood bodies – there are no psychological and psychic entities here in this actual world – the evidence of their very real (to them) existence within these bodies is played-out here in this actual world in all its stark, grisly detail. Yet all this misery and mayhem is unnecessary. RESPONDENT: If you are living in peace, why call it actualism, unless it is something you are trying to push. RICHARD: I do indeed have a barrow that I push – I make my agenda crystal-clear, up-front and out-in-the-open, for all to see – and push it relentlessly and unstintingly. Viz.: It is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body only.
RESPONDENT: [Richard to No. 10]: I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question [No. 19: when will we end it?] off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue [No. 19: which is?] with the previous one [No. 19: want?]. Plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity [No. 10: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want] even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway. [No. 19 getting lost]: Is the issue here ‘sincerity,’ or is the issue ‘want?’ Or, is the issue really that No. 10 not only saw that ‘want’ was in a need of a person to ‘want;’ or, even beyond that, is it that No. 10 saw that ‘sincerely wanting’ still remains a ‘want’ – demanding an ‘ego’ ‘wanting’ – even though it is ‘barely a want’? What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history.
RESPONDENT: [Richard to No. 10]: I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question [No. 19: when will we end it?] off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue [No. 19: which is?] with the previous one [No. 19: want?]. Plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity [No. 10: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want] even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway. [No. 19 getting lost]: Is the issue here ‘sincerity,’ or is the issue ‘want?’ Or, is the issue really that No. 10 not only saw that ‘want’ was in a need of a person to ‘want;’ or, even beyond that, is it that No. 10 saw that ‘sincerely wanting’ still remains a ‘want’ – demanding an ‘ego’ ‘wanting’ – even though it is ‘barely a want’? What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT No. 10: So is the play, Richard, for me. RICHARD: You are not dealing with an impressionable tyro here as I lived that/was that Enlightened/Transformed state,
night and day for eleven years ... so I know the play you are currently involved in intimately. The difference is that I was willing to learn from
the lessons of history. RESPONDENT No. 10: When we learn from history, Richard, we repeat it in a different way. However, it is always a step away from what we ‘thought’ it would be. Learning is a function of non-action. We see; we intake; act; and then we see; we intake; act. To learn from history is to study, make a choice, and then act – a robots way. That is the way of our world. Do you see my word meaning? RESPONDENT: In my opinion, for Richard to see the true meaning of your words will depend upon whether or not he ‘sincerely wants’ to. RICHARD: As I already explained that I intimately know the ‘true meaning’ of his words am I to take it that you, too, brushed past my first sentence and focussed on the second? RESPONDENT: My bet is that he wants to debate it. RICHARD: Oh, you would easily win your bet because if you look, even casually, you will see that my co-respondent brushed past my first sentence and chose to debate my second sentence instead ... and I am obliging him as I am retired and on a pension and have all the time in the world to do whatever with. How about you: do you wish to debate ... or discuss?
RESPONDENT: What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘ peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ ) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when will we end the play’ ) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT No. 10: So is the play, Richard, for me. RESPONDENT No. 12: Those most caught up in the play are those acting out a role of being free. Thinking I am free of all that is probably the most egotistical belief of all. RICHARD: Aye ... and feeling that ‘I am free of all that’ is the most soultistical belief of all. RESPONDENT: Sooooooo, the real issue boils down to ‘who is’ and ‘who isn’t’– caught in the play, that is. LOL. My, oh, my. This is a case of damned if you do and damned if you don’t ... make a claim, that is. You can’t think it; you can’t feel it; and you can’t say it. I guess the only think left to do is just act it out. RICHARD: There are, basically, three ways of experiencing the world of people, things and events:
There are three worlds altogether but only one is actual; there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe (the normal ‘reality’ as experienced by 6.0 billion human beings is an illusion and the abnormal ‘Reality’ as experienced by 0.0000001 of the population is a delusion born out of the illusion). The feelings include both the affectionate and desirable emotions/ passions (those that are loving and trusting) and hostile and invidious emotions/ passions (those that are hateful and fearful) and those that are felicitous/ innocuous. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on) then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperception. Apperception is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. Apperception is to be the senses as a bare awareness, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. It is no more complicated than this: delight is what is humanly possibly given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience. From the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away as such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence whilst being a self), the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared.
RESPONDENT: What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘ peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: What exactly was it about it No. 10’s question (‘when will we end the play’) that you found insincere? Was it that you don’t think No. 10 personally is sincere about ending the play, or was it that No. 10 included the rhetorical ‘we’ in the question? RICHARD: Read for yourself. Viz.:
Whilst we are on the subject ... here is a classic case of insincerity for you to contemplate: ‘I am Humble – I am God On Earth’.
RESPONDENT: What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT No. 10: So is the play, Richard, for me. RICHARD: You are not dealing with an impressionable tyro here as I lived that/was that Enlightened/Transformed state, night and day for eleven years ... so I know the play you are currently involved in intimately. The difference is that I was willing to learn from the lessons of history. RESPONDENT No. 10: When we learn from history, Richard, we repeat it in a different way. However, it is always a step away from what we ‘thought’ it would be. Learning is a function of non-action. We see; we intake; act; and then we see; we intake; act. To learn from history is to study, make a choice, and then act – a robots way. That is the way of our world. Do you see my word meaning? RESPONDENT: In my opinion, for Richard to see the true meaning of your words will depend upon whether or not he ‘sincerely wants’ to. RICHARD: As I already explained that I intimately know the ‘true meaning’ of his words am I to take it that you, too, brushed past my first sentence and focussed on the second? RESPONDENT: My bet is that he wants to debate it. RICHARD: Oh, you would easily win your bet because if you look, even casually, you will see that my co-respondent brushed past my first sentence and chose to debate my second sentence instead ... and I am obliging him as I am retired and on a pension and have all the time in the world to do whatever with. How about you: do you wish to debate ... or discuss? RESPONDENT: Richard, I certainly do not wish to debate you. You lose me after the first sentence. Like now, I still don’t know the actual issue. Is it your first sentence, ‘ending the play’, or is it the second sentence, ‘sincerely ending the play’, or is it that the question ‘when do we end the play’ was not a sincere question, or is it that No. 10 used ‘we’ instead of ‘you’ to avoid seeming egotistical, or is it that you learned from history, or a few other issues that have come into the picture since I first asked what the issue is? RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’ and will continue to be the issue until ‘the play’ is ended. RESPONDENT: Me thinks that the issue with you changes from one point to another point ... not in a discovering sort of way, but in a debating way. If you could make one point and stick with it until it was completed, you might be easier to understand. RICHARD: The ‘issue’ with me never changes, and the ‘one point’ I essentially make in all my posts I do indeed ‘stick with’ , through thick and thin ... and I have made my agenda quite clear on many an occasion. For just one example:
If you cannot see that ‘ending the play’ points to the same thing as ‘it is possible to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth’ then you and I may as well cease corresponding forthwith RESPONDENT: But, every step along the way, you appear to want to trap your ‘opponent’. RICHARD: Perhaps you may be inclined to provide an example, from this current sequence betwixt you and I, so I can see for myself where you see my words as me wanting to trap you into experiencing the already always existing peace-on-earth for yourself? Alternatively, you might want to expand on your use of the word ‘opponent’ as there are no opponents here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: For someone who says he wants peace on earth, you sure spend a lot of time in confrontation – setting verbal traps on everybody. RICHARD: Now here is a curious oddity: I happened to discover that it is possible to be happy and harmless, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, yet when I share this discovery with my fellow human beings some of them become quite miffed and start arguing/debating with me rather than reading with both eyes open. ‘Tis all rather cute, non?
RESPONDENT No. 04: You really have to do something about these ‘stuck-in-a-groove’ type responses. I’m not concerned with fixing you up, as I am not prone to attempt the impossible and the hopeless. But I have tired of this, and don’t like using so much of my energy in these ‘tawdry’ discussions. So, with my blessings, you may have the pleasure of knowing that you have had the last word. Consider that I am doing you a favour, for, as you once said to me: ‘You are way out of your depth.’ Do be well. RESPONDENT: Yes, I got the feeling that Richard was stuck in a groove and was picking up speed – you know, like a machine that is stuck and goes around and around until it finally explodes. Yes, Richard, do be well. RICHARD: You may not have noticed that until I changed it two-three posts ago the title of this thread was ‘What Is The Actual Issue?’ in which you made the following request to me (amongst others of similar ilk) only seven days ago:
Yet when I do ‘make one point and stick with it until it was completed’ you write the following:
As you now say ‘yes, Richard, do be well’ could you please advise ASAP what I am to do next.
RESPONDENT: I have learned a lot from No. 10, and one of the most valuable things I have learned is to give up the ‘want.’ Try it. Say any sentence using the word ‘want,’ and then say the sentence leaving out the word ‘want.’ It makes a world of difference. RICHARD: What is motivating you to leave the word ‘want’ out of a sentence/any sentence?
RESPONDENT: Richard says he cares, but he doesn’t love. I care for the birds. I give them food and water. I care for my granddaughter. I feed her and clothe her. When I saw how desperately No. 33 behaved yesterday, I worried about him. Is that care? I sometimes am concerned about Richard, too. Is that care? The whole world cares about something. I’m just amazed how some people can use the word ‘care’ and not use the word ‘love.’ And, then there are those who can freely use the word ‘love’, and never care. There is no freedom in words. There must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality? That indeed must be a blissful state – to never a word, a thought, an idea, come to the mind . I can never know that I am seeing; that I am feeling; that I am saying as true/real/actual as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought, disturbing the mind. Utter stillness of the mind is that state of being which we are all seeking ... and making a lot of noise doing it. RICHARD: Not only ‘utter stillness of the mind’ ... utter stillness of the heart, as well. To paraphrase: not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ above). In other words: it is impossible to actually care unless one is carefree.
RESPONDENT: Richard says he cares, but he doesn’t love. I care for the birds. I give them food and water. I care for my granddaughter. I feed her and clothe her. When I saw how desperately No. 33 behaved yesterday, I worried about him. Is that care? I sometimes am concerned about Richard, too. Is that care? The whole world cares about something. I’m just amazed how some people can use the word ‘care’ and not use the word ‘love.’ And, then there are those who can freely use the word ‘love’, and never care. There is no freedom in words. There must be something behind these words that we speak. Everything has a term, but what is the actuality? That indeed must be a blissful state – to never a word, a thought, an idea, come to the mind . I can never know that I am seeing; that I am feeling; that I am saying as true/real/actual as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought, disturbing the mind. Utter stillness of the mind is that state of being which we are all seeking ... and making a lot of noise doing it. RICHARD: Not only ‘utter stillness of the mind’ ... utter stillness of the heart, as well. To paraphrase: not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ above). RESPONDENT: Yes, Richard, I certainly agree with you. I think that disturbances of the ‘heart’ are disturbances of the body – emotions and feelings, and I suppose ‘passion’, too. The word ‘passion’ just seems a bit stronger than ‘emotion.’ And, definitely the word ‘worried’ falls into that category of ‘disturbance’, and even the word ‘love,’ as well as the word ‘actuality’ because they are just words. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the word ‘actuality’ does not fall into the category of ‘disturbing the mind’ or the category of ‘disturbing the heart’. I will agree that the word ‘actuality’ falls into the category of being a word ... but you are busy with pejoratively categorising them all as being ‘just’ words when you know perfectly well that words refer to (or ‘point to’) something substantial or meaningful. This is cheap what you do here. RESPONDENT: So how does the actuality of ‘caring’ differ from the actuality of ‘love’. They are both just words. You describe that ‘state of being’ beyond the words as ‘actuality,’ and Krishnamurti used the word ‘love,’ to describe a state of being that was beyond all disturbance of the mind. RICHARD: He used the word ‘love’ to describe a state of being beyond all ‘disturbance of the mind’ , yes ... but I am speaking of beyond all ‘disturbance of the heart’ as well (and love is a disturbance of the heart). RESPONDENT: He (K) could have perhaps just as easily used the word ‘actuality’ instead of ‘love’, but I do not know why he didn’t, and any reason he didn’t would just be a guess on my part as well as yours. RICHARD: Not so ... there is no need to guess at all. May I refer you to a post of yours to this Mailing List some time back? Viz.:
If your own quote does not satisfy ... I have more quotes where he says [quote] ‘love is passion’ [endquote] that I can post if you want me to. RESPONDENT: Had Krishnamurti used the word ‘actuality’ to describe the state of being which he was talking about, perhaps you would have used the word ‘love’ to talk about the same thing since you are so set on being the only one to have discovered something that no other person has. RICHARD: Not at all ... I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Here it is again (slightly amended): not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the phrase ‘love is pure feeling’ above). RESPONDENT: After all, Richard, a state beyond all words, regardless of what word you want to use to describe that state, is a state beyond the word. RICHARD: But I have no trouble whatsoever in describing my on-going experiencing in words ... the English language has upwards of 650,000 words to chose from. * RICHARD: In other words: it is impossible to actually care unless one is carefree. RESPONDENT: That just may be a catchy phrase to attract adherence to ‘actualism.’ RICHARD: No ... I mean what I say and I say what I mean: how on earth can you actually care unless you be free of cares yourself? Otherwise it is but the blind leading the blind. I am not being frivolous when I speak of being carefree. RESPONDENT: It really doesn’t matter what word we use to describe a state of being that is free ... RICHARD: I beg to differ: it does matter. I am very word-specific. RESPONDENT: ... and Krishnamurti tried every word in the book to say that there is a dimension beyond the word/time. RICHARD: So what? I am not talking about being ‘beyond the word/time’ ... and you are having a discussion with Richard, are you not?
RICHARD: But I have no trouble whatsoever in describing my on-going experiencing in words ... the English language has upwards of 650,000 words to chose from. RESPONDENT: I didn’t say you had trouble describing. I’m saying that words are not the ‘thing’ and must be left at the door, all 650,000 of them. Are you ready to unload? RICHARD: CLICK HERE
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 |
