|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 25
RESPONDENT: Earlier this afternoon, before it stormed here, I was outside watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees and I was taken away by the utter fullness of it! Upon reflection of that brief glimpse of total attention, it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that. I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate. RICHARD: How effective has being ‘stunned by thinking’ been for you? How many times since this afternoon have you consequently stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate so that you will be taken away by the multi-faceted fullness of that? In other words: has this stunning thinking, subsequent to the event, done the trick by enabling that which is talked about so often to happen? Just curious. RESPONDENT: Being stunned by thinking was just an expression expressing that the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self) was stopped for a moment. RICHARD: Oh? You would know best, of course, yet going by what you wrote at the time I would have considered that ‘being stunned by thinking’ was ‘just an expression’ of thinking how rarely ‘the homeostasis of thought (aka: the psychological self) was stopped for a moment’ ... rather than that you were stopped. You certainly convinced your co-respondent what a stunning thought it was that it is such a rare occurrence, anyway. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I was stunned by thinking how rarely I stop and allow awareness to operate’. [No. 4]: ‘It is stunning, isn’t it? (...) We are poverty incarnate. All we have at daybreak is memory. We live in that memory all day long. And at the end of the day, all we have is more memory. There can be no greater poverty than that’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Seeing how we seldom let the fullness be, and instead stay stuck in the rut of thought, is what is ‘stunning’ thought. Facing that absurdity is perhaps worthwhile, don’t you think? RICHARD: Goodness me no ... why procrastinate by busying yourself with ‘facing that absurdity’ (which is to keep on busying yourself with that stunning thought) when it is total attention that is the trigger for the utter fullness being made apparent? The only thing that is worthwhile is when ‘I stop and allow awareness to operate’ ... period. * RESPONDENT: That stopping was not a crisis either – as in an accident, physical trauma, etc. RICHARD: Indeed not: the way you wrote of the event was that it was precipitated by ‘watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees’ ... total attention, in other words, rather than being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness. RESPONDENT: Right. RICHARD: Also whilst watching an e-mail’s words/sentences scrolling through a background of [whatever colour] page and the [whatever colour] borders of the screen? The utter fullness is not only apparent in what is commonly called ‘nature’ – total attention is all-embracing – for it exclusive of no one and no thing. This moment is one’s only moment of being alive. * RESPONDENT: Thought attempted to re-establish its dominance through reflecting on what was. I don’t think that has been effective at all in terms of allowing all of ‘one’s’ being to be given to the ‘multifaceted fullness of that’. RICHARD: Ahh ... then reflecting and being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate is of no use whatsoever, eh? Is this because ‘thought is simply too one-dimensional’ to produce anything other than a one-dimensional stunning of the thinker would you say? What does it take to produce a 3-D stunning of the thinker? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is the question. Looking seemed to be the trigger. Simple perception unadulterated by the presence of runaway thought. RICHARD: Yes ... though I would say ‘simple perception unadulterated by the presence of a thinker’ (unadulterated thought operates episodically as is required by the circumstances). * RESPONDENT: But I do think that the ‘glimpse’ which stunned thought has planted a seed. RICHARD: Are you sure? Is it not the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent that is the trigger for stunning the thinker ... does not thought need to operate episodically as is required by the circumstances? If one thinks ‘upon reflection’ that ‘it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that’ then the thinker concludes that thought must stop for that to happen ... thus precluding a twenty-four-hour-a-day happening. RESPONDENT: Well, it seems to me that ‘preclusion’ is only occurring for the thinker divided from the fullness of that. RICHARD: Yes, the thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe. RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances. RESPONDENT: That ‘preclusion’ may have allowed man to develop a great deal of technological capacities, but it seems to have usurped its limited place and practically refuses to abate. RICHARD: It is the thinker that reduces thought to being ‘one-dimensional’. * RESPONDENT: In fact, ‘it’ happened again today. But I am not experiencing it with continuity, if that is what you’re getting at. RICHARD: Nope ... what I am getting at is why praise ‘one-dimensional’ thought for its ability to stun its thinker (as in impressed by its own brilliance in thinking that thought) when it is the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent which is the trigger for the event. May I ask? What was instrumental in evoking ‘it’ again today? RESPONDENT: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call ... . RICHARD: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for? * RESPONDENT: Of course, when ‘it’ happens, to stick with K’s vernacular for describing it, the self is not there to experience ‘it’. RICHARD: Aye ... you already made that clear where you wrote ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ RESPONDENT: Yes, true. Thank you for listening to what I was trying to describe. RICHARD: It was because of what you described and how you described it that I wrote. * RESPONDENT: Would you be so kind as to share why you find this thread interesting enough to respond to, and what is it you are trying to point to or go into? RICHARD: I simply found it quaint that two correspondents – on a Mailing List that condemns thought in no uncertain terms – should be so much in agreement about being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely they stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate ... what with thought being so ‘one-dimensional’ and all. The best that this mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour can produce is a vow, a resolution, a promise and so on. In other words: effort. What I am ‘trying to point to or go into’ is that it is wrong thinking – rather than thinking per se – subsequent to the event as being that which prevents the happening from occurring just here right now as you read these words. Thought cops so much blame ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Oh, I don’t know. No. 4 and I are trying to look at what thought is doing ... and missing. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and it is because the thinker is polluting thought that thought is doing what it is doing ... and missing. RESPONDENT: Are you back-slapping yourself by positing your own authority on this in contrast to your characterisation of No. 4 and I? RICHARD: Of course I am. I praise success and criticise failure because I like my fellow human beings ... peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: Do you have a method to experience the fullness of ‘that’? RICHARD: Ask yourself (as an open question) what am I here for? RESPONDENT: Do you think there is anything worthwhile for two (or more) people to convey to one another in regards to ‘that’? RICHARD: Oh yes indeed ... if they bear in mind that they are but two thinkers communing in lieu of unadulterated thought communicating with unadulterated thought. RESPONDENT: What can you say to me, who may have allowed a glimpse, but is now lapsing into self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping? (if that is indeed what is occurring). RICHARD: Remember to restrict self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping only to where it is experientially deserved ... nothing succeeds like success. RESPONDENT: By the way, it almost feels as if you are trying to pounce upon me like a cat on a mouse. RICHARD: I am targeting the thinker ... is that you? RESPONDENT: Are you being predatory? RICHARD: I do not have that capacity ... only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’.
RESPONDENT: Seeing how we seldom let the fullness be, and instead stay stuck in the rut of thought, is what is ‘stunning’ thought. Facing that absurdity is perhaps worthwhile, don’t you think? RICHARD: Goodness me no ... why procrastinate by busying yourself with ‘facing that absurdity’ (which is to keep on busying yourself with that stunning thought) when it is total attention that is the trigger for the utter fullness being made apparent? The only thing that is worthwhile is when ‘I stop and allow awareness to operate’ ... period. RESPONDENT: When thought is provided with the topic of the absurdity of it adulterating with one dimensional, dissonant noise over the harmonious fullness of ‘that’, thought is inclined to stop and allow that fullness to operate, unadulterated with noise. RICHARD: You say ‘inclined to’ ... but is it a fact? By which I mean: does it happen? Does it occur? Does it actually work? Has the fullness been able to operate because thought has faced that absurdity? I am curious. * RESPONDENT: That stopping was not a crisis either – as in an accident, physical trauma, etc. RICHARD: Indeed not: the way you wrote of the event was that it was precipitated by ‘watching a bird fly/flutter through a background of blue sky and the green leaves of trees’ ... total attention, in other words, rather than being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness. RESPONDENT: Right. RICHARD: Also whilst watching an e-mail’s words/sentences scrolling through a background of [whatever colour] page and the [whatever colour] borders of the screen? The utter fullness is not only apparent in what is commonly called ‘nature’ – total attention is all-embracing – for it exclusive of no one and no thing. This moment is one’s only moment of being alive. RESPONDENT: Yes, very true and stunning in its implications. But, focusing on representational implications is failure to meet this moment of life as life, which instead occurs in the dissolution of adulterant thought. RICHARD: Nothing compares to the actual living of these implications ... the living of these is thrilling. * RESPONDENT: Thought attempted to re-establish its dominance through reflecting on what was. I don’t think that has been effective at all in terms of allowing all of ‘one’s’ being to be given to the ‘multifaceted fullness of that’. RICHARD: Ahh ... then reflecting and being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely you stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate is of no use whatsoever, eh? Is this because ‘thought is simply too one-dimensional’ to produce anything other than a one-dimensional stunning of the thinker would you say? What does it take to produce a 3-D stunning of the thinker? RESPONDENT: Yes, that is the question. Looking seemed to be the trigger. Simple perception unadulterated by the presence of runaway thought. RICHARD: Yes ... though I would say ‘simple perception unadulterated by the presence of a thinker’ (unadulterated thought operates episodically as is required by the circumstances). RESPONDENT: Thank you for the precision in that way of putting it. Well seen/shown. RICHARD: Ahh ... good (thought cops so much blame by those peoples who believe the pundits ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free). * RESPONDENT: But I do think that the ‘glimpse’ which stunned thought has planted a seed. RICHARD: Are you sure? Is it not the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent that is the trigger for stunning the thinker ... does not thought need to operate episodically as is required by the circumstances? If one thinks ‘upon reflection’ that ‘it seems thought is simply too one-dimensional to touch the multi-faceted fullness of that’ then the thinker concludes that thought must stop for that to happen ... thus precluding a twenty-four-hour-a-day happening. RESPONDENT: Well, it seems to me that ‘preclusion’ is only occurring for the thinker divided from the fullness of that. RICHARD: Yes, the thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). RESPONDENT: Yes, but do you think that such an occurrence is the result of a direct action by thought (‘allowing itself to disappear’), or is it triggered by the proactive perception of that fullness? RICHARD: It is the result of a ‘direct action by thought’ inasmuch as it is the thinker thinking a seminal thought which is directly inspired by the ‘perception of that fullness’ (and not through reading about it). That inspired thought which the thinker thinks is the very thought that paves the way for such an occurrence. To wit: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’. It is a conscious decision. * RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe. RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances. RESPONDENT: Even then thought is limited, is it not, though there is no division between it and the unlimited fullness of that? RICHARD: Thought is functional (operating in the domain of making sense of what is happening and in the area of commonsense cause and effect) ... if that is what you mean by ‘limited’? When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. * RESPONDENT: That ‘preclusion’ [of a twenty-four-hour-a-day happing] may have allowed man to develop a great deal of technological capacities, but it seems to have usurped its limited place and practically refuses to abate. RICHARD: It is the thinker that reduces thought to being ‘one-dimensional’. RESPONDENT: Yes, the thinker is the water bug disturbing the immaculate, clear surface of the pond of awareness, thus clouding the clarity so that the transparency is eclipsed. RICHARD: Excellent analogy. * RESPONDENT: In fact, ‘it’ happened again today. But I am not experiencing it with continuity, if that is what you’re getting at. RICHARD: Nope ... what I am getting at is why praise ‘one-dimensional’ thought for its ability to stun its thinker (as in impressed by its own brilliance in thinking that thought) when it is the glimpse of the utter fullness which total attention makes apparent which is the trigger for the event. May I ask? What was instrumental in evoking ‘it’ again today? RESPONDENT: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call ... . RICHARD: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for? RESPONDENT: No, the fear abates. There is order in the perspective you express. Thanks for putting it like that. RICHARD: Okay ... this is important, vital, pivotal: ‘I’, the thinker, know that ‘I’ cannot do it ... ‘I’ cannot disappear ‘myself’. Only the ‘utter fullness’ can, and the ‘utter fullness’ is ‘calling one’, each moment again, and it is only when ‘I’ fully comprehend – totally, completely, fundamentally – that to be living this ‘utter fullness’ is to be living ‘my’ destiny will one be able ‘to answer that call’. This full-blooded endorsement means it then becomes inevitable. * RESPONDENT: Of course, when ‘it’ happens, to stick with K’s vernacular for describing it, the self is not there to experience ‘it’. RICHARD: Aye ... you already made that clear where you wrote ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ RESPONDENT: Yes, true. Thank you for listening to what I was trying to describe. RICHARD: It was because of what you described and how you described it that I wrote. RESPONDENT: Thank you for looking with me at this. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you do realise that if you go all the way into this it will be the end of you, do you not? * RESPONDENT: Would you be so kind as to share why you find this thread interesting enough to respond to, and what is it you are trying to point to or go into? RICHARD: I simply found it quaint that two correspondents – on a Mailing List that condemns thought in no uncertain terms – should be so much in agreement about being ‘stunned by thinking’ how rarely they stopped and allowed awareness – the utter fullness of total attention – to operate ... what with thought being so ‘one-dimensional’ and all. The best that this mutual back-slapping congratulatory fervour can produce is a vow, a resolution, a promise and so on. In other words: effort. What I am ‘trying to point to or go into’ is that it is wrong thinking – rather than thinking per se – subsequent to the event as being that which prevents the happening from occurring just here right now as you read these words. Thought cops so much blame ... thus the thinker gets off scot-free. RESPONDENT: Oh, I don’t know. No. 4 and I are trying to look at what thought is doing ... and missing. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and it is because the thinker is polluting thought that thought is doing what it is doing ... and missing. RESPONDENT: I see what you are saying. RICHARD: Good ... having established this fact, it is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally ... now that this fact is seen. * RESPONDENT: Are you back-slapping yourself by positing your own authority on this in contrast to your characterisation of No. 4 and I? RICHARD: Of course I am. I praise success and criticise failure because I like my fellow human beings ... peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: Do you have a method to experience the fullness of ‘that’? RICHARD: Ask yourself (as an open question) what am I here for? RESPONDENT: The method is to openly question! Good. RICHARD: Just so that it is clear what an open question is: an open question is a seminal question. ‘I’ ask the question in such a way that ‘I’ do not just get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer and be satisfied with that. ‘I’ want an experiential result ... and ‘I’ keep the question burning in the depths of ‘my’ psyche, discarding any intellectual answers (no matter how accurate) that inevitably pop-up in the course of time. And then it happens as a direct result of keeping the question open. * RESPONDENT: Do you think there is anything worthwhile for two (or more) people to convey to one another in regards to ‘that’? RICHARD: Oh yes indeed ... if they bear in mind that they are but two thinkers communing in lieu of unadulterated thought communicating with unadulterated thought. RESPONDENT: What can you say to me, who may have allowed a glimpse, but is now lapsing into self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping? (if that is indeed what is occurring). RICHARD: Remember to restrict self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping only to where it is experientially deserved ... nothing succeeds like success. RESPONDENT: Would it not be more accurate to say that spontaneous success is its own reward and leave out the reference to an alleged ‘self’? RICHARD: Ha ... you got it, eh? * RESPONDENT: By the way, it almost feels as if you are trying to pounce upon me like a cat on a mouse. RICHARD: I am targeting the thinker ... is that you? RESPONDENT: Yes, of course. RICHARD: Good ... peace-on-earth is at stake. * RESPONDENT: Are you being predatory? RICHARD: I do not have that capacity ... only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’. RESPONDENT: As the thinker assuming divided existence through a one-dimensional adulterating of the more than 3-D fullness of that, I doubt ‘I’ am going anywhere. RICHARD: On the contrary ... ‘you’ are going into oblivion for this is ‘your’ birthright. The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.
RESPONDENT: When thought is provided with the topic of the absurdity of it adulterating with one dimensional, dissonant noise over the harmonious fullness of ‘that’, thought is inclined to stop and allow that fullness to operate, unadulterated with noise. RICHARD: You say ‘inclined to’ ... but is it a fact? By which I mean: does it happen? Does it occur? Does it actually work? Has the fullness been able to operate because thought has faced that absurdity? I am curious. RESPONDENT: No, it doesn’t. It just gives the thinker something to turn its ongoing commentary to. RICHARD: Okay ... now, knowing this as the fact, one no longer invests in these commentary-type thoughts (such thoughts will continue for it is the nature of the thinker’s mind to provide a running commentary) thus freeing-up all of the mind’s passion to be able to be invested instead in that which is vitally important: the awareness known as total attention. RESPONDENT: The fullness comes in when the thinker is in order/gets out of the way. RICHARD: Yes ... and you now know (from direct experience and not just by reading about it) that the utter fullness ‘comes in’ when there is awareness – total attention – operating. Such total attention is all-embracing – for it exclusive of no one and no thing – thus it easily accommodates commentary-type thoughts without getting sucked into them. This is the beginning of order. * RICHARD: The thinker is forever divided from ‘the fullness of that’ ... the thinker is false, an illusion. The only constructive thing the thinker can do is allow itself to be disappeared (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). RESPONDENT: Yes, but do you think that such an occurrence is the result of a direct action by thought (‘allowing itself to disappear’), or is it triggered by the proactive perception of that fullness? RICHARD: It is the result of a ‘direct action by thought’ inasmuch as it is the thinker thinking a seminal thought which is directly inspired by the ‘perception of that fullness’ (and not through reading about it). That inspired thought which the thinker thinks is the very thought that paves the way for such an occurrence. To wit: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’. It is a conscious decision. RESPONDENT: So the thinker can align/be in harmony with that. That is so simple. And here ‘I’ was looking for a situation where the thinker was at odds with harmony, hence my predicament. You seem to be pointing to the actual possibility for order, yes? RICHARD: Yes ... order is concordance. Now that ‘I’ know, via direct experience, that ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). So when ‘I’ ask (as an open question) ‘what am I here for?’ ... the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. * RESPONDENT: It is like thought casts a one dimensional shadow over the much fuller than 3-D actual universe. RICHARD: Yet when the thinker is not ... much fuller than 3-D thought is free to operate episodically as required by the circumstances. RESPONDENT: Even then thought is limited, is it not, though there is no division between it and the unlimited fullness of that? RICHARD: Thought is functional (operating in the domain of making sense of what is happening and in the area of commonsense cause and effect) ... if that is what you mean by ‘limited’? When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. RESPONDENT: Infused/ steeped/ in harmony with – the fullness that is, eh? RICHARD: Oh yes ... fully immersed in an amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening: the meaning of life is brilliantly obvious all around and throughout. * RICHARD: May I ask? What was instrumental in evoking ‘it’ again today? RESPONDENT: I can’t say. It seems like it was the energy/order that happened simply re-aligned. It is almost as if that is calling one, though there is fear to answer that call ... . RICHARD: Does the fear increase if you allow yourself to consider that the words ‘it is almost as if that is calling one’ are the same-same as saying: this utter fullness is this brain’s destiny; this is what one is here for? RESPONDENT: No, the fear abates. There is order in the perspective you express. Thanks for putting it like that. RICHARD: Okay ... this is important, vital, pivotal: ‘I’, the thinker, know that ‘I’ cannot do it ... ‘I’ cannot disappear ‘myself’. Only the ‘utter fullness’ can, and the ‘utter fullness’ is ‘calling one’, each moment again, and it is only when ‘I’ fully comprehend – totally, completely, fundamentally – that to be living this ‘utter fullness’ is to be living ‘my’ destiny will one be able ‘to answer that call’. This full-blooded endorsement means it then becomes inevitable. RESPONDENT: I don’t know. But the rightness of it seems to necessitate endorsement of it. RICHARD: Yes, the utter correctness leaves no choice ... and no choice means no doubt whatsoever. * RESPONDENT: Thank you for looking with me at this. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... you do realise that if you go all the way into this it will be the end of you, do you not? RESPONDENT: How would I know that? Who is this you? The thinker who is out of order with that? The thinker who will do anything to avoid dissolution? Please elaborate. RICHARD: Not just ‘the thinker’ ... everything that you think that you are; everything that you feel that you are; everything that you instinctually know that you are will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Which means that the grim and glum everyday reality – the ‘real world’ – also disappears. * RICHARD: It is because the thinker is polluting thought that thought is doing what it is doing ... and missing. RESPONDENT: I see what you are saying. RICHARD: Good ... having established this fact, it is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally ... now that this fact is seen. RESPONDENT: Now you seem to be turning the tables. But, provided thought is acting in harmony, what you say seems to hold water. The divided thinker which assumes separation must go! RICHARD: Yes ... the ‘divided thinker’ is, in fact, divided against itself ... whilst peoples beat themselves up for not being good enough or for being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (or whatever description) they have no chance of ever enabling the ‘fullness of that’. None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. * RICHARD: Ask yourself (as an open question) what am I here for? RESPONDENT: The method is to openly question! Good. RICHARD: Just so that it is clear what an open question is: an open question is a seminal question. ‘I’ ask the question in such a way that ‘I’ do not just get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer and be satisfied with that. ‘I’ want an experiential result ... and ‘I’ keep the question burning in the depths of ‘my’ psyche, discarding any intellectual answers (no matter how accurate) that inevitably pop-up in the course of time. And then it happens as a direct result of keeping the question open. RESPONDENT: So there must be seriousness and a fatigue of seeking escape? RICHARD: As the goal is peace and harmony – what I describe as being ‘happy and harmless’ – then in no way will seriousness do the trick. Be sincere, yes – utterly sincere – but seriousness ...?? No way ... life is too much fun! * RESPONDENT: I feel some interest in seeking escape. There is a subtle fear of letting go. RICHARD: There is always a thrilling aspect to fear – though the terrifying part usually grabs most attention – thus if one can focus on the thrill then the energy previously fuelling terror is channelled into the thrill of meeting one’s destiny. It is all a matter of attention – total attention – plus a steadfast pure intent. * RESPONDENT: What can you say to me, who may have allowed a glimpse, but is now lapsing into self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping? (if that is indeed what is occurring). RICHARD: Remember to restrict self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping only to where it is experientially deserved ... nothing succeeds like success. RESPONDENT: Would it not be more accurate to say that spontaneous success is its own reward and leave out the reference to an alleged ‘self’? RICHARD: Ha ... you got it, eh? RESPONDENT: Oh, so the self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping may never be warranted – rather success simply happens without a thinker assuming credit? RICHARD: Yep ... the only time when self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping is experientially deserved there is no ‘the thinker’ extant to take credit. * RESPONDENT: By the way, it almost feels as if you are trying to pounce upon me like a cat on a mouse. RICHARD: I am targeting the thinker ... is that you? RESPONDENT: Yes, of course. RICHARD: Good ... peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: There is some fear arising when the stakes are revealed. Can that fear be put to order? RICHARD: Yes ... focus upon the thrilling aspect of fear for the ride of a life-time. * RICHARD: Only you can allow yourself to be ‘taken away’. RESPONDENT: As the thinker assuming divided existence through a one-dimensional adulterating of the more than 3-D fullness of that, I doubt ‘I’ am going anywhere. RICHARD: On the contrary ... ‘you’ are going into oblivion for this is ‘your’ birthright. The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: It sounds so terrifying. RICHARD: It is terrifying ... which is why so few do it: meeting one’s destiny is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee. One needs nerves of steel to allow it to go all the way. RESPONDENT: Does such a statement signify that I am missing the boat? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... terror is a shockingly raw existential experience for anyone. RESPONDENT: Why am I afraid of ending the conflict? RICHARD: Is it that up until now conflict has been ‘my’ raison d’être? Is it that ‘I’ have invested so much into it that it has become ‘my’ very identity? The reason is not all that important ... what is important is: Just do it. RESPONDENT: I will have to relinquish all of my hopes, dreams, desires, yes? RICHARD: In order to enable that which is vastly superior to all your ‘hopes, dreams, desires’? Yes ... willingly, cheerfully. RESPONDENT: All of my cherished pains, self-pity, causes, no? RICHARD: All these and more are what ‘I’ am made up of ... these cherished things are ‘me’. RESPONDENT: And I have a market mentality. I want to know what I will get in exchange. I am quite bamboozled ... what to do? RICHARD: There is no problem about a ‘market mentality’ whatsoever ... ‘sacrifice’ means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory.
RICHARD: ‘I’, the thinker, joyfully agree 100% to allowing ‘myself’ to be ‘taken away by the utter fullness of it!’. It is a conscious decision. RESPONDENT: So the thinker can align/be in harmony with that. That is so simple. And here ‘I’ was looking for a situation where the thinker was at odds with harmony, hence my predicament. You seem to be pointing to the actual possibility for order, yes? RICHARD: Yes ... order is concordance. Now that ‘I’ know, via direct experience, that ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). So when ‘I’ ask (as an open question) ‘what am I here for?’ ... the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. RESPONDENT: Perhaps you will object that this is the ‘tried and failed’, but the saying ‘you must become as little babes’ seems to apply here. For the magic of youth is just this simple non-gilding of the lily that is this universe without the artifice of the thinker (separate self). It is fullness and freedom, beauty and truth, harmony and order. RICHARD: Maybe it is suffice to say at this stage that I do stress how essential the pure intent of naiveté is ... yet because ‘naïve’ and ‘gullible’ are so closely linked (via the trusting nature of a child in concert with the lack of knowledge inherent to childhood) in the now-adult mind most peoples initially have difficulty separating the one from another. Perhaps it may be helpful to report that, when I first re-gained naiveté (which is the closest a ‘self’ can approximate to innocence) at age 33 years, I would exclaim to whoever was prepared to listen that ‘it is like being a child again ... but with adult sensibilities’ (naïve but not gullible). I was soon to discover, however, that being child-like is not it – children are not innocent – and that innocence is totally new to anyone’s experience (it is just that a child is more prone to readily allowing the moment to live one, from time-to-time, than a cynical adult is). Thus the pure intent of naiveté provides the collateral assurance ‘I’ require to safely give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) and to let go the controls. Yet it is the direct experience itself which is the fundamental factor when it comes to making the curious decision to abandon both one’s present course and that of one’s peers and plunge into the adventure of a lifetime. Viz.:
This is what is important. * RICHARD: When ‘the unlimited fullness of that’ is allowed free rein thought functions at its optimum ... a much fuller than 3-D thought. Thoughts are sparkling ... coruscating. RESPONDENT: Infused/steeped/in harmony with – the fullness that is, eh? RICHARD: Oh yes ... fully immersed in an amazing, marvellous, wondrous and magical happening: the meaning of life is brilliantly obvious all around and throughout. RESPONDENT: Yes. It is funny I once asked you if you were AI, because you have an awakened heart (I realise this is going to create some tongue clicking here). RICHARD: What happened was that I had a direct experience of actuality in 1980 ... and it was what ‘I’ had been searching for 33 years. When I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’, ‘I’ knew, with the solid and irrefutable certainty of direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go, disappear, and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ just knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. It was flagrantly evident that the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. Of course there was a lot of thinking about it all and feeling it out – and discussion with ‘my’ peers who all said it was not possible twenty four hours a day – yet there was an awareness that predominated all the while that disregarded all this thinking and feeling and discussion and which simply and wordlessly said ‘THIS IS IT’ no matter what conclusions and decisions were reached. This utter correctness left no choice – and no choice means no doubt whatsoever – so ‘I’ acted/there was action ... solely upon/because of this direct experience. If I were to paraphrase/ plagiarise I would say, that as a result of this action, ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it’ ... permanently. * RICHARD: You do realise that if you go all the way into this it will be the end of you, do you not? RESPONDENT: How would I know that? Who is this you? The thinker who is out of order with that? The thinker who will do anything to avoid dissolution? Please elaborate. RICHARD: Not just ‘the thinker’ ... everything that you think that you are; everything that you feel that you are; everything that you instinctually know that you are will vanish in the twinkling of an eye. Which means that the grim and glum everyday reality – the ‘real world’ – also disappears. RESPONDENT: Yes, the slate is cleansed and one is born anew (which means the old not in the way). I take it though, from my vantage point, that one still has memories of the past which can be accessed when thought is used practically. RICHARD: Yes. I have been here for 53 years and have all my own memories ... I have always been here like this: I have been having a wonderful, marvellous and amazing life for 53 years. It is this simple: the slate was wiped clean because ‘my’ memories disappeared along with ‘me’ when ‘I’ disappeared. * RICHARD: It is important not to turn the thinker into the villain, an enemy: the thinker is thus one’s greatest ally ... now that this fact is seen. RESPONDENT: Now you seem to be turning the tables. But, provided thought is acting in harmony, what you say seems to hold water. The divided thinker which assumes separation must go! RICHARD: Yes ... the ‘divided thinker’ is, in fact, divided against itself ... whilst peoples beat themselves up for not being good enough or for being ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ (or whatever description) they have no chance of ever enabling the ‘fullness of that’. None of this mess is ‘my’ fault ... ‘I’ was born like this. Now that ‘I’ realise this ‘I’ can willingly, cheerfully be in concordance. RESPONDENT: Yes, suicide is torment induced by the conflicted thinker. I would change your last sentence to read: ‘seeing this, there is cheerful concordance (or harmony)’. ‘I can be in accordance’ may lead a thinker to exert effort to ‘create’ such concordance, which is a false facsimile of the realer than 3-D actuality. It also may give credence to the idea that the thinker, who goes buy ‘I’ can achieve harmony. That would be a misinterpretation, eh? RICHARD: Indeed ... ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). * RICHARD: An open question is a seminal question: ‘I’ ask the question (what am I here for) in such a way that ‘I’ do not just get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer and be satisfied with that. ‘I’ want an experiential result ... and ‘I’ keep the question burning in the depths of ‘my’ psyche, discarding any intellectual answers (no matter how accurate) that inevitably pop-up in the course of time. And then it happens as a direct result of keeping the question open. RESPONDENT: So there must be seriousness and a fatigue of seeking escape? RICHARD: As the goal is peace and harmony – what I describe as being ‘happy and harmless’ – then in no way will seriousness do the trick. Be sincere, yes – utterly sincere – but seriousness ...?? No way ... life is too much fun! RESPONDENT: Sincerity is my favourite cup of tea. Great! (it makes sense too). RICHARD: Good ... sincerity is sourced in naiveté * RESPONDENT: I feel some interest in seeking escape. There is a subtle fear of letting go. RICHARD: There is always a thrilling aspect to fear – though the terrifying part usually grabs most attention – thus if one can focus on the thrill then the energy previously fuelling terror is channelled into the thrill of meeting one’s destiny. It is all a matter of attention – total attention – plus a steadfast pure intent. RESPONDENT: Like turning into a skid when rear-traction in a vehicle is lost. It just adds verve. RICHARD: Yes ... if you focus upon the thrilling aspect of fear you are in for the ride of a life-time. * RICHARD: The only time when self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping is experientially deserved there is no ‘the thinker’ extant to take credit. RESPONDENT: Right, and no actual ‘back-slapping’ more like there is mutual concord; joy; fullness. In a word: Life! RICHARD: Yes. * RICHARD: The doorway to freedom has the word ‘extinction’ written on it. This extinction is an irrevocable event, which eliminates the psyche itself. When this is all over there will be no ‘being’ at all. Thus when ‘I’ willingly self-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for oneself and all humankind ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of accomplishment. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: It sounds so terrifying. RICHARD: It is terrifying ... which is why so few do it: meeting one’s destiny is not for the faint of heart or the weak of knee. One needs nerves of steel to allow it to go all the way. RESPONDENT: Well, then ‘I’ can be counted out :-) Fortunately there is something else that may qualify if and when the thinker gets out of the way and there is that proactive fullness of the universe. RICHARD: Yes ... what you call the ‘proactive fullness of the universe’ is what I mean where I say that the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. This ‘proactive fullness of the universe’ is enabled only by ‘my’ concurrence ... if ‘I’ procrastinate it will never operate. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. What am ‘I’ waiting for? * RESPONDENT: Why am I afraid of ending the conflict? RICHARD: Is it that up until now conflict has been ‘my’ raison d’être? Is it that ‘I’ have invested so much into it that it has become ‘my’ very identity? The reason is not all that important ... what is important is: Just do it. RESPONDENT: Yes, the me needs a problem to assert it self. No problem = harmony = no divided self. RICHARD: Yep ... whatever psychological/philosophical explanation which satisfies will suffice for now ... what is important is: Just do it. * RESPONDENT: I have a market mentality. I want to know what I will get in exchange. I am quite bamboozled ... what to do? RICHARD: There is no problem about a ‘market mentality’ whatsoever ... ‘sacrifice’ means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: Ah, but if I am doing it to gain ‘x’ then I am going in as a thinker. If I am doing it because I am allowing my being to be resonant with the order of the fullness that is this living universe, then I am not trying to gain a thing. I am simply being ‘with it’ (the alternative is – of course – to not be with it). RICHARD: Indeed ... the universe does not force anyone to be happy and harmless, to live in peace and ease, to be free of sorrow and malice. It is a matter of personal choice as to which way one will travel. RESPONDENT: By the way, thank you for your love of life. RICHARD: You are very welcome ... the only way one can truly show one’s appreciation of being alive is by jumping in fully ... boots and all.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps you will object that this is the ‘tried and failed’, but the saying ‘you must become as little babes’ seems to apply here. For the magic of youth is just this simple non-gilding of the lily that is this universe without the artifice of the thinker (separate self). It is fullness and freedom, beauty and truth, harmony and order. RICHARD: Maybe it is suffice to say at this stage that I do stress how
essential the pure intent of naiveté RESPONDENT: True. Before, I might of missed what you are saying, it is so easy to conclude the other is mis-taking what giving up the illusion of the separate self entails. In giving up the controls (which was really the illusion of being at the controls), approaching life through the misery of separation is finished. Given the tenacity and inertia of the illusion of separative existence, being with ‘the fullness of that’ is significant indeed! In addition to being beauty, order, and truth, it affects the global thrust of human beings (even if only a little). I am speaking from glimpses – I lapse back behind the curtain as it were, acting as if I am the ‘wizard of oz’ (it is a great line in that movie: ‘never mind that man behind the curtain!’). RICHARD: Because you say you are ‘speaking from glimpses’ it may – or may not – be apposite to report what happened for the ‘me’ who was inhabiting this body. I am taking it that your phrasing (‘I lapse back behind the curtain as it were’) has a congruence with my phraseology (‘I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’’)? If so it could be relevant that when ‘I’ ‘lapsed back behind the curtain’ there was a lot of thinking about it all and feeling it out – plus discussion with ‘my’ peers – yet what stood out above and beyond all that thinking and feeling and discussion was a simple and wordless ‘THIS IS IT’ no matter what conclusions and decisions were reached. Thus the most obvious and pressing question for that particular ‘wizard of oz’ was: How to do it/have it happen? Maybe this is a suitable place to put ‘beauty’ and ‘truth’ on the discussion table so that their place in ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’ may be examined? I only suggest this because you did include them in your previous response (further above) and I see that you mention them again in this paragraph. And, as you have also mentioned ‘love’ twice (you have an awakened heart’) and (‘your love of life’) plus having capitalised ‘life’ twice (‘be breathed anew by Life’) and (‘in a word: Life’) in stark contrast to your predilection for using lower-case everywhere else, perhaps they too can join ‘beauty’ and ‘truth’ on the discussion-table? I only suggest this because as surely as eggs are eggs ‘that man behind the curtain’ will unquestionably be tempted to apply the traditional methods when faced with the ‘how to do it/have it happen’ dilemma. To wit: to delicately feel ‘beauty’ so as to get the ‘truth’ to reveal itself and to sensitively feel the ‘love’ so as to get ‘Life’ to manifest fully. * RESPONDENT: It is funny I once asked you if you were AI, because you have an awakened heart (I realise this is going to create some tongue clicking here). RICHARD: What happened was that I had a direct experience of actuality in 1980 ... and it was what ‘I’ had been searching for 33 years. When I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’, ‘I’ knew, with the solid and irrefutable certainty of direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go, disappear, and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ just knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. It was flagrantly evident that the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. Of course there was a lot of thinking about it all and feeling it out – and discussion with ‘my’ peers who all said it was not possible twenty four hours a day – yet there was an awareness that predominated all the while that disregarded all this thinking and feeling and discussion and which simply and wordlessly said ‘THIS IS IT’ no matter what conclusions and decisions were reached. This utter correctness left no choice – and no choice means no doubt whatsoever – so ‘I’ acted/there was action ... solely upon/because of this direct experience. If I were to paraphrase/plagiarise I would say, that as a result of this action, ‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it’ ... permanently. RESPONDENT: Thank you for ‘speaking my language’. There are so many charlatans, it is easy to dismiss anyone who says: ‘I have been to the top of the hill’ but, there is also the danger of ‘the boy who cried wolf’ syndrome: where one stating the truth is not listened to because of the past. RICHARD: Aye ... discernment is essential because the bottom line is this: it is your life you are living and only you get to reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not have happen. Incidentally, the evidence of human history demonstrates that there is a distinct possibility that things can
go awry wherever the human psyche is being subjectively investigated. Yet there are some notable people (or notorious people) in
this field of endeavour who have rashly promised that they will take care of everything if only the person investigating will
believe them and/or have faith in them and/or trust them and/or surrender to them and/or obey them ... and so on. Yet there are
more than a few of these gullible It is counsellors and therapists and psychologists and psychiatrists who have to pick up the pieces. * RESPONDENT: The slate is cleansed and one is born anew (which means the old not in the way). I take it though, from my vantage point, that one still has memories of the past which can be accessed when thought is used practically. RICHARD: Yes. I have been here for 53 years and have all my own memories ... I have always been here like this: I have been having a wonderful, marvellous and amazing life for 53 years. It is this simple: the slate was wiped clean because ‘my’ memories disappeared along with ‘me’ when ‘I’ disappeared. RESPONDENT: It would be easy to misread this as you saying that you as a psychological self-image is living so fully. But, what I hear you saying is the approach of ‘controls-as-separate-thought-made-image-at-the-controls’ has come full stop and you are living fully. That thought operates practically, but not detrimentally. And you use the term ‘I’ to refer to the organism, not the separate self. Could you comment about this? RICHARD: Certainly. There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual: I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. When both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul disappeared I became apparent. I have been here all along ... it was just that there was this loudmouth inhabiting this body, for the first 33 years (‘I’ as ego) plus the next 11 years (‘me’ as soul), who dominated so totally that I could not get a word in edgeways. And, when ‘he’ ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and every body, all of ‘his’ memories were also immolated (‘the slate was wiped clean’). I have no childhood hurts whatsoever. * RICHARD: ‘I’ can never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ can do – the only thing ‘I’ need to do – is to say !YES! so that the already always existing perfection can become apparent (‘I was taken away by the utter fullness of it!’). RESPONDENT: To give up the controls; to let go; to exhale so that one can be breathed anew by Life? RICHARD: No, everything happens freely of its own accord in perfection ... autonomously. * RICHARD: The only time when self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping is experientially deserved there is no ‘the thinker’ extant to take credit. RESPONDENT: Right, and no actual ‘back-slapping’ more like there is mutual concord; joy; fullness. In a word: Life! RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: You are using ‘back-slapping’ in a playful creative way of expressing joy, yes? (others seem to be mis-interpreting). RICHARD: It is a ‘playful creative way’ of celebrating not only being alive free of a ‘self’ but also knowing why one is free of a ‘self’. When I first wrote that sentence it was nothing more than a simple, innocuous – and perhaps quirky – sentence because where ‘self-congratulatory mutual back-slapping’ is experientially deserved there is no ‘thinker’ to take the credit and get a swelled head; there is no ‘self’ who would glow with pride upon congratulation; there is no ‘back’ to mutually slap for reciprocal ‘self’ endorsement. All so obvious and thus all so simple, non? Apparently not. * RESPONDENT: Fortunately there is something else that may qualify if and when the thinker gets out of the way and there is that proactive fullness of the universe. RICHARD: Yes ... what you call the ‘proactive fullness of the universe’ is what I mean where I say that the essential character of the perfection of the infinitude of this universe which born me, is living me and will die me in due course, is enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. ‘I’ give ‘myself’ permission to allow this moment to live me (rather than ‘me’ trying to live in the present) ... and let go the controls. This ‘proactive fullness of the universe’ is enabled only by ‘my’ concurrence ... if ‘I’ procrastinate it will never operate. All one gets by waiting is yet more waiting. What am ‘I’ waiting for? RESPONDENT: It is as if one is holding one’s breath. I guess we’ll eventually pass out and then breathing will happen. Then the false idea that letting go of the breath is horrible will be revealed. RICHARD: Yes ... so when ‘I’ see that all one gets by waiting is yet more waiting ‘I’ ask the question (what am ‘I’ waiting for) in such a way that ‘I’ do not just get a carefully thought-out and reasoned answer and be satisfied with that. ‘I’ want an experiential result ... and ‘I’ keep the question burning in the depths of ‘my’ psyche, discarding any intellectual answers (no matter how accurate) that inevitably pop-up in the course of time. And then it happens as a direct result of keeping the question open. * RESPONDENT: Why am I afraid of ending the conflict? RICHARD: Is it that up until now conflict has been ‘my’ raison d’être? Is it that ‘I’ have invested so much into it that it has become ‘my’ very identity? The reason is not all that important ... what is important is: Just do it. RESPONDENT: Yes, the me needs a problem to assert it self. No problem = harmony = no divided self. RICHARD: Yep ... whatever psychological/philosophical explanation which satisfies will suffice for now ... what is important is: Just do it. RESPONDENT: Or, stop doing things through separation. Get with It. RICHARD: Would it be appropriate to put the capitalised ‘It’ on the discussion table along with ‘beauty’ and ‘truth’ and ‘love’ and ‘Life’? Because there does seem to be a lot of extra or added attributes entering into this discussion that your initial description of the event, which prompted me to write in the first place, made no mention of. Viz.:
Perhaps it may just be that these extraneous areas of interest are emerging from what has been heard from others, read about from elsewhere or even dreamed of? The actual is magnificent beyond even ‘my’ wildest dreams.
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Eight) 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 |
