|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT: ‘Opinion’, ‘conditioning’, ‘thinking’ ... makes no difference. RICHARD: There is no problem with ‘thinking’ per se ... and a person sans ‘conditioning’ can still have an opinion on a matter. RESPONDENT: An opinion stems from the re-action of the ego. RICHARD: Not necessarily. An opinion is nothing more sinister than an appraisal or estimation of a situation, based upon currently known information, as being probably correct though not certain or established ... only where it is fervently believed to be true does an opinion become a problem. RESPONDENT: The ego is conditioned otherwise it wouldn’t exist. RICHARD: There is more to ‘ego’ than conditioning ... it has its roots in the animal self. * RESPONDENT: Such is the state of the world we are living in. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... ‘such’ is not the state of the world I live in. RESPONDENT: I stand corrected. I was just speaking of the majority. RICHARD: What I found beneficial, many years ago, was to speak for myself – and not just for ‘the majority’ – as it made it quite clear where the problem was intimately applicable. For example: ‘Such is the state of the world ‘I’ am living in’. RESPONDENT: Yes, I can do that. The state of the world that I and all others (with the exception of Richard, who lives in another world entirely) live in a world rampant with opinions, conditioning, and thinking. RICHARD: You are still talking for ‘the majority’ ... only you have now made it ‘all others’ (with one exception). Here is a shortened comparison:
What others do with their world is their own business ... only you can change your world. * RICHARD: Then ‘I’ can do something substantive about ‘my’ world ... what others (be they ‘the majority’ or not) do with their world is their business. RESPONDENT: Yes. I can do some things for and by myself, but when I reach my limits, can I surrender into the unknown? That is the beauty. RICHARD: When your time comes you will find that you can do all things for yourself (not just ‘some things’) – nobody else can do it for you anyway – and you will find that the line drawn in the sand called ‘limits’ keeps shifting of its own accord. But your time will not come until you comprehend, deeply, fundamentally, that only you can do it and that only you will do it. By the way ... I would not advise ‘surrender’ as that smacks of giving up. * RESPONDENT: It is full of little ‘thinkers’ who follow the way of their thinking which is taking us all down the path to destruction. RICHARD: The little ‘feelers’ are far more powerful, and far more insidious, than the ‘little ‘thinkers’’ any day of the week. There is no problem with ‘thinking’ per se – ‘tis the instinctually-bred feelings which are driving thoughts along the ‘path to destruction’ – yet it is what is called the good side of the instinctually-bred feelings which are trumpeted as being the solution to the problem. For some peculiar reason the little ‘feelers’ are held to be sacrosanct. RESPONDENT: If little ‘feelers’ are held to be sacrosanct, ‘memory’ is held to be even more sacrosanct. Both feelings and thinking have their base in memory which is, of course, our programming, whether from this lifetime or the life of the ‘lizard brain.’ RICHARD: The instinctually-bred feelings – and thus the feeling ‘self’ – pre-dates ‘memory’ ... a baby instinctively feels-out the world long before thought and memory operate. RESPONDENT: A baby instinctually suckles, cries, crawls, and walks. RICHARD: And instinctively feels-out the world long before thought and its memory begins to operate. RESPONDENT: A baby’s conditioning begins in its mother’s arms. RICHARD: I am not talking about surface stuff such as ‘conditioning’ ... one needs to dig deeper than that. RESPONDENT: Memory serves the function of survival. RICHARD: Amongst other things ... yes. RESPONDENT: It is because we retain and build upon memory for psychological satisfaction that the problems start. RICHARD: You are still paddling around on the surface. * RESPONDENT: The three I’s of which you speak are nothing more than memory, and memory is accumulated through time. RICHARD: There is much more than ‘memory’ involved ... amnesiacs can still experience malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion, for an example. RESPONDENT: You’re bringing in people who are mentally incapacitated. RICHARD: No, I am bringing in people whose thinking memory has ceased to function. RESPONDENT: What kind of proof is that? RICHARD: It is proof that the feelings operate independent of thoughts’ memory. * RESPONDENT: To act according to our conditioning, which is thinking/ feeling drawn from memory, is the way the majority of human beings carry on in this world. RICHARD: Dig deeper than that, in yourself, and you will find that the instinctual passions underpin all ‘thinking/ feeling drawn from memory’ ... the ‘conditioning’ is but well-meant attempts by one’s parents, peers and the public at large to control the animal ‘self’. RESPONDENT: There are instincts that guarantee physical life on Earth. I do not know why you blame those for all the ills of the Earth. RICHARD: I am not blaming the ‘instincts’ per se ... it is the instinctual passions and their animal ‘self’ that I am pointing the finger at. RESPONDENT: The ills of the earth, i.e., malice, sorrow, rape, mayhem, etc., are not the result of the basic instincts. RICHARD: They are the result of the basic instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Basic instincts guarantee our survival, but upon those instincts, feeling/thinking have added the whole business of the ‘ego.’ RICHARD: Feelings are rooted in the instinctual passions ... do you really think such a powerful force as passion can be added into the child? RESPONDENT: ‘Feelings’ are not the same as instincts, and instincts are not a problem. RICHARD: If you wish to paddle around on the surface then that is your business. * RESPONDENT: If first, one could stop being overwhelmed by one’s thinking and look at what one is doing, with intent, one could stop the insanity of one’s action. RICHARD: Not unless the feelings are also looked at ... it is feelings that overwhelm where push comes to shove. RESPONDENT: This is your idea. RICHARD: Not so. It is easily observable for those with the eyes to see ... and not just in the human animal. RESPONDENT: Feelings and thinking are inextricably linked where there is re-action. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... and feelings come first in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first) anyway. This has been scientifically demonstrated under strict laboratory conditions, again and again, by Mr. Joseph LeDoux, for example. It takes 12-14 milliseconds, from the first sensate contact, for the nerve signal to reach the amygdala (where the passions are triggered) and a further 12-14 milliseconds for the signal to then reach the cerebral cortex (where the thoughts are triggered). By the time thinking begins the ‘lizard brain’ is pumping chemicals which flood not only the body but the cerebral cortex as well. This means that thoughts are saturated with feelings when they commence. RESPONDENT: Instincts guarantee survival. RICHARD: Not ‘guarantee’, no. * RESPONDENT: One could say, ‘I do not have to act according to what I have been taught, what I am conditioned to do’. RICHARD: What about what one is genetically programmed to do (the instinctive freeze, flee or fight reaction, for instance)? RESPONDENT: There is no proof that ‘freezing’, ‘fleeing’, or ‘fighting’ is genetically programmed. That is what you and others say. I learn those things, those feelings. I once raised a baby bird from about 3 days old. It had no fear of the cat, the dog, or anything else that I could discern. In fact, when I tried to let it go, it flew back and landed on the cat’s head. The only instinct that bird had was to fly. It even had to be fed. So where do you get your proof that fear is genetic? RICHARD: I am talking of fear itself ... whereas you are talking about fear of something (fear of something is learnt, obviously). RESPONDENT: You can hold a baby over a three-story balcony, and there is no fear. There is no fear of falling until the baby learns that falling can be dangerous. RICHARD: Indeed ... a baby will just as likely pick up a snake in the grass as a garden hose. Once again you are talking about fear of something and not fear itself. RESPONDENT: I have raised a lot of animals. RICHARD: So have I ... I was born and raised on a farm. RESPONDENT: Fear is a learned trait. RICHARD: No ... the fear of something is a ‘learned trait’. * RESPONDENT: Then, seeing that you at that moment are totally, 100% responsible for every action, every word, every thought that emanates from that blood and bones body, at that moment – in that state of 100% responsibility – you are freed of the ‘I’ as the ego, ‘I’ as the soul, the ‘I’ as feelings, or any other ‘I’ you can imagine. RICHARD: ‘Tis not your fault you were born the way you were (genetically programmed with passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire). RESPONDENT: Of the four things you mentioned, only desire and nurture are instinct. RICHARD: Well ... half-way there is better than nothing (in the years gone by you used to tell me that the baby is born clean). Viz.:
And again:
RESPONDENT: These are instincts that are necessary for the survival of the species. RICHARD: And so are fear and aggression, for example ... these are easily observed in animals (especially what is called the ‘higher order’ animals). RESPONDENT: Without them we would be dead. RICHARD: And with them people are killing each other (and themselves). RESPONDENT: But, to blame instincts for all the violence in the world is absolutely ridiculous. RICHARD: I am talking of what is at root ... of course there are many other factors built on top of the basic instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: I was not born aggressive, for that is not an instinct. RICHARD: You must be the only animal on the planet who was not, then. RESPONDENT: It is a learned trait. If I first learned to kill because I was hungry, that is the instinct of hunger. RICHARD: I am not talking of killing for food. * RESPONDENT: If only one terrorist had seen the insanity of his conditioning and stood up on one ill-fated plane that went down in American on September 11 and said, ‘I do not have to do this’ the course of history would have been altered. RICHARD: Better still: if only No. 19 would stand up and actually do what she proposes (instead of wanting another to do it instead) she would show by example and not just by precept. It carries far more weight if one lives what one promulgates ... the validity is thus demonstrated in action and the appropriate words come forth convincingly. RESPONDENT: Absolutely. I was only giving an example that if you, I, and many others would do what I propose that the direction of the world could be substantially changed/transformed in that moment. RICHARD: Unless you first do whatever it is that you propose it remains a theory only. * RESPONDENT: This transformation of thinking by each one of us on this earth has to affect the outcome of history. RICHARD: I see that you are focussing on the ‘transformation of thinking’ ... what about the feelings? RESPONDENT: This transformation of thinking comes about by dropping our history, every bit of it, from this second back and into the future. RICHARD: Still focussed on blaming ‘thinking’, I see. RESPONDENT: Not true at all, Richard. I gave ‘feeling’ equal billing with ‘thinking’: viz.: ‘Both feelings and thinking have their base in memory which is, of course, our programming, whether from this lifetime or the life of the ‘lizard brain’.’ RICHARD: Aye ... but your ‘equal billing’ is to shift feelings from the depths of the human psyche up to the surface where thought (and its memory) is ... even though you pay lip-service to the lizard brain. And I say that it is ‘lip-service’ because you defend the lizard brains’ instinctual passions vigorously as being necessary for survival (only you are careful to call them ‘instincts’ and not instinctual passions as if we are talking about the same thing). I will say it again: feelings come first, and thoughts come second, in the reactionary process. * RESPONDENT: It is when we follow our thinking/feeling (our history) that we bring destruction to ourselves and the world. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘feeling’ gets a brief mention here (albeit linked to and coming after ‘thinking’). RESPONDENT: The slash means that I give them equality. As I mentioned above, ‘feelings’ and ‘thinking’ are inextricably linked, but ‘feelings’ and ‘thinking’ are NOT the instincts that guarantee survival of the species. RICHARD: Do you see how emphatically you are defending the instinctual passions (and calling them ‘instincts’) ... as if they are squeaky-clean and above investigation? * RESPONDENT: ‘Thinking’ per se can be used intelligently, as a tool, or it can be followed by programmed ‘thinkers’ – ‘little thinkers.’ RICHARD: And thus you finish as you started – blaming the ‘little thinkers’ once again – after paying lip-service to the role the feelings play in the entire shemozzle. RESPONDENT: You just have an agenda to blame the ‘feeler’ who is also the ‘thinker’. RICHARD: No, my agenda is peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Do you have this agenda so that you can further divide the ego in order to have more to debate about, or are you just confused about instincts and feelings/thinking? RICHARD: Neither. * RICHARD: And thus is the way that the little ‘feeler’ is kept inviolate. RESPONDENT: No, he is the same as the thinker. RICHARD: And thus you again finish as you started.
RESPONDENT: Feelings and thinking are inextricably linked where there is re-action. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... and feelings come first in the reactionary process (albeit a split-second first) anyway. This has been scientifically demonstrated under strict laboratory conditions, again and again, by Mr. Joseph LeDoux, for example. It takes 12-14 milliseconds, from the first sensate contact, for the nerve signal to reach the amygdala (where the passions are triggered) and a further 12-14 milliseconds for the signal to then reach the cerebral cortex (where the thoughts are triggered). By the time thinking begins the ‘lizard brain’ is pumping chemicals which flood not only the body but the cerebral cortex as well. This means that thoughts are saturated with feelings when they commence. RESPONDENT No. 39: In looking at sensation directly, it looks like there is no sensation without thought. RICHARD: If you reach out your hand you can touch the glass, which is but a few millimetres to the front of these words you are reading, and the fingertips will verify that sensation exists independent of thought ... no thought is required at all as touch is immediate and direct. The same applies to the sensate awareness of the eyes seeing but it is initially less obvious than touch. RESPONDENT: I thought we were talking about the psychological ‘feelings’ of anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc., and not the physical sensations that are transmitted through the neurological nerve endings. RICHARD: Well, you were talking about what you call ‘the psychological ‘feelings’’ – until you found it [quote] ‘tiresome’ [endquote] halfway through that is – whereas I was talking about the genetically-inherited instinctual passions ... but No. 39 had asked this question of another, a week or more ago in another thread, and was speaking of sensation and how it related to thought (and not the reactionary process you and I were discussing) so I responded accordingly. In either case, however, for maybe 6.0 billion peoples the sensate experience (sensation) is primary, the affective experience (feelings) is secondary and the cerebral experience (thought) is tertiary. The primary experience is pristine.
RESPONDENT: I thought we were talking about the psychological ‘feelings’ of anger, sadness, happiness, fear, etc., and not the physical sensations that are transmitted through the neurological nerve endings. RICHARD: Well, you were talking about what you call ‘the psychological ‘feelings’’ – until you found it [quote] ‘tiresome’ [endquote] halfway through that is – whereas I was talking about the genetically-inherited instinctual passions ... but No. 39 had asked this question of another, a week or more ago in another thread, and was speaking of sensation and how it related to thought (and not the reactionary process you and I were discussing) so I responded accordingly. In either case, however, for maybe 6.0 billion peoples the sensate experience (sensation) is primary, the affective experience (feelings) is secondary and the cerebral experience (thought) is tertiary. The primary experience is pristine. RESPONDENT: I do not doubt that the primary experience is pristine. RICHARD: Good ... for that (the sensate world) is where the already always existing peace-on-earth is. RESPONDENT: I still say that feelings and thought are inextricably linked. RICHARD: And such is the conventional wisdom. RESPONDENT: I touch the stove and it is hot. I felt it. That is natural. RICHARD: That is the sensate experience (sensation) ... yes. RESPONDENT: To touch the stove and get angry because it is hot is to inextricably link ‘feelings’ and ‘thought’. That is the difference between sensate and psychological ‘feelings’ that I am talking about. RICHARD: How? The sequence of experience, as I wrote above, is the sensate experience (sensation) first; the affective experience (feelings) second; the cerebral experience (thought) third. The routing of the nerve signal goes first to the thalamus, whereupon the signal is split into two, with one part going to the amygdala (12-14 milliseconds) which induces an immediate affective reaction and another going to the cortex (25 milliseconds) which induces a thought response. There is also a broadband connection direct from the amygdala to the cortex and a narrowband connection from the cortex back to the amygdala ... which is why it is difficult for thought to dampen the broadband signal (affective) when thought, upon reflection, finds the instinctual passionate reaction of the amygdala to be either inaccurate or too strong. RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand why you bring in ‘instinctual passions’ ... RICHARD: Because virtually all sentient beings are born with them ... unless you are proposing that animals can think I cannot see how you can make the case that feelings and thought are ‘inextricably linked’. RESPONDENT: ... nor do I understand what they are. RICHARD: Basically: fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: There are instincts ... RICHARD: Yes ... jerking one’s hand away from the hot stove is an instinctive reflex action. RESPONDENT: ... and there is passion ... RICHARD: Aye ... and where does such a powerful force as passion come from if it is not genetically-inherited? It stretches credibility too far to maintain that passion can be taught: passion is innate just as thought is (and the ability to speak such thoughts). Just as a person can be taught what to think, and how to think, so can a person can be taught what to feel, and how to feel ... but the basic faculties (both cerebral and affective) are innate. And the current science is that both faculties come hard-wired. RESPONDENT: ... but I think you are complicating the issue with ‘instinctual passions’. I do not agree, nor see, that fear is an ‘instinctual passion’. RICHARD: A baby can be taught what to fear but unless fear itself (the root feeling of fear) is already in place such teaching would have no effect whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Care to explain it again? RICHARD: Sure ... how did it come across this time around?
RICHARD: ... for maybe 6.0 billion peoples the sensate experience (sensation) is primary, the affective experience (feelings) is secondary and the cerebral experience (thought) is tertiary. The primary experience is pristine. RESPONDENT: I do not doubt that the primary experience is pristine. RICHARD: Good ... for that (the sensate world) is where the already always existing peace-on-earth is. RESPONDENT: I still say that feelings and thought are inextricably linked. RICHARD: And such is the conventional wisdom. RESPONDENT: I touch the stove and it is hot. I felt it. That is natural. RICHARD: That is the sensate experience (sensation) ... yes. RESPONDENT: To touch the stove and get angry because it is hot is to inextricably link ‘feelings’ and ‘thought’. That is the difference between sensate and psychological ‘feelings’ that I am talking about. RICHARD: How? The sequence of experience is the sensate experience (sensation) first; the affective experience (feelings) second; the cerebral experience (thought) third. The routing of the nerve signal goes first to the thalamus, whereupon the signal is split into two, with one part going to the amygdala (12-14 milliseconds) which induces an immediate affective reaction and another going to the cortex (25 milliseconds) which induces a thought response. There is also a broadband connection direct from the amygdala to the cortex and a narrowband connection from the cortex back to the amygdala ... which is why it is difficult for thought to dampen the broadband signal (affective) when thought, upon reflection, finds the instinctual passionate reaction of the amygdala to be either inaccurate or too strong. RESPONDENT: I see no need to know how many milliseconds it takes for anything to go through the cortex to the amygdala bringing about ‘instinctual passions’. RICHARD: Yet it does not go through ‘the cortex to the amygdala’ – the nerve signal goes first to the amygdala (which is where the instinctual passions are triggered) and then to the cortex – if you are going to reject something as being unnecessary information you could at least make it look like you understand what you are dismissing. RESPONDENT: Who cares? RICHARD: Not you, apparently. RESPONDENT: Having all of that scientific knowledge (even if it is so) does nothing to bring about ‘peace of Earth’ as you call it. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not know of any research on this subject when I started to actively investigate the human condition in myself 20 or more years ago: as I intimately explored the depths of ‘being’ it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the source of ‘self’ – were the root cause of all the ills of humankind. I came across the information I provided (further above) only three or so years ago. RESPONDENT: Knowledge does not set us free. RICHARD: Again, speaking personally, I found out for myself ... I only provide information (such as above) so that nobody has to take my word for it. * RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand why you bring in ‘instinctual passions’ ... RICHARD: Because virtually all sentient beings are born with them ... unless you are proposing that animals can think I cannot see how you can make the case that feelings and thought are ‘inextricably linked’. RESPONDENT: ... nor do I understand what they are. RICHARD: Basically: fear and aggression and nurture and desire. RESPONDENT: There are instincts ... RICHARD: Yes ... jerking one’s hand away from the hot stove is an instinctive reflex action. RESPONDENT: ... and there is passion ... RICHARD: Aye ... and where does such a powerful force as passion come from if it is not genetically-inherited? It stretches credibility too far to maintain that passion can be taught: passion is innate just as thought is (and the ability to speak such thoughts). Just as a person can be taught what to think, and how to think, so can a person can be taught what to feel, and how to feel ... but the basic faculties (both cerebral and affective) are innate. And the current science is that both faculties come hard-wired. RESPONDENT: ... but I think you are complicating the issue with ‘instinctual passions’. I do not agree, nor see, that fear is an ‘instinctual passion’. RICHARD: A baby can be taught what to fear but unless fear itself (the root feeling of fear) is already in place such teaching would have no effect whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Care to explain it again? RICHARD: Sure ... how did it come across this time around? RESPONDENT: Same old, same old. RICHARD: What did you expect when you asked ‘care to explain it again’ ... or was that just so that you could say ‘same-old, same old’?
RICHARD: Mr. Rabindranath Tagore also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT No. 33: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? RESPONDENT: Please allow me to respond to this question. I would dearly love to tell you what he is. RICHARD: I always prefer to ask directly – rather than second-guess what another is – as it is more reliable that way. Basically there are several options possible when a self-professed Hindu says that their god is the infinitude of the universe: a pantheist (as explicated in the later Vedas), an acosmic pantheist (as explicated by Mr. Shankara), a panentheist (as explicated by Mr. Radhakrishnan) or a monist panentheist (as explicated by Mr. Ramanuja) ... but there is also the slight possibility of being a panpsychist as well. Ain’t life grand!
RICHARD: ... in 1980, ‘I’/‘me’, the persona that was, looked out deep into the inky darkness betwixt the twinkling stars and actually saw this vastness called the universe for the very first time ... and temporarily disappeared; in 1980, this flesh and blood body experienced that this universe is magically capable of bringing this flesh and blood body into existence, is wondrously competent at keeping this flesh and blood body alive, and is amazingly able to bring this flesh and blood body to an end; in 1980, this flesh and blood body experienced that this universe was packed full of meaning and that the ‘I’/‘me’ had been searching everywhere for meaning in vain ... it had already always been just here, right now, all along. RESPONDENT No. 21: What is the meaning it was packed full of? What is the meaning of the universe? RICHARD: When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful and rapturous ‘States Of Being’ ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble. It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent – as a physical actuality. The limpid and lucid purity and perfection of actually being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent bead of moisture with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with at length has experienced this impeccable integrity and excellence in some way or another at varying stages in their life. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t it be much simpler just to refer to all of that simplicity as ‘scared’? RICHARD: Because, as I already remarked (in the fifth sentence above), I am speaking of something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble. * RICHARD: This preciosity is what one is as-one-is – me as I am in actuality as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ am in reality – for one is the universe’s experience of itself. Is it not impossible to conceive – and just too difficult to imagine – that this is one’s essential character? One has to be daring enough to live it – for it is both one’s audacious birth-right and one’s adventurous destiny – thus the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is but the harbinger of the potential made actual. RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness without an experience is the unknown. RICHARD: Whereas what I am speaking of is beyond ‘the unknown’ ... it is the unknowable (there is, in the religio-spiritual parlance, three states: the known, the unknown, and the unknowable). * RICHARD: As I said earlier: there is an unimaginable purity which is born out of the stillness of the infinitude as manifest at this moment in time and this place in space ... but one will not come upon it by thinking about or feeling out its character. It is most definitely not a matter to be pursued in the rarefied atmosphere of the most refined mind or the evocative milieu of the most impassioned heart. One must come to one’s senses ... both literally and metaphorically. RESPONDENT: The ‘senses’ are only a limited temporary experience. RICHARD: Where one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe, directly experiencing the preciosity of living itself, it matters not that this flesh and blood body has a finite lifetime. RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness is as infinite and timeless as the universe itself – both literally and metaphorically. RICHARD: As this universe is no more ‘timeless’ than it is spaceless or formless you cannot possibly be speaking ‘literally’.
RICHARD: When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. Something beyond compare. Something more valuable than any ‘King’s Ransom’. It is not rare gemstones; it is not singular works of art; it is not the much-prized bags of money; it is not the treasured loving relationships; it is not the highly esteemed blissful and rapturous ‘States Of Being’ ... it is not any of these things usually considered precious. There is something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble. It is the essential character of the infinitude of the universe – which is the life-giving foundation of all that is apparent – as a physical actuality. The limpid and lucid purity and perfection of actually being just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time is akin to the crystalline perfection and purity seen in a dew-drop hanging from the tip of a leaf in the early-morning sunshine; the sunrise strikes the transparent bead of moisture with its warming rays, highlighting the flawless correctness of the tear-drop shape with its bellied form. One is left almost breathless with wonder at the immaculate simplicity so exemplified ... and everyone I have spoken with at length has experienced this impeccable integrity and excellence in some way or another at varying stages in their life. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t it be much simpler just to refer to all of that simplicity as ‘scared’? RICHARD: Because, as I already remarked (in the fifth sentence above), I am speaking of something ultimately precious that makes the ‘sacred’ a mere bauble. RESPONDENT: Is it your palaverous and flowery description of something which makes it ‘more precious’ than ‘sacred’? RICHARD: Actuality exists independent of me and my description ... which means that no matter how you view me or my writing style it will not go away. * RICHARD: This preciosity is what one is as-one-is – me as I am in actuality as distinct from ‘me’ as ‘I’ am in reality – for one is the universe’s experience of itself. Is it not impossible to conceive – and just too difficult to imagine – that this is one’s essential character? One has to be daring enough to live it – for it is both one’s audacious birth-right and one’s adventurous destiny – thus the pure consciousness experience (PCE) is but the harbinger of the potential made actual. RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness without an experience is the unknown. RICHARD: Whereas what I am speaking of is beyond ‘the unknown’ ... it is the unknowable (there is, in the religio-spiritual parlance, three states: the known, the unknown, and the unknowable). RESPONDENT: Oh, my. Now we’re really getting ‘nit-picky’ – the ‘unknowable’ (of which you speak) is far beyond the ‘unknown.’ RICHARD: It is not ‘getting ‘nit-picky’’ at all ... as you had introduced the term ‘unknown’ into the discussion I simply carried on putting it in the mystical terminology of the East (in terms recently resurrected and made popular by Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain). To wit: there is the ‘Known’, the ‘Unknown’ and the ‘Unknowable’. RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, are you now, which you have refuted many times, finding it convenient to use the vernacular of ‘spiritual parlance’ as per your description given here as your state of ‘unknowing’? RICHARD: No ... and as it was you who introduced the term ‘unknown’ into the discussion I cannot see the reason why you are pursuing this line of analysis. It is this simple: the Eastern mystical wisdom holds the tenet that the ‘normal-world’ reality (where 6.0 billion people live) is the ‘Known’ and the ‘abnormal-world’ Greater Reality (where 0.0000001 of the population live) is the ‘Unknown’ ... and the ‘Unknowable’ lies beyond physical death (Mahasamadhi, Parinirvana and so on). Therefore, in those terms, this actual world where Richard lives is the ‘Unknowable’ ... and the good news is that one does not have to wait until physical death to be free of the human condition. RESPONDENT: Is the fact that you and only you know it what makes it beyond the ‘unknown’? RICHARD: No ... to become enlightened is to stop half-way: to go all the way not only does the ego die (spiritual freedom), so too does the soul become extinct (actual freedom). * RICHARD: As I said earlier: there is an unimaginable purity which is born out of the stillness of the infinitude as manifest at this moment in time and this place in space ... but one will not come upon it by thinking about or feeling out its character. It is most definitely not a matter to be pursued in the rarefied atmosphere of the most refined mind or the evocative milieu of the most impassioned heart. RESPONDENT: Amen to that – ‘... not a matter to be pursued ... [by] the most refined mind ...’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... nor in the evocative milieu of the most impassioned heart * RICHARD: One must come to one’s senses ... both literally and metaphorically. RESPONDENT: The ‘senses’ are only a limited temporary experience. RICHARD: Where one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe, directly experiencing the preciosity of living itself, it matters not that this flesh and blood body has a finite lifetime. RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness is as infinite and timeless as the universe itself – both literally and metaphorically. RICHARD: As this universe is no more ‘timeless’ than it is spaceless or formless you cannot possibly be speaking ‘literally’. RESPONDENT: Yes, I am speaking of ‘literally’ ... a psychological state of mind/being in which there is no time, perhaps the ‘unknowable’ ... . RICHARD: Then you are not talking ‘literally’ but, rather, psychologically ... whereas I am not talking of ‘a psychological state of mind/being’ (in which there is not only ‘no time’ but no space and no form either) as I am clearly speaking of walking naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe, directly experiencing the preciosity of living itself. Put simply: when I say literally I mean actually ... not psychologically.
RICHARD: When one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe there is the direct experiencing that there is something precious in living itself. (snip discussion about writing style). RICHARD: One must come to one’s senses ... both literally and metaphorically. RESPONDENT: The ‘senses’ are only a limited temporary experience. RICHARD: Where one walks naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe, directly experiencing the preciosity of living itself, it matters not that this flesh and blood body has a finite lifetime. RESPONDENT: Pure consciousness is as infinite and timeless as the universe itself – both literally and metaphorically. RICHARD: As this universe is no more ‘timeless’ than it is spaceless or formless you cannot possibly be speaking ‘literally’. RESPONDENT: Yes, I am speaking of ‘literally’ ... a psychological state of mind/being in which there is no time, perhaps the ‘unknowable’. RICHARD: Then you are not talking ‘literally’ but, rather, psychologically ... whereas I am not talking of ‘a psychological state of mind/being’ (in which there is not only ‘no time’ but no space and no form either) as I am clearly speaking of walking naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) in the infinitude of this actual universe, directly experiencing the preciosity of living itself. Put simply: when I say literally I mean actually ... not psychologically. RESPONDENT: I can concur with everything you say and all that other Stupid Shit That Makes Absolutely No Fucking Sense Whatsoever and Then Forcing Unsuspecting Readers to Waste Precious Time Sifting Through the Mindless Wasteland of Palaverous Text Underneath the Title Before They Finally Get to the Goddamn Story. RICHARD: So ends sensible discussion then ... and yet there are those who persist in saying that if only women ran the world it would be a better place.
RICHARD to No. 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RICHARD: Okay ... this quote will throw some light upon the matter:
RICHARD to No 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RICHARD: Okay ... this quote will throw some light upon the matter: [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd). RESPONDENT: That is a wonderful quote, and I full heartedly agree with the message, but what does it have to do with No. 33? RICHARD: Here is the most recent example:
RICHARD to No. 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RICHARD: Okay ... this quote will throw some light upon the matter: [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd). RESPONDENT: That is a wonderful quote, and I full heartedly agree with the message, but what does it have to do with No. 33? RICHARD: Here is the most recent example: [No. 33]: ‘... if the man did not live by his own Teaching, then the Teachings have zero value – zilch, shunya, null, void, cypher’. RESPONDENT: And that is what you find ‘interesting’ in No. 33’s posts? RICHARD: I would be interested in the posts of anybody who stands on their own two feet and starts to think for themselves. RESPONDENT: I notice in the quote that you offer No. 33 begins his statement with ‘if’. In other posts, he has flatly said out that Krishnamurti displayed ‘anger.’ Obviously, he is not really sure himself. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... have you considered the possibility that it is a rhetorical usage of the word ‘if’? RESPONDENT: IF the only information No. 33 has of how K lived is second handed and hearsay and his own interpretation of what he ‘saw’ or ‘heard’ K say, why would anyone want to believe him? RICHARD: There is a wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ... No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact (in his case whilst being at the Rishi Valley school) and as such his report would not, at the very least, be dismissed out of hand by any thoughtful person as being merely an ‘interpretation’. RESPONDENT: I question No. 33’s good judgement ... in fact I question all his judgements, which he is full of. RICHARD: Do you similarly question Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s good judgement ... in fact do you question all his judgements, which he is full of?
RESPONDENT: I question No. 33’s good judgement ... in fact I question all his judgements, which he is full of. RICHARD: Do you similarly question Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s good judgement ... in fact do you question all his judgements, which he is full of? RESPONDENT: Mr. K is dead, so I have no questions of him at all. The teachings live in the books, tapes, and videos, so is your question ‘do I question the teachings?’ RICHARD: No, my question is do you question Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s good judgement (which is to be found in the books, tapes, and videos) ... in fact do you question all his judgements (which are to be found in the books, tapes, and videos), which he was full of? RESPONDENT: The teachings were for me an instruction booklet on how to see myself, that’s all. RICHARD: Yet as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was unable to see himself then what is the worth of the ‘Teachings’ as an instruction booklet? RESPONDENT: I learned that life is relationship, and that is constantly changing, so you might say that everything is always in question. RICHARD: Okay ... let us start here then: are you prepared to question whether life is indeed relationship?
RICHARD: There is a wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ... No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact (in his case whilst being at the Rishi Valley school) and as such his report would not, at the very least, be dismissed out of hand by any thoughtful person as being merely an ‘interpretation’. RESPONDENT: No. 33’s interpretations were not ‘dismissed out of hand’, but were dismissed after viewing his many contradictory posting assessments. RICHARD: I have read No. 33’s posts for maybe four years now – and when the original archives were on-line I backtracked through to the beginning to find out what had already been published – and I took notice of the general thrust of what he put forward regarding Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’ over the many years that he has been writing. I found that, by and large, he was reasonably consistent (given that it is touchy subject to question and that he received very little support and/or encouragement) and that it is to his credit that he still persists. It is such an obvious thing to do, to establish whether the speaker is living the ‘Teachings’ he promulgates, that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so.
RICHARD: There is a wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ... No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact (in his case whilst being at the Rishi Valley school) and as such his report would not, at the very least, be dismissed out of hand by any thoughtful person as being merely an ‘interpretation’. RESPONDENT: No. 33’s interpretations were not ‘dismissed out of hand’, but were dismissed after viewing his many contradictory posting assessments. RICHARD: I have read No. 33’s posts for maybe four years now – and when the original archives were on-line I backtracked through to the beginning to find out what had already been published – and I took notice of the general thrust of what he put forward regarding Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’ over the many years that he has been writing. I found that, by and large, he was reasonably consistent (given that it is touchy subject to question and that he received very little support and/or encouragement) and that it is to his credit that he still persists. It is such an obvious thing to do, to establish whether the speaker is living the ‘Teachings’ he promulgates, that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so. RESPONDENT: And I wonder why there is so much obsession with proving that K did not live what he preached. RICHARD: It is not an ‘obsession’ ... it is a simple, straightforward and obvious case of ascertaining whether the enlightened state is a worthwhile state to live in or not. RESPONDENT: I wonder what is the agenda in wanting to promulgate that concern. RICHARD: My agenda is quite clear and unambiguous: spiritual enlightenment has been proposed by many peoples throughout human history as being the solution to all the ills of humankind – not just by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – and as it does not release the enlightened person from anger or anguish in toto it is therefore not worthwhile pursuing. I found the following observation to be quite explicit:
There are many examples of saints and sages and seers displaying varying degrees of those emotions I usually group under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (often disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). RESPONDENT: It would seem to me that one have to ask the man point blank to know for sure what is was speaking from. RICHARD: Well, as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is dead that is not an option but you could try asking No. 10 ... here is what he had to say, on this very mailing list some time ago, on the subject of experiencing anguish:
RESPONDENT: Lively exchanges can certainly be misinterpreted. RICHARD: True ... but they can also be seen accurately too. RESPONDENT: Therefore, it is very possible that No. 33 cannot objectively tell the difference between ‘lively intensity’ and ‘anger’. RICHARD: Yet it is equally very possible that he can objectively tell the difference ... he certainly knew what the appropriate questions to ask No. 10 were.
RESPONDENT No. 19 (Part Thirteen) 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 |
