|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 25
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 13): There is no ‘Intelligence’ that is running the
universe, however. Only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: If by ‘running’ the universe you mean existing in/as the uni-verse, let me get this straight ... for billions and billions of years, an unintelligent universe exists. Then just a geological instant ago, ‘presto!’ man, that wonderful primate, appears (much applause). Why would a non-intelligent universe grow intelligent life-forms? RICHARD: Are you aware of the word ‘anthropomorphism’. This universe, being magnificent beyond imagining, believing or conceptualising in all its infinitude, can never be described a merely intelligent. Golly ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity. What hope would an intelligence have in running the universe? RESPONDENT: Have you heard that old question, ‘do thigs appear on thorn trees? RICHARD: As to ‘thig’ is to do (being a verb) then no, it cannot grow on trees whether they have thorns or not. Even a thigger cannot ... they appear on the streets in most big cities. Here in this small seaside village where I live they are called ‘buskers’ and they do not grow on trees either ... they pop up like mushrooms after the rain.
RESPONDENT: Evidence of intelligence (to which humans may not be such a good example) abounds. RICHARD: Where? RESPONDENT: Let us keep it simple so we do not mesmerize ourselves with our imaginative capacities or fall in love with the sound of our own voice/song. RICHARD: If I may point out? I have been keeping it simple all along. Everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Do you really expect me to believe that you have not thought in images for a year or more? Having a hard time imagining that. RICHARD: I am factually free the intuitive/ imaginative faculty irrespective of whether person (A) believes my words to be true or whether person (B) believes my words to be false. My freedom from the intuitive/ imaginative faculty has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people believe or disbelieve. However, their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon their remembering at least one of their PCE’s accurately ... and herein I can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe. I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition and have to invent a synthetic freedom ... be it a conceptual freedom or whatever substitute for the actual they manage to spin out of their intuitive/ imaginative faculty.
RICHARD: I have no intuitive or imaginative faculties whatsoever ... that all disappeared in 1992. I am incapable of the activity of believing ... let alone believing in something. RESPONDENT: You are not a machine (computer) are you? Do you have a heart? RICHARD: A physical heart that pumps blood, yes ... a ‘bleeding heart’ as in piteous sentimentality, no. You see, I actually care about my fellow human being ... not merely feel that I care. * RICHARD: A world ‘conceived (by thought)’ can never be actual. RESPONDENT: Well it (the thought conceived world) is actual in the sense that it is superimposed onto the actual world and thus actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world. RICHARD: Given that a conceptual world is not the actual world (being a fantasy) to then superimpose a conceptual world onto the actual world cannot be actual in the sense that it ‘actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world’ because the superimposition renders the actual world invisible. Thus you are being divided (conceptually) from a conceptualised actual world and not from the actual world itself. Therefore, it is not actually a separation from the actual world at all but a conception of being actually divided (conceptually) from the conceptually imposed superimposition. RESPONDENT: Wait, I am not that fast. The conceptual world is divided conceptually from the actual world. RICHARD: No ... the ‘conceptual world’ is ‘divided conceptually’ from a conceptualised actual world. RESPONDENT: If one sees only one’s image of the world, that image divides them from the actual world (outside of images). RICHARD: No ... if one sees ‘only one’s image of the world’ then all one sees is one’s image of a conceptualised world. Therefore, that image divides them from a conceptualised actual world (a conceptualised ‘actual world’ that they fondly imagine as being ‘outside of images’ when it is not). RESPONDENT: But, the image/ conceptual world is a subset of the actual world, as is everything. RICHARD: What ‘actual world’ are you talking of so knowledgeably here? All you know is a conceptualised actual world and are therefore speculating that your ‘image/ conceptual world’ is indeed a ‘subset of the actual world’. It is a conceptualised ‘subset’ of a conceptualised actual world ... the actual world simply does not exist as an actuality. All you know is conceptualising and images. Unless you can recall a PCE then all this ‘actual world’ stuff that you write is theoretical conceptualisation. * RICHARD: Do you practice detachment? (You are twice-removed from actuality). RESPONDENT: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse? RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method. RESPONDENT: By the way, ‘blind forces of nature’ is only the illegitimate child of a ‘divided from its source’ mentality. RICHARD: With this ‘source’ that you speak of being nature itself (and definitely not ‘blind nature’ as you make clear) – and by you being able to so categorically state this ‘illegitimate child’ metaphor as being factual – am I to take it that you are not ‘divided from your source’? Which means that, as nature is indeed ‘red in tooth and claw’, then savagery, brutality and violence is what your nature is, eh? RESPONDENT: The division from the source is just a nightmare we collectively dream. Dividing from the source isn’t necessarily a terrible thing if it is a tool used by one rather than a tool which makes use of one (as its tool). Nature is brutal only to an outsider (one divided who sees Nature as ‘other’). What you are describing is a misinterpretation of Nature by a divided-from-its-source primate. Cannibalism is indeed the way. We eat our own kin – mammals, fish. birds, rodents, bugs, plants, trees, you name it. We (life-forms native to Earth) eat each other and thus become each other. It is only brutal to a self who feels unconnected to all that. It is only brutal from a divided-self mentality. RICHARD: Am I to take it then, that you actively condone all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides by approving of them as being natural? RESPONDENT: No, most of the above (if not all of it) is the result of a divided-from-its-source mentality. The Life-forces experiment we call human beings is still a work in progress. The prognosis of this re-presentational mental capacity we are communicating through is far from proving its harmony with the order of the universe. RICHARD: So you actively approve of deliberately eating your fellow human being ... but not murdering and raping and torturing and hitting them or suiciding, eh? After all, you did say ‘dividing from the source isn’t necessarily a terrible thing if it is a tool used by one rather than a tool which makes use of one (as its tool)’ . * RICHARD: And that, furthermore, anyone who wants all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides come to an end is, in fact, a person ‘divided from the source’? RESPONDENT: No one is divide from their source. It is just a conceptual mistake. RICHARD: What source is would that be? (If you are making a conceptual mistake that you are ‘divided from your source’ (and continue to remain conceptually ‘divided’) then any conceptualised source that you seek to be no longer divided from can only be an imagined source. How do you know if there is an actual source or not, if all you know is how to live in what you think is a conceptualised division? * RICHARD: So that, in order not to be ‘divided from the source’, you will knowingly perpetuate all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides for ever and a day? RESPONDENT: No, you have misconstrued my meaning. We are all related. Thinking we are divided is the problem. RICHARD: How do you know that ‘we are all related’ ... you may conceptualise that ‘we are all related’ but such relatedness can only ever be a conceptualised relatedness. Similarly, ‘thinking we are divided’ is not necessarily the problem ... thinking that there is an undivided state may very well be the problem. * RICHARD: May I ask? Are you also one of those people who think that ‘every instance of rape is fine’? RESPONDENT: No, I am not. RICHARD: Okay ... your story gradually becomes clear: cannibalism is not ‘terrible’, but rape is not fine ... because you do say that ‘dividing from the source isn’t necessarily a terrible thing if it is a tool used by one rather than a tool which makes use of one (as its tool)’. Obviously you feel that you can use this division as a tool in any way you see fit. * RESPONDENT: Isn’t the savage, brutal, wild tooth and claw view of nature a bit narrow minded? Isn’t it the projection of the fears of the divided from its source mentality? RICHARD: No. It is that an individual freedom from the human condition could lead to a global freedom from the human condition. It is possible for a chain-reaction effect to ripple through all the peoples who inhabit this planet; imbuing the populace with peace and prosperity. And this freedom from the human condition would revolutionise the concept of humanity. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. No longer need people lament the futility of trying to escape from the folly of the ‘Human Condition’. Never again would fear rule the earth; terror would stalk its prey no more ... and another 160,000,000 human beings would not be killed in wars by their fellow human next century. But even if global peace was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant identities – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that by painting a gloomy picture of the universe (‘blind tooth and red claw nature’) we will coerce people into telepathic transformation? RICHARD: Firstly, I am not ‘painting’ a ‘gloomy picture’ of anything at all ... let alone ‘the universe’. If you find the expression ‘nature is red in tooth and claw’ to be ‘a gloomy picture’ then that is how you feel about a factual description of blind nature which, until space-exploration is such that blind nature is found elsewhere in the universe, has only emerged on this planet. Secondly, I am not interested in ‘coercing’ anyone (it is a matter of personal choice whether one becomes happy and harmless or not) and certainly not by ‘telepathic transformation’. There being no intuitive/imaginative faculties extant in this flesh and blood body there are no prescient abilities. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it fear of Death which biases that whole view? RICHARD: You do seem to be unaware as to whom you write this conceptualised picture of death and nature to. At age seventeen I volunteered for the military and was vigorously and rigorously trained, by the best-trained killers that this country could produce, to kill my fellow human being with nine different weapons (including rifle, pistol, machine pistol, machine gun, hand-grenades, booby-traps, bayonet and knife. I am a fully qualified state-trained killer ... and I served my time in a war that is infamous in twentieth-century western history. I know the nature of killing and death ... and I know the nature of human beings. RESPONDENT: That is being trained to see death as losing. RICHARD: No ... it is called protecting one’s kith and kin. It is so that your wife or daughter or sister or mother or grandmother does not get beaten, raped and killed, for example. Would you stand by and dumbly watch these painful events ... all the while reassuring her not to see it as losing? RESPONDENT: My father died unexpectedly when I was 13. My friend and I tried to revive him with CPR as he lay on the floor of his bedroom. It seems our experiences with death have led to divergent understandings of Life/Death. I would never have considered being a professional killer (military man) even before that experience. RICHARD: So you rely upon others to do the dirty work of protecting you and your ilk, eh? Which means (that apart from eating your fellow human) you consciously practise non-violence? * RICHARD: I was born and raised on a farm and had vast experience with killing and death from before I can consciously remember coming face-to-face with killing and death. A short list of animals would have to include the domesticated animals such as cattle, sheep, pigs, goats, geese, ducks, chickens and so on, all of which I have personally slaughtered and skinned and dressed with my own hands. The wild animals would include kangaroos, emus, dingoes, foxes, rabbits, eagles, crows, magpies, pigeons and quail ... all of which – with the exception of the dingoes, foxes, eagles, crows and magpies – I have personally slaughtered and skinned and dressed with my own hands (the dingoes, foxes, eagles and crows were killed for their bounty as they were considered pests). Stalking animals made me keenly aware of the human being’s primal animal nature, whilst raising livestock for a living necessitated an eye for the detail of animals’ basic nature on a daily basis. I have made a study of the differences between animals and humans – by reading countless scholarly studies made by enterprising people; by watching many a television program on animal life and by often visiting zoos – because I am vitally interested in life on earth with its death and killing all around. Also, I observe animal action and behaviour and ascertain from research how an animal is likely to perceive itself and the world so as to throw some light onto conditioned human behaviour ... to ascertain the difference between ‘nature and nurture’. For example: I have seen a dog acting in a way that can only be called pining; I have seen a cat toying with a mouse in a manner that can only be dubbed cruel; I have seen cows ‘spooked’ and then stampede in what must be described as hysteria; I have seen stallions displaying what can only be labelled aggression; I have watched many animals exhibiting what must be specified as fear ... and so on. Only recently a television program was aired here on chimpanzees about studies made over many, many years of them in their native habitat and I was able to see civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, grief, group ostracism ... and so on. It is easily discerned by those with the eyes to see that animals do not have peace-on-earth by being natural. This insistence that the animal state being a natural state and therefore somehow desirable because human are ‘divided from nature’ that is held by many people is just nonsense ... I am glad that I am human and that we are living in a civilised society with all that technology can offer. We have already improved on nature so much in the areas of technology, animal breeding and plant cultivation, for instance. RESPONDENT: Most of your animal experience seems to relate to domesticated animals. RICHARD: When I cast my eye (above) I count 7 domesticated animals enumerated and 10 wild animals specified ... but apart from that, do you not find your response weak? RESPONDENT: Haven’t you seen far more tooth and red claw examples of the human animal’s behaviour? RICHARD: But surely the human animal’s behaviour is more tooth and red claw only to an outsider (one divided who sees human nature as ‘other’)? Is what you are describing not a misinterpretation of human nature by a divided-from-its-source primate? Is it not only more tooth and red claw to a primate who feels unconnected to human nature? Is it not only more tooth and red claw from a divided-human mentality? After all, dividing from the source isn’t necessarily a terrible thing if it is a tool used by one rather than a tool which makes use of one (as its tool) ... would you not agree? Is not the biggest problem a too-clever-for-itself conceptualising mind? * RICHARD: There is no reason why we can not continue this fine work of overcoming the limitations imposed by blind nature and eliminate sorrow and malice from ourselves. Then – and only then – will we have global peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: How much progress have you made towards this end via your current method? RICHARD: Very satisfactory progress. * RICHARD: You are not dispensing your pseudo-wisdom to an easily impressed tyro when you write to Richard. RESPONDENT: I am glad you do not believe what I say simply because I say it. RICHARD: Hmm ... but you do believe what you say? Because if you do not, then why write this stuff to a Mailing List, ostensibly set-up to explore ways to end all the appalling misery and mayhem that is the human condition, as if it were what you believe? Can you not sincerely address yourself to the question?
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 13): There is no ‘Intelligence’ that is running the universe, however.
Only the human animal is intelligent. RESPONDENT: If by ‘running’ the universe you mean existing in/as the uni-verse, let me get this straight ... for billions and billions of years, an unintelligent universe exists. Then just a geological instant ago, ‘presto!’ man, that wonderful primate, appears (much applause). Why would a non-intelligent universe grow intelligent life-forms? RICHARD: Are you aware of the word ‘anthropomorphism’. This universe, being magnificent beyond imagining, believing or conceptualising in all its infinitude, can never be described a merely intelligent. RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: You say ‘yes’ ... but ‘yes’ to what?
* RICHARD: Golly ... intelligence cannot comprehend infinity and eternity. What hope would an intelligence have in running the universe? RESPONDENT: Good question as only mechanical things can be ‘run’. RICHARD: Okay ... what hope would an intelligence have in ‘running the universe’ as in ‘existing in/as the uni-verse’ as you suggested (above)? Now is it a ‘good question’? Can you address yourself to the question? RESPONDENT: Have you heard that old question, ‘do thigs appear on thorn trees? RICHARD: As to ‘thig’ is to do (being a verb) then no, it cannot grow on trees whether they have thorns or not. Even a thigger cannot ... they appear on the streets in most big cities. Here in this small seaside village where I live they are called ‘buskers’ and they do not grow on trees either ... they pop up like mushrooms after the rain.
RESPONDENT: Sorry, it was a typo. read ‘figs’ instead of ‘thigs’. RICHARD: Okay. No, I have not heard that old question ‘do figs appear on thorn trees?’ ... what has this got to do with this universe being intelligent or not? Can you address yourself to the question? RESPONDENT: Evidence of intelligence (to which humans may not be such a good example) abounds. RICHARD: Where? RESPONDENT: Throughout this universe. RICHARD: If you wish to substantiate your anthropomorphic theory RESPONDENT: Let us keep it simple so we do not mesmerize ourselves with our imaginative capacities or fall in love with the sound of our own voice/song. RICHARD: If I may point out? I have been keeping it simple all along. Everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Yes, Krishnamurti used this analogy when he was young. Maybe I am just not up to your verbal flare, but most of the time it seems you use pontificatory statements to complicate your message. The art of life is to see clearly. Clarity leads to simplicity. Communicating complexity simply is the fruit of wholistic intelligence. RICHARD: Yet I do not have a ‘wholistic intelligence’ ... therefore I present facts. The fact is that human suffering has at least a 3,000 to 5,000 year recorded history – and as peoples everywhere are relying upon an ‘Ancient Wisdom’ that is 3,000 to 5,000 years old – all it takes is a simple observation to see that everybody is going in the wrong direction. To wit: How come it has taken 3,000 to 5,000 years ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found? * RESPONDENT: Do you really expect me to believe that you have not thought in images for a year or more? Having a hard time imagining that. RICHARD: I am factually free the intuitive/ imaginative faculty irrespective of whether person (A) believes my words to be true or whether person (B) believes my words to be false. My freedom from the intuitive/ imaginative faculty has nothing whatsoever to do with what other people believe or disbelieve. However, their own freedom from the human condition – which is what is of crucial importance here – is dependent upon their remembering at least one of their PCE’s accurately ... and herein I can play a part in affirming and confirming their personal experience of the perfection of the infinitude of this material universe. I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how vital it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. Of course, if they believe my words to be false they close the door on their own freedom from the human condition and have to invent a synthetic freedom ... be it a conceptual freedom or whatever substitute for the actual they manage to spin out of their intuitive/ imaginative faculty. RESPONDENT: You are my door to freedom? RICHARD: No, I am not your door to freedom ... it is simply the case that if you believe my words to be false you close the door on your freedom from the human condition and will have to invent a synthetic freedom, be it a conceptual freedom or whatever substitute for the actual you manage to spin out of your intuitive/ imaginative faculty (like being united with your conceptualised source). Perhaps a simple analogy will demonstrate: if Richard says ‘this is a computer monitor’ and you believe my words to be false then you shut the door on exploring the world of computer monitors. Why not explore and find out for yourself? RESPONDENT: But there is no door. RICHARD: It is a figurative expression ... artistic license, if you will. RESPONDENT: Freedom cannot be negated. RICHARD: Well, you are in error there too ... because you are very busy doing just that thing.
RICHARD: Do you practice detachment? (You are twice-removed from actuality). RESPONDENT: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse? RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method. RESPONDENT No. 13: While there may indeed be some who proclaim to be Buddhist
who hold to this definition of detachment it is by no means ‘the Buddhist meaning’ as Richard would have us believe. Rather,
detachment (properly understood in the context of the teachings of Buddha) is regarded on one level as an ending of the
identification process; identifying with possessions, beliefs, titles, jobs, status, etc. We depend on these things to define who
we are, to give substance to our self image. Therefore we are attached to them, because to lose them is to lose a part of our ‘self’.
The practice of detachment in this context would be to pay attention to these ‘things’ and the fact of the identification
process. Detachment itself (not its practice) arises from an awareness of the truth of the matter; the confusion, conflict and
harm inherent in the identification process. With awareness of the truth comes an end to the matter; one is no longer attached by
identification. One is now ‘detached’ (so to speak). On another level detachment is regarded as an end to the bias and
prejudice of past conditioning. It is freedom from partiality. It is seeing clearly. The practice of detachment in this context is
to be attentive to the process of bias and prejudice as they manifest. Once again, it is awareness of the truth of the matter that
ends the matter and detachment is then actualised, not practiced. In all matters it is this way. To practice is to be attentive to
what is happening now. Attention is the seed. Returning again and again to attentiveness is caring for the seed. Awareness is the
flowering plant that naturally arises from the seed of its own accord. To return to the ‘Buddhist meaning’ of detachment. I
have never come across a ‘Buddhist’ definition as presented by Richard. Nor is detachment (in the context of the teachings of
Buddha) ever presented as a ‘non-feeling’ state; indifferent, not caring, or without compassion. On the contrary, the capacity
to feel is enhanced and is able to convey meaningful and valuable information when it is not obscured by our personal, emotional
attachments. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the lucid description of detachment. RICHARD: Could you explain for me, please, just what it is that you find ‘lucid’ in the above description? RESPONDENT: Not that he necessarily is, but if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s) it would probably make it more difficult for him to understand what you are saying about detachment. RICHARD: May I ask? Given that you are self-acknowledged as being prone to conceptualising, could you conceptualise being free and then further conceptualise just what you would say to a person whose best effort at a dialogue (on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition) is a weak ‘if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s)’? Because only an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can have a PCE ... the identity that inhabited this body (the ‘he’ who had the PCE) is extinct. I do not have PCE’s ... let alone be attached to them. RESPONDENT: Still attached to my discussion with Richard. RICHARD: Not so. Indeed, if and/or when you ever first show signs of even beginning to be ‘attached to my discussion with Richard’ is when I will sit up and take notice ... for that would indicate a commitment to enabling the already always existing peace-on-earth to becoming apparent. Until then it is dilettantism.
RESPONDENT: [snip all the above]: Evidence of intelligence (to which humans may not be such a good example) abounds. RICHARD: Where? RESPONDENT: Throughout this universe. RICHARD: If you wish to substantiate your anthropomorphic theory that an intelligence ‘existing in/as the uni-verse’ exists outside of your intuitive/imaginative faculty a more explicit answer is essential. Where ‘throughout this universe’ does ‘evidence of intelligence abound’? Can you address yourself to the question? RESPONDENT: I have two suggestions for you to address yourself to before you ask me that question. First, look up the definition of the word ‘throughout’ in the dictionary. Second, look (throughout the universe) and see. RICHARD: Okay, no problem.
Therefore, when I do as you suggest and I ‘look (throughout the universe) and see’ I find no evidence of anything ‘existing in/as the uni-verse’ having the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) and with the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) or the action or fact of understanding something (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something) other than the human animal. Hence I remain with my original statement (at the top of the post with all the unanswerable questions which you snipped off) which is:
Therefore I suggest that if you wish to substantiate your anthropomorphic theory that an intelligence ‘existing in/as the uni-verse’ exists outside of your intuitive/imaginative faculty a more explicit answer is essential. Where ‘throughout this universe’ does ‘evidence of intelligence abound’? Can you address yourself to the question? * RESPONDENT: Let us keep it simple so we do not mesmerize ourselves with our imaginative capacities or fall in love with the sound of our own voice/song. RICHARD: If I may point out? I have been keeping it simple all along. Everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Yes, Krishnamurti used this analogy when he was young. Maybe I am just not up to your verbal flare, but most of the time it seems you use pontificatory statements to complicate your message. The art of life is to see clearly. Clarity leads to simplicity. Communicating complexity simply is the fruit of wholistic intelligence. RICHARD: Yet I do not have an ‘wholistic intelligence’ ... therefore I present facts. The fact is that human suffering has at least a 3,000 to 5,000 year recorded history – and as peoples everywhere are relying upon an ‘Ancient Wisdom’ that is 3,000 to 5,000 years old – all it takes is a simple observation to see that everybody is going in the wrong direction. To wit: How come it has taken 3,000 to 5,000 years ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found? RESPONDENT: That is a good question: one better asked than answered. Put it the other way: why are we continuing to choose violence and strife? RICHARD: Because ‘violence and strife’ come out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with ... and out of which basic passions the human animal (with their ability to think and reflect and be aware of their mortality) generate malice and sorrow. As malice and sorrow are the essential progenitors of love and compassion, then the human animal has a vested interest in keeping them intact and, attempting to emulate the ‘Ancient Wisdom’, sublimate the very same malice and sorrow so as to transcend (transcend not eliminate) these base passions and be Love Agapé and Divine Compassion. The lotus blossom has its roots in mud. RESPONDENT: By the way, if peace is ‘nowhere to be found’ then is it just an image to you? RICHARD: No, it is not ‘just an image ... there have been 160,000,000 peoples killed by their fellow human beings in wars this century alone; as I write this, something like 29 wars are going on somewhere on this planet; there have been over 200 wars since the dropping of the atom bomb in 1945 and so on and so on as in regards to all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. Are you seriously suggesting that all this misery and mayhem is ‘just an image’ to me? Do you not see this for yourself? RESPONDENT: A belief? RICHARD: Are you capable of participating sincerely in a dialogue on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition? Has it ever occurred to you that your grade-school stock-standard retorts (‘you have an image’ or ‘you have a belief’ or ‘you are attached’ and so on) just do not work on me ... nor even apply to me? There is more to life than fantasising about being a butterfly.
RICHARD: I have no intuitive or imaginative faculties whatsoever ... that all disappeared in 1992. I am incapable of the activity of believing ... let alone believing in something. RESPONDENT: You are not a machine (computer) are you? Do you have a heart? RICHARD: A physical heart that pumps blood, yes ... a ‘bleeding heart’ as in piteous sentimentality, no. You see, I actually care about my fellow human being ... not merely feel that I care. RESPONDENT: By heart I did not mean a physical heart nor a ‘bleeding heart’ (which, by the way, is an image you have). RICHARD: Yet it is not ‘an image that I have’ (can you not upgrade your retorts to the level of a sincere discussion?) but an expression of a factual reality for 6.0 billion peoples. They feel that they care about all the misery and mayhem instead of actually caring. If they actually cared there would be action ... and that action would not be of ‘my’ doing. It would be the ending of ‘me’ and all ‘my’ subterfuge and trickery. * RICHARD: A world ‘conceived (by thought)’ can never be actual. RESPONDENT: Well it (the thought conceived world) is actual in the sense that it is superimposed onto the actual world and thus actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world. RICHARD: Given that a conceptual world is not the actual world (being a fantasy) to then superimpose a conceptual world onto the actual world cannot be actual in the sense that it ‘actually divides one (conceptually) from the actual world’ because the superimposition renders the actual world invisible. Thus you are being divided (conceptually) from a conceptualised actual world and not from the actual world itself. Therefore, it is not actually a separation from the actual world at all but a conception of being actually divided (conceptually) from the conceptually imposed superimposition. RESPONDENT: Wait, I am not that fast. The conceptual world is divided conceptually from the actual world. RICHARD: No ... the ‘conceptual world’ is ‘divided conceptually’ from a conceptualised actual world. RESPONDENT: If one sees only one’s image of the world, that image divides them from the actual world (outside of images). RICHARD: No ... if one sees ‘only one’s image of the world’ then all one sees is one’s image of a conceptualised world. Therefore, that image divides them from a conceptualised actual world (a conceptualised ‘actual world’ that they fondly imagine as being ‘outside of images’ when it is not). RESPONDENT: I said if to acknowledge that there is an actual world outside of concepts within which the human conceptual ‘world’ has arisen. RICHARD: Indeed you did ... and I responded with an ‘if’ as well so as to show you that I understand your concept. However, you do not maintain your ‘if’ when it comes to your conceptualised actual world ... you state it as being a fact with the use of ‘the’ (‘the actual world (outside of images)’) which establishes it (both in the sentence structure and your conceptualising mind) as being factual. It is not ... it can only be a conceptualised actual world until you live in it as an actuality. RESPONDENT: But, the image/conceptual world is a subset of the actual world, as is everything. RICHARD: What ‘actual world’ are you talking of so knowledgeably here? All you know is a conceptualised actual world and are therefore speculating that your ‘image/ conceptual world’ is indeed a ‘subset of the actual world’. It is a conceptualised ‘subset’ of a conceptualised actual world ... the actual world simply does not exist as an actuality. All you know is conceptualising and images. Unless you can recall a PCE then all this ‘actual world’ stuff that you write is theoretical conceptualisation. RESPONDENT: The only PCE I can (vaguely) recall is the one you claim to have had. RICHARD: Good. May I ask why you object so much to what I write if you can relate via your own personal experience? RESPONDENT: Frankly, by giving it your own label – ‘PCE’ – you have only made it more difficult for us to communicate. RICHARD: Yet it is not my own label ... I came across this nomenclature two years ago when I first came onto the Internet and accessed all the ‘Consciousness Studies’ groups (like the ‘Journal of Consciousness Studies’ operating out of Cambridge and another one in Tucson and so on) and found them using PCE as in ‘pure consciousness event’ (but then linking it to the teachings of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Patanjali Yoga and their ilk). I subscribed to one of their Mailing Lists at the time and thus adopted their usage. Prior to that I had been using Mr. Abraham Maslow’s term ‘Peak Experience’ as a more respectable substitute for my own use of ‘tripping’ born out of my hippie background. The experience of pure consciousness has a global incidence, independent of race, gender, age or era. RESPONDENT: I am not interested in immersing myself in your wordy self-narrative which its author evidently insists is the way out of ‘hell’ and into ‘heaven’ for the human race. RICHARD: I never use the religious/ spiritual terminology of ‘hell’ and ‘heaven’ as well you know. This is a lame-duck excuse for a dialogue. RESPONDENT: If that has worked for you, great. RICHARD: There is no ‘if’ about it ... this is actual. RESPONDENT: I am not ready for it. RICHARD: Then why write to me? I was having a correspondence with another poster and you chose to join in ... why do this if you have no interest? You and I have communicated before and you reported that ‘Richard has worn out his welcome’ ... so why initiate something with me when you already know what I am on about? * RICHARD: Do you practice detachment? (You are twice-removed from actuality). RESPONDENT: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse? RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method. RESPONDENT: I never do intentionally (if that is what you’re asking). RICHARD: Yes, it was what I was asking ... because any attempt to escape from the human condition via a withdrawal from the sensate world only endorses and perpetuates the self that is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides in the first place. * RESPONDENT: Isn’t the savage, brutal, wild tooth and claw view of nature a bit narrow minded? Isn’t it the projection of the fears of the divided from its source mentality? RICHARD: No. It is that an individual freedom from the human condition could lead to a global freedom from the human condition It is possible for a chain-reaction effect to ripple through all the peoples who inhabit this planet; imbuing the populace with peace and prosperity. And this freedom from the human condition would revolutionise the concept of humanity. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. No longer need people lament the futility of trying to escape from the folly of the ‘Human Condition’. Never again would fear rule the earth; terror would stalk its prey no more ... and another 160,000,000 human beings would not be killed in wars by their fellow human next century. But even if global peace was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant identities – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way. RESPONDENT: I am afraid I do not take you seriously. First you claim to have no beliefs or images (‘I have no intuitive or imaginative faculties whatsoever ... that all disappeared in 1992’.), then you write: ‘And this freedom from the human condition would revolutionise the concept of humanity. It would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals (etc.)’ The above quote is your image of what ‘this freedom’ would be like (it is very much like the famous song John Lennon’s wrote: ‘Imagine’(image-ine). RICHARD: Hmm ... why do you write to a Mailing List, ostensibly set-up to explore ways to end all the appalling misery and mayhem that is the human condition, if this is the best you can come up with? Can you possibly move on from this ‘you have an image’ retort you keep applying? Can you not sincerely address yourself to the question? RESPONDENT: So you obviously do have images. How do you explain (rationalise?) this discrepancy in the credibility of your claims? RICHARD: Because by being this flesh and blood apperceptive brain I am/have full use of this apperceptive thinking brain’s capacity for rational (sensible) thought. It is obvious that if (‘if’) each and ever human being were to free themselves from the human condition then this unilateral action would result in a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. No longer need people lament the futility of trying to escape from the folly of the ‘Human Condition’. Never again would fear rule the earth; terror would stalk its prey no more ... and another 160,000,000 human beings would not be killed in wars by their fellow human next century. But even if global peace was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant identities – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way.
RICHARD: There is more to life than fantasising about being a butterfly. RESPONDENT: Thank you for mentioning butterflies. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... except that what I mentioned was fantasising about being a butterfly (or anything else for that matter) and not butterflies per se ... but you do seem to have missed that point. RESPONDENT: They are a perfect indication that intelligence abounds. RICHARD: In the ‘metamorphosis’ theory (based upon the caterpillar chrysalis turning into mush and emerging as a butterfly) the alchemical fantasy is that the gross (the caterpillar or the base metal) can transform, transmute or transmogrify into the refined (the butterfly or gold) and become thus pure (like the lotus growing out of the mud). Whereas ‘I’ cannot ever perfect ‘myself’ because ‘I’ cannot ever be perfection ... I can only die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate). Indeed, that is all ‘I’ need to do so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent ... as evidenced in a PCE. Fantasising about refining the base is to but procrastinate and perpetuate all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: Funny of ‘blind’ Nature to have ‘put’ such a fragile creature here, no? RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘blind nature’ does not ‘put’ anything anywhere because ‘blind nature’ is not a ‘being’. The phrase ‘blind nature’ is but a description of a process ... a process of development over time wherein the organism most fitted to the environment survives and passes its genes onto the next generation. Thus, having made a description of a process into an anthropomorphic entity by capitalising it (as in ‘‘blind’ Nature’ above) you impose an egocentric view upon a natural process and read all kinds of fantasies into it ... like it (‘Nature’) being intelligent, and so on. RESPONDENT: Much of my pre-school childhood was a PCE. RICHARD: Good. May I ask why you object so much to what I write if you can relate via your own personal experience? RESPONDENT: That annoying dilettante, No. 25. RICHARD: If you find yourself as being ‘annoying’ then why not do something about it? Speaking personally, I have a lot of fun writing to you and enjoy these discussions immensely. I do not find you annoying at all.
RESPONDENT: By the way, if peace is ‘nowhere to be found’ then is it just an image to you? RICHARD: No, it is not ‘just an image ... there have been 160,000,000 peoples killed by their fellow human beings in wars this century alone; as I write this, something like 29 wars are going on somewhere on this planet; there have been over 200 wars since the dropping of the atom bomb in 1945 and so on and so on as in regards to all the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. Are you seriously suggesting that all this misery and mayhem is ‘just an image’ to me? Do you not see this for yourself? RESPONDENT: A belief? RICHARD: Are you capable of participating sincerely in a dialogue on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition? Has it ever occurred to you that your grade-school stock-standard retorts (‘you have an image’ or ‘you have a belief’ or ‘you are attached’ and so on) just do not work on me ... nor even apply to me? There is more to life than fantasising about being a butterfly. RESPONDENT: I was not saying you have an image of peace being ‘nowhere to be found’. The image you have, to which I am pointing, is your image of peace (the ‘peace on earth’ which you posit would manifest if we ended violence, war, rapes, etc.). What is this ‘peace’ which you talk of if not (just) an image (of what ‘could’ be)? RICHARD: It is simply a clear seeing of a fact ... because by being this flesh and blood apperceptive brain there is the full usage of this apperceptive thinking brain’s capacity for rational (sensible) thought. It is obvious that if (‘if’) each and ever human being were to free themselves from the human condition then this unilateral action would result in a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of like-minded individuals. One would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past. People would live together in peace and harmony, happiness and delight. Pollution and its cause – over-population – would be set to rights without effort, as competition would be replaced by cooperation. No longer need people lament the futility of trying to escape from the folly of the ‘Human Condition’. Never again would fear rule the earth; terror would stalk its prey no more ... and another 160,000,000 human beings would not be killed in wars by their fellow human next century. Why do you have so much difficulty with this simple observation and insist that it must be an image? Is it because you have nothing to contribute other than your stock-standard grade-school retorts like ‘you have an image’ and so on?
RICHARD: There is more to life than fantasising about being a butterfly. RESPONDENT: Thank you for mentioning butterflies. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... except that what I mentioned was fantasising about being a butterfly (or anything else for that matter) and not butterflies per se ... but you do seem to have missed that point. RESPONDENT: No, I spent good energy to find something ‘agreeable’ in what you mentioned. RICHARD: It is very gracious of you, I am sure, to spend your ‘good energy’ on me and my words ... except that for all of your good energy expended you found nothing agreeable whatsoever. You simply used my words as a launching-pad for your own barrow. To wit: butterflies ‘are a perfect indication that intelligence abounds’. Where is your ‘agreement’? In fact, where is your intelligence? RESPONDENT: They are a perfect indication that intelligence abounds. RICHARD: In the ‘metamorphosis’ theory (based upon the caterpillar chrysalis turning into mush and emerging as a butterfly) the alchemical fantasy is that the gross (the caterpillar or the base metal) can transform, transmute or transmogrify into the refined (the butterfly or gold) and become thus pure (like the lotus growing out of the mud). RESPONDENT: For your information, I find caterpillars as wonder-full as butterflies; [and] mud as wonderful as a lotus. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I find nothing wonderful about the instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire that all sentient beings are born with. Especially when they are transformed into malice and sorrow with all their carefully cultivated derivations (basically, ‘malice’ is what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on) and ‘sorrow’ (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on) is what one does to oneself). As you find all of this ‘wonder-full’ then no wonder all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides prevail. * RICHARD: Whereas ‘I’ cannot ever perfect ‘myself’ because ‘I’ cannot ever be perfection ... I can only die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate). Indeed, that is all ‘I’ need to do so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent ... as evidenced in a PCE. Fantasising about refining the base is to but procrastinate and perpetuate all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: Yes, I suppose there is a connection between a proud butterfly and Richard with his PCE(s). RICHARD: There is no connection whatsoever betwixt the metaphor of a butterfly (be it proud or not) and what Richard is on about. And as Richard does not have PCE’s, then this sentence is simply silly twice over. RESPONDENT: But forgive me if I am (just) imagining it. The difference is that the caterpillar is not interested in becoming a butterfly; the transformation is a by-product of simply being. RICHARD: A ‘transformation’ into what? Into a butterfly that flits about, maybe sipping nectar here and there, and finding a suitable host plant to lay its eggs on before dying. The eggs hatch out into voracious caterpillars who, just simply by being, will strip the host plant of its life-giving leaves causing it to die so that they can transform into butterflies? Thus the butterfly, as gorgeous as it may look, perpetuates the status quo for ever and a day by ‘simply being’. Whereas the human animal, being intelligent, can do something about the ‘transformation’ that ‘is a by-product of simply being’ and enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent ... which a butterfly can not. RESPONDENT: Funny of ‘blind’ Nature to have ‘put’ such a fragile creature here, no? RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘blind nature’ does not ‘put’ anything anywhere because ‘blind nature’ is not a ‘being’. The phrase ‘blind nature’ is but a description of a process ... a process of development over time wherein the organism most fitted to the environment survives and passes its genes onto the next generation. Thus, having made a description of a process into an anthropomorphic entity by capitalising it (as in ‘‘blind’ Nature’ above) you impose an egocentric view upon a natural process and read all kinds of fantasies into it ... like it (‘Nature’) being intelligent, and so on. RESPONDENT: We are a ‘subset’ of Nature – are we not? RICHARD: The human animal is nature in action ... and nature is nothing more or less than carbon-based life-forms. The process of evolution is such that the species most fitted to their environment prosper and those no longer fitted languish. This process of nature is such that if the human animal does not mutate – which mutation is a process of nature – there is a fair chance that the human species will kill itself off after many more abysmal trials and tribulations. The future is yours for the choosing. RESPONDENT: I would not underestimate the intelligence of Nature by imagining ‘it’ in an anthropomorphic sense. RICHARD: The carbon-based life-form called human beings are the only aspect of nature to so far evolve intelligence ... and if the intelligence thus bestowed is not used appropriately then all the long evolutionary process will have come to naught. Not that this is of any concern to nature ... another carbon-based life-form will eventually evolve intelligence in the fullness of time and maybe that carbon-based life-form will not be so stupefied as the carbon-based life-form as epitomised by yourself. Nature has all the time in the universe to manifest perfection ... and that is infinite time. Whereas you have perhaps eighty or so years. RESPONDENT: You are too quick to pounce [onto your image of what is being said]. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is not ‘my image of what is being said’ at all ... for all of your grade-school stock-standard retorts it is precisely what is being said. * RESPONDENT: Much of my pre-school childhood was a PCE. RICHARD: Good. May I ask why you object so much to what I write if you can relate via your own personal experience? RESPONDENT: Because the verbalization of the thing is simply verbalization. RICHARD: Are you saying that you would prefer that I sent pictures of the thing? Even though this forum is designed mainly for words ... what format would you like: ‘bitmap’, ‘gif’ or ‘jpeg’? RESPONDENT: Plus, it has taken far too long, and far too many words and exchanges for you to simply convey what you’re trying to point to. RICHARD: Not so ... I conveyed it all, in my very first E-Mail to this Mailing List eighteen months or so ago, in 429 words. Since then, all my words have been dedicated to dealing with people who object to being happy and harmless. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: I am dying of a disease and you are a doctor who is explaining to me what the ‘cure’ is instead of showing/ offering it to me. RICHARD: Why are you trying to dictate how I explain my experience? How on earth would you know how I should best describe something that has never before been lived for the twenty four hours of the day in human experience? RESPONDENT: Thus I am saying (so far) you seem to be a poor physician. RICHARD: Not so ... you are refusing to see the cause of this ‘disease’ that you say you are ‘dying of’ and seek instead to get me to offer the ‘Tried and True’ remedies that all the quacks have offered ... despite the obvious fact that their dubious remedy – immortality – has failed to bring about their much-trumpeted ‘Peace On Earth’. RESPONDENT: Of course I may just be completely mistaken. RICHARD: There is no ‘may just be completely mistaken’ ... you are completely mistaken. RESPONDENT: In which case – please attempt to convey ‘the thing’ – if it can be conveyed. RICHARD: I do not ‘attempt to convey’ ... I do convey each E-Mail again. Because it can be conveyed – an actual freedom is not ineffable – and is eloquently described in words. * RESPONDENT: That annoying dilettante, No. 25. RICHARD: If you find yourself as being ‘annoying’ then why not do something about it? Speaking personally, I have a lot of fun writing to you and enjoy these discussions immensely. RESPONDENT: I was just toying with your description of me. RICHARD: May I ask? Is there any other part of yourself you toy with? * RICHARD: I do not find you annoying at all. RESPONDENT: Not even a teeny, weeny bit? RICHARD: No. I do not know how to get annoyed. RESPONDENT: If not thank you for the peace that you are. RICHARD: Why? What has ‘the peace that you are’ (which is nothing but a inanity you dish out to all and sundry) done for you? Has it made you happy and harmless? Yes? No? If no ... what on earth are you thanking me for? (It is obviously ‘no’ because if it were ‘yes’ you would understand the deleterious effect that gratitude has). Only unilateral action on your part will produce the goods ... not useless (and platitudinous) gratitude.
RICHARD: Do you practice detachment? (You are twice-removed from actuality). RESPONDENT: Alas, I do not practice much (please define detachment). Do you have a method which you endorse? RICHARD: I am using ‘detachment’ in the Buddhist meaning of ‘withdrawal from the world of the senses’. I would never endorse any such method. RESPONDENT No. 13: While there may indeed be some who proclaim to be Buddhist
who hold to this definition of detachment it is by no means ‘the Buddhist meaning’ as Richard would have us believe. Rather,
detachment (properly understood in the context of the teachings of Buddha) is regarded on one level as an ending of the
identification process; identifying with possessions, beliefs, titles, jobs, status, etc. We depend on these things to define who
we are, to give substance to our self image. Therefore we are attached to them, because to lose them is to lose a part of our ‘self’.
The practice of detachment in this context would be to pay attention to these ‘things’ and the fact of the identification
process. Detachment itself (not its practice) arises from an awareness of the truth of the matter; the confusion, conflict and
harm inherent in the identification process. With awareness of the truth comes an end to the matter; one is no longer attached by
identification. One is now ‘detached’ (so to speak). On another level detachment is regarded as an end to the bias and
prejudice of past conditioning. It is freedom from partiality. It is seeing clearly. The practice of detachment in this context is
to be attentive to the process of bias and prejudice as they manifest. Once again, it is awareness of the truth of the matter that
ends the matter and detachment is then actualised, not practiced. In all matters it is this way. To practice is to be attentive to
what is happening now. Attention is the seed. Returning again and again to attentiveness is caring for the seed. Awareness is the
flowering plant that naturally arises from the seed of its own accord. To return to the ‘Buddhist meaning’ of detachment. I
have never come across a ‘Buddhist’ definition as presented by Richard. Nor is detachment (in the context of the teachings of
Buddha) ever presented as a ‘non-feeling’ state; indifferent, not caring, or without compassion. On the contrary, the capacity
to feel is enhanced and is able to convey meaningful and valuable information when it is not obscured by our personal, emotional
attachments. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the lucid description of detachment. RICHARD: Could you explain for me, please, just what it is that you find ‘lucid’ in the above description? RESPONDENT: I could try. The gist of the lucidity, in my opinion, is the pointing to the fact that the me attaches to (‘identifies with’) titles, beliefs, agendas, etc., and thus is the source of psychological suffering. RICHARD: Yet the ‘me’ that ‘attaches to (‘identifies with’) titles, beliefs, agendas, etc.’, pre-exists this attachment to and identification with ‘titles, beliefs, agendas, etc.’,. Therefore, to end attachment and identification permanently, one can only self-immolate (psychologically and psychically) and it is this extinction of self in any way, shape or form that does away with the need to practice detachment. As one’s very identity is felt and thought to be a ‘being’ inside this flesh and blood body – busily identifying with people, things and events ‘outside’ the body – then to become detached from the superficial ‘outer’ identification (self-image as presented to self and others) only endorses and perpetuates the delusion that who ‘I’ feel and think ‘I’ am is a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting this body. Hence I ask again: what is so ‘lucid’ about a description of a process that only endorses and perpetuates the delusion that who ‘I’ feel and think ‘I’ am is a psychological and psychic entity inhabiting this body? RESPONDENT: In the view from here, withdrawal from the world of senses is the opposite of what Buddha mind ‘teaches’. RICHARD: Maybe you have psychic access to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s secret ‘Teachings’ whilst I have only the recorded scriptures to go by. Those multitudinous scriptures consistently point to a total withdrawal from this sensate physical world. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s advice is for a total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Withdrawal from the senses seems more consistent with the ascetic practices the one who became slandered as ‘the Buddha’ practiced trying to become enlightened. He renounced such practices afterwards, saying they only harm the practitioner (not that this only applies physically, of course). RICHARD: Not so. The above Sutta was spoken by the awakened Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and not the ascetic practitioner. RESPONDENT: But I am digressing into my own view perhaps too far without seeing if we are both interested. RICHARD: Indeed ... your views have nowt to do with Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s ‘Teachings’ or Buddhism per se. In fact, your views are as lucid as the views of another poster whose views you admired so much ... such self-congratulatory praise speaks volumes about the crippled status of your intelligence. * RESPONDENT: Not that he necessarily is, but if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s) it would probably make it more difficult for him to understand what you are saying about detachment. RICHARD: May I ask? Given that you are self-acknowledged as being prone to conceptualising, could you conceptualise being free and then further conceptualise just what you would say to a person whose best effort at a dialogue (on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition) is a weak ‘if Richard were attached to certain experiences (say PCE’s)’? Because only an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) can have a PCE ... the identity that inhabited this body (the ‘he’ who had the PCE) is extinct. I do not have PCE’s ... let alone be attached to them. RESPONDENT: Conceptualising being free seems fruitless. RICHARD: Indeed ... only unilateral action is fruitful. But until you are motivated to actually do something about all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides you can exercise your ability to conceptualise and put it to sensible use, eh? RESPONDENT: As far as PCE’s I would say that although they may describe a ‘state of being’ when Richard was extinct, ‘Richard afterwards ‘re-incarnates’ and then this image-making ‘Richard’ becomes attached to his image (filtered memory) of that (PCE). RICHARD: First, a PCE is not a description ... it is a direct experience that obviates believing, having faith or trusting. Secondly an actual freedom from the human condition is not a ‘state of being’ because ‘being’ is extirpated ... it is an ASC that is a ‘State Of Being’. Thirdly, the word ‘extinct’ means as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains – there is no phoenix to arise from the ashes here – thus there is no ‘entity’ to ‘afterwards re-incarnate’’ in order to be an ‘image-making ‘Richard’’ that fulfils your grade-school expectations of becoming ‘attached to his image (filtered memory) of that (PCE)’. You really do not know how to lift your level of discussion, do you? RESPONDENT: Please do not address ‘past-lives’ as I am not discussing the concept of re-incarnation of an ‘atman’ or soul into a new physical body. RICHARD: Indeed not ... your bastardised version of the mystical doctrine of re-incarnation is not worth addressing. RESPONDENT: Rather I am discussing the psychic entity – the ‘Richard’ or No. 25 – who re-incarnates from moment to moment. RICHARD: Aye ... and while you want to discuss the lucidity of becoming a detached ‘psychic entity – the ‘Richard’ or No. 25 – who re-incarnates from moment to moment’ I am busily discussing the demise of that ‘psychic entity – the ‘Richard’ or No. 25 – who re-incarnates from moment to moment’ and the why’s and wherefore’s thereof. Then one does not have to practice detachment.
RESPONDENT: You have indeed reduced me, sir, to ‘stock-standard grade-school retorts’ (i.e. ‘nuff said). Good day. RICHARD: Hmm ... still avoiding the issue right to the end, eh? I have not ‘reduced’ you to anything ... if all you are capable of, now, is stock-standard grade-school retorts, then that is all you were ever capable of before your dialogue with me. And if all you are capable of period, as a fact, is stock-standard grade-school retorts, then it is this fact that became apparent in our dialogue ... I do not have the power to either reduce or enhance anyone. Your ability or lack thereof is all your own doing.
RESPONDENT: You have indeed reduced me, sir, to ‘stock-standard grade-school retorts’ (i.e. ‘nuff said). Good day. RICHARD: Hmm ... still avoiding the issue right to the end, eh? I have not ‘reduced’ you to anything ... if all you are capable of, now, is stock-standard grade-school retorts, then that is all you were ever capable of before your dialogue with me. And if all you are capable of period, as a fact, is stock-standard grade-school retorts, then it is this fact that became apparent in our dialogue ... I do not have the power to either reduce or enhance anyone. Your ability or lack thereof is all your own doing. RESPONDENT: Yes. I don’t want (or can’t presently muster the energy) to put on all the verbal baggage it would require to communicate with you. RICHARD: Oh, dear ... you are still doing it with this addendum. We discussed this particular stock-standard grade-school retort of yours three E-Mails ago. Viz.:
Thus 429 words (four paragraphs) indicates that no ‘verbal baggage’ whatsoever is required to communicate with me ... just clear and precise and mutually agreed upon words and phrases (plus the ability to both render cognitive dissonance null and void and to emasculate the stranglehold that psittacisms have on one). We also discussed it seven E-Mails ago. Viz.:
Consequently no ‘mustering of energy’ is required ... simply seeing the fact will release the requisite energy. RESPONDENT: Thus, for now, let us let that be my own doing (or undoing) ... thanks. RICHARD: The only thing that is your ‘own doing (or undoing)’ – in these past two posts at least – is to attempt to duck-shove your problem onto me. Sort of like ‘pass the parcel’, eh?
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Three) 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 |
