|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 21
RESPONDENT: We do not eradicate anger. We see and experience the futility of it and it gives us up. We may move ahead and back somewhat but the overall direction is out. RICHARD: Never mind the ‘we’ ... has anger moved out for you personally, once and for all, or is all the above just theory?
RICHARD: ... all flora and fauna, stripped of any imposed illusion, actually exist then? RESPONDENT No. 33: Define existence. RICHARD: This physical universe (time and space and form) as an objective actuality and not as a concept. RESPONDENT No. 33: What is the extent of the universe (existence) as you define it? RICHARD: It is immeasurably vast: spatially it is infinite; temporally it is eternal; materially it is perpetual. (snip astronomical and cosmogonical discussion). This universe is absolute ... it is not relative to anything. RESPONDENT No. 33: Agreed. RICHARD: Good ... I take it, therefore, that your previous statements regarding the relativity of all existence are no longer valid? Viz.: [No. 33]: ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative. [Richard]: ‘What is this universe ‘relative’ to (as an actuality and not as a concept)? [No. 33]: ‘So, within that relativity, yes, stripped of illusion, flora and fauna exist. [Richard]: ‘What ‘relativity’ are you talking about (other than the mathematician’s relativity)? RESPONDENT No. 33: The universe, as you define it, is absolute. RICHARD: Aye ... and as the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter) what is called the ‘relative’ is actually the absolute. RESPONDENT No. 33: All other existence is relative to that absolute. RICHARD: What ‘other existence’ are you talking about? There is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe. RESPONDENT No. 33: For example, flora and fauna are born, grow, and die. RICHARD: Yes ... this is matter arranging and rearranging itself perpetually (matter as either mass or energy). RESPONDENT No. 33: All three activities need a reference point, which is provided by the universe (the absolute). RICHARD: As all flora and fauna are as much the universe as all the stars are (which are born, grow, age and die) where is there a ‘reference point’ ? All of the universe is in a constate state of flux. RESPONDENT No. 33: It matters not if someone else calls this universe Brahma, Void, Otherness, foo, or Coca-Cola. RICHARD: It matters inasmuch as it informs the listener where the speaker is speaking from ... to call this physical universe ‘Brahma’ indicates a Hindu conditioning; to call this physical universe ‘Void’ indicates a poor quality Buddhist understanding; to call this physical universe ‘Otherness’ indicates a generalised religio-spiritual comprehension; to call this physical universe ‘foo’ indicates ignorance; to call this physical universe ‘Coca-Cola’ indicates a cleverness operating. Therefore, in the interests of clarity of communication, I prefer to call it by its proper name. RESPONDENT No. 33: That is fine. Let us call it universe in our future discussions. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT No. 33: Here are a few attributes of universe, as I see them: 1. Universe is the absolute against which all change is perceived. RICHARD: You are aware, of course, that the universe is as much the building you are sitting in reading these words as it is ‘out there’ in the far reaches of galactic distance? RESPONDENT: The universe was created. RICHARD: What is this premise based upon? RESPONDENT: The power that created the universe is the absolute and timeless power from which time came into being. RICHARD: How did that ‘absolute and timeless power’ come into existence in the first place? RESPONDENT: Without time there is no universe ... RICHARD: Hmm ... as time and space and matter are seamless it seems odd to artificially single-out one aspect and say that without it the remainder cannot exist. RESPONDENT: ... and all time and thus matter is held in place and supported by it’s Creator. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: If the Centre of the time wheel, or the Originator of time wills it, all will cease to exist in that split second. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: Until then we continue to observe matter by the light that is given to us to see it by in this moment in time. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... I observe by the light of human intelligence.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Here are a few attributes of universe, as I see them: 1. Universe is the absolute against which all change is perceived. RICHARD: You are aware, of course, that the universe is as much the building you are sitting in reading these words as it is ‘out there’ in the far reaches of galactic distance? RESPONDENT: The universe was created. RICHARD: What is this premise based upon? RESPONDENT: Knowledge. RICHARD: Where is this ‘knowledge’ to be found? * RESPONDENT: The power that created the universe is the absolute and timeless power from which time came into being. RICHARD: How did that ‘absolute and timeless power’ come into existence in the first place? RESPONDENT: It was always here. RICHARD: Yet this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe already was, already is, and already will always be here ... why does your ‘knowledge’ propose a redundancy? * RESPONDENT: Without time there is no universe ... RICHARD: Hmm ... as time and space and matter are seamless it seems odd to artificially single-out one aspect and say that without it the remainder cannot exist. RESPONDENT: I don’t know much about physics. RICHARD: And your replies in this post indicate that you do not know much about metaphysics either. RESPONDENT: Time, space, and matter were created. RICHARD: I heard you the first time you came up with this premise (further above) ... why did you artificially single-out one aspect of this seamless universe and say that without it the remainder cannot exist? * RESPONDENT: ... and all time and thus matter is held in place and supported by it’s Creator. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: It just is. I have no answer to why. RICHARD: Are you saying this ‘knowledge’ has no answer to such a basic question? Perhaps if I were to rephrase it: is it just a whim that your god holds time and matter in place and supports it ... or is there some reason for doing so? * RESPONDENT: If the Centre of the time wheel, or the Originator of time wills it, all will cease to exist in that split second. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: Because. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to rephrase this question also: why would your god have the will to destroy this universe? * RESPONDENT: Until then we continue to observe matter by the light that is given to us to see it by in this moment in time. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... I observe by the light of human intelligence. RESPONDENT: Human intelligence is limited. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘limited’ in comparison to what? RESPONDENT: We will both continue to believe, or see, as we do ... just thought I would throw something in. RICHARD: Okay ... could you ‘throw something in’ that is a bit more intelligent next time around? Then you might be more convincing when extolling the advantages which this ‘knowledge’ of yours has over what you say is ‘limited’ human intelligence. Thus far your ‘knowledge’ is looking more like ignorance.
RESPONDENT: The universe was created. RICHARD: What is this premise based upon? RESPONDENT: Knowledge. RICHARD: Where is this ‘knowledge’ to be found? RESPONDENT: Within ... RICHARD: Okay ... ‘within’ what? Within your psyche? * RESPONDENT: The power that created the universe is the absolute and timeless power from which time came into being. RICHARD: How did that ‘absolute and timeless power’ come into existence in the first place? RESPONDENT: It was always here. RICHARD: Yet this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe already was, already is, and already will always be here ... why does your ‘knowledge’ propose a redundancy? RESPONDENT: The universe was not always here. RICHARD: Is this answer according to your ‘knowledge’ that you find ‘within’? RESPONDENT: Before the universe ... God existed. RICHARD: Why did your god create a universe? * RESPONDENT: Without time there is no universe ... RICHARD: Hmm ... as time and space and matter are seamless it seems odd to artificially single-out one aspect and say that without it the remainder cannot exist. RESPONDENT: I believe that time and matter are related, are they not? RICHARD: Time and space and matter are seamless ... inseparable. RESPONDENT: Matter comes out if time. When time lags matter comes into being ... no time no matter. RICHARD: You said (above) ‘I believe’ ... is this conclusion nothing but the result of a believed premise? * RESPONDENT: I don’t know much about physics. RICHARD: And your replies in this post indicate that you do not know much about metaphysics either. RESPONDENT: Nor do you who claims to know there is no God. RICHARD: I have never said that there is ‘no God’ (there are at least 1200 gods the last time I looked the subject up) ... it is just that no god (or goddess) has any existence outside of the human psyche. * RESPONDENT: Time, space, and matter were created. RICHARD: I heard you the first time you came up with this premise (further above) ... why did you artificially single-out one aspect of this seamless universe and say that without it the remainder cannot exist? RESPONDENT: See above ... I tend to believe time first, then matter. RICHARD: You can ‘believe’ whatever you wish to, of course, but believing has never, ever turned fiction into fact in the actual world ... the human psyche, created and fuelled by the instinctual passions, is a fertile breeding-ground for all manner of calentures. * RESPONDENT: ... and all time and thus matter is held in place and supported by it’s Creator. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: It just is. I have no answer to why. RICHARD: Are you saying this ‘knowledge’ has no answer to such a basic question? Perhaps if I were to rephrase it: is it just a whim that your god holds time and matter in place and supports it ... or is there some reason for doing so? RESPONDENT: God wills it. Why does He will it? This is where human intelligence may be limited. He wills it to be, and it is. RICHARD: I was not asking you to answer with your intelligence ... does your ‘knowledge’ have the answer or not? * RESPONDENT: If the Centre of the time wheel, or the Originator of time wills it, all will cease to exist in that split second. RICHARD: Why? RESPONDENT: Because. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to rephrase this question also: why would your god have the will to destroy this universe? RESPONDENT: I didn’t say God wills it to be destroyed. RICHARD: Neither did I ... I specifically asked why your god would have the will to destroy this universe. RESPONDENT: I said He could will it. RICHARD: And I am asking why would your god have the will to destroy this universe? * RESPONDENT: Until then we continue to observe matter by the light that is given to us to see it by in this moment in time. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... I observe by the light of human intelligence. RESPONDENT: Human intelligence is limited. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘limited’ in comparison to what? RESPONDENT: It seems we are limited relative to God. RICHARD: Are you saying that (a) your god is intelligent ... and (b) your god’s intelligence is more advanced than human intelligence? RESPONDENT: Only if God wills it are we able to see beyond our ordinary limits. RICHARD: And just what are these ‘ordinary limits’ ? * RESPONDENT: We will both continue to believe, or see, as we do ... just thought I would throw something in. RICHARD: Okay ... could you ‘throw something in’ that is a bit more intelligent next time around? Then you might be more convincing when extolling the advantages which this ‘knowledge’ of yours has over what you say is ‘limited’ human intelligence. Thus far your ‘knowledge’ is looking more like ignorance. RESPONDENT: If human intelligence is unlimited, that is fine with me. I haven’t seen too many real life demonstrations of that. RICHARD: I never said that human intelligence is ‘unlimited’ ... as there is no intelligence, thus far discovered by space exploration, other than human intelligence I am asking what other intelligence it is limited in comparison to. RESPONDENT: What I have said is so obvious that I think you know what I mean. RICHARD: No I do not ... I am asking you to explain, in clear language, what other intelligence there is for human intelligence to be limited in comparison to. It is a simple question. RESPONDENT: God is greater than we are. RICHARD: Try speaking for yourself instead of assuming that your co-respondent is the same as you are ... this is what your sentence would look like then:
Do you see how different it is to speak for yourself and not assume things about your co-respondent ... it is far more honest, is it not? RESPONDENT: We just like to think otherwise. RICHARD: I do not need to ‘think’ anything of the sort ... as I know that your god has no
existence here in this actual world your assumptive ‘we just like to think otherwise’ is a non sequitur Plus your ‘knowledge’ is still showing itself to be more ignorant than human intelligence.
RICHARD: ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. RESPONDENT No. 33: Tagore expressed very similar sentiments in the following words (In Gitanjali): ‘I stand under the golden canopy; Of thine evening sky; And life my eager eyes towards thine face ... I have come to the brink of eternity; From which nothing can vanish ...’. Different metaphor, same sentiments. RICHARD: Are you so sure? To whom was Mr. Rabindranath Tagore referring when he penned the words ‘thine evening sky’ and ‘thine face’ (the word ‘thine’ is synonymous with the word ‘thy’ and with the word ‘your’). Here is the verse in full: [quote]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not. My house is small and what once has gone from it can never be regained. But infinite is thy mansion, my lord, and seeking her I have to come to thy door. I stand under the golden canopy of thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to thy face. I have come to the brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish; no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears. Oh, dip my emptied life into that ocean, plunge it into the deepest fullness. Let me for once feel that lost sweet touch in the allness of the universe’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: He has lost his wife and thus his comforter. He is left desolate. His house is the small world he lives in which included the presence of his wife. Once gone she cannot be regained. RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder that poetry is so popular amongst the spiritualists ... they can read just about anything into it which they like. Why not a literal room in a literal house? For example, he wrote another verse referring to his house:
Mr. W. Andrew Robinson has the following to say:
Some things can often all be quite straightforward, eh? RESPONDENT: The universe is ‘God’s mansion’, a physical expression of His infinite nature. In his emptiness and pain he turns to God’s mansion and seeks completion in it instead of his wife, calling out to lose himself in the infinitude of the universe, or the God behind it. RICHARD: The Christian scriptures have their god-man referring to his god’s after-death abode as having ‘many mansions’ ... why unnecessarily complicate such a simple thing? Viz.:
I say this because, as Mr. Rabindranath Tagore is well-known for attempting to combine the best of the Indian tradition and the Western tradition, he would have been well aware of the Christian terminology. Incidentally ... have you ever looked deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars (or did you miss that bit)?
RICHARD: ... as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. (snip discussion about Mr. Rabindranath Tagore). RICHARD: Incidentally ... have you ever looked deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars (or did you miss that bit)? RESPONDENT: I have looked at it and considered it to be endless space but I am not sure what you mean. RICHARD: What I mean is this: have you ever seen the actual infinitude of the universe ... or only your god’s universe? There is an amazing difference.
RICHARD: ... have you ever looked deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars (or did you miss that bit)? RESPONDENT: I have looked at it and considered it to be endless space but I am not sure what you mean. RICHARD: What I mean is this: have you ever seen the actual infinitude of the universe ... or only your god’s universe? There is an amazing difference. RESPONDENT: There is no universe other than God’s universe so that does not make sense. RICHARD: Ahh ... so you have never seen the actual infinitude of the universe, then. RESPONDENT: The actual infinitude of the universe would end in a moment if God wills it. RICHARD: ... your god’s universe would end in a moment if you came to your senses one night whilst gazing deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars. RESPONDENT: It seems to are involved in an elaborate and glorified form of idolatry ... worshipping the infinite creation instead of the Creator. RICHARD: I worship no one and no thing ... 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. There is an unimaginable purity that 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. To proceed thus is to become involved in a fruitless endeavour to make life fit into one’s own petty demands and desires. In 1980, ‘I’/‘me’, the persona that was, saw that this universe is so enormous in its scope, so grand in its arrangement, so exquisite in its structure, that it was sheer vanity and utter insolence to presume that ‘his’ paltry demands and desires had any significance whatsoever. They were consigned to the dust-bin of history.
RESPONDENT: There is no universe other than God’s universe so that does not make sense. RICHARD: Ahh ... so you have never seen the actual infinitude of the universe, then. RESPONDENT: The actual infinitude of the universe would end in a moment if God wills it. RICHARD: No ... your god’s universe would end in a moment if you came to your senses one night whilst gazing deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars. RESPONDENT: It seems to are involved in an elaborate and glorified form of idolatry ... worshipping the infinite creation instead of the Creator. RICHARD: I worship no one and no thing ... 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: 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. 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. 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 No 12: The immeasurable which is nothingness is not realized if identity is established in the known, in somethingness, in being something special. RICHARD: Are you so sure about not being ‘something special’ ? Viz.: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence, operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state’. (‘Krishnamurti – His Life and Death’; Mary Lutyens p. 206. © Avon Books; New York 1991). RESPONDENT No 12: I don’t accept the writings of Lutyens as reliable reports of what K said. RESPONDENT: I agree with that. Unless K wrote it or recorded it himself, no quote should be received as proof of anything. Second hand quotes from people writing books are subject to the bias or imagination of the author. Why would K say ‘you won’t find another body like this’ knowing he had cancer? His body was subject to disease; was there anything magic about that? Is there any record that K actually said that? If not, the better bet would be to assume it was not said. RICHARD: According to what I read the quote was transcribed from a taped message Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti recorded on the 7 February, ten days before he died, in response to a question from Ms. Mary Cadogan, of the Krishnamurti Foundation in England, who asked: ‘When Krishnaji dies, what really happens to that extraordinary focus of understanding and energy that is K’. Here is the taped message in full:
Of course I have not listened to the tape myself ... but unless it is a carefully-concocted and widely published lie from beginning to end all one can do is take it as being a transcription of an actual recording which still exists somewhere in the archives of the Krishnamurti Foundation. As a matter of interest, Ms. Mary Lutyens wrote three biographies all told – the first two of which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself read through in their entirety and did not refute – and thus so as far as it can be ascertained she is a reasonably credible reporter of events ... most of her quotes come from hand-written letters or from tapes. You will find that your query about ‘you won’t find another body like this’ is answered above (‘... unless the body has been prepared, very carefully protected and so on ...’).
RICHARD: ... it is the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) residing parasitically in all human beings who is rotten to the core ... and it is this entity who stuffs up any lifestyle practice and/or political system – be it hunter-gather, agrarian, industrial or socialist, communist, capitalist and so on – no matter what ideals are propagated. Arguing one culture’s ideals over another culture’s ideals is a distraction away from the real culprit. RESPONDENT: The parasite assumes the identity we think of as ‘me’, through which it lives and acts at the expense of the host. The host in return seeks victims in order to retrieve a sense of autonomy and lost power, which in reality is done in service to the foreign identity. That which we think of as the ‘me’ is the ‘it’. RICHARD: Sometimes in deep despair and desperation the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body involuntarily splits off the dark side of itself and anthropomorphises it ... the resultant magnification of its malice and sorrow into an horrific being existing independently of itself is so terrifying that a splitting off the light side of itself, and the anthropomorphising of this antidotal love and compassion out of desperate hope and despairing faith, happens coincidently and with awesome consequences (the flip side of dread is awe) as the two aggrandised beings engage in a titanic battle for supremacy. Neither ‘being’ has any existence outside the human psyche, of course. 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 |
