|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 25
RESPONDENT No. 42: When there is no self, how could there be anger and anguish? RICHARD: Yes ... that was my very question all those years ago. The saints and sages and seers, who said there was no self, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? RESPONDENT: Richard, in reading your recent contributions to this list, such as the example above, I am beginning to question whether you and I use certain words, such as ‘emotions’ in the same way. For it seems that perhaps I use that word in a more inclusive sense of which your use is a subset. Perhaps your use is more restrictive / precise. For example when you express that communicating via the internet is great ‘fun’ – I equate fun to have an emotional component. If joy and fun are non-emotional, they also are not machine like nor dead. What do you call that vivifying facet of each breathtaking moment if not emotional? RICHARD: I appreciate that what you want to discuss is the ‘vivifying facet’ ... for it cuts straight to the nub of the issue. Put simply: sensuousness and its in-built apperceptive awareness is the vivifying facet. It is the ability to fully enjoy and appreciate being just here – right now – at this moment in eternal time and at this place in infinite space as this flesh and blood body. In this full enjoyment and appreciation is an amazement that all this wondrous event called life is actually happening ... and a marvelling at the perfection of it all. It is such fun and a delight to actually be here doing this business called being alive. As for the words I use to describe the qualities of experiencing life, as this flesh and blood body only, it is sobering to come to understand that all of the 650,000 words in the English language were coined by peoples nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom ... hence most of the expressive words have an affective component. When I first began describing my on-going experience to my fellow human beings I chose words that had the least affective connotations ... coining too many new words would have been counter-productive. Consequently, the etymology of words can be of assistance in most cases to locate a near-enough to being a non-affective base ... the word ‘enjoy’ for example, is linked with ‘rejoice’ which means ‘gladden’ (from ‘glad’ meaning ‘shining’, ‘bright’, ‘cheerful’, ‘merry’). Of course the word ‘joy’ (from ‘enjoy’, from ‘rejoice’, from ‘gladden’, from ‘shining’) is loaded with the affective feeling for most people ... hence I tend to use it in conjunction with ‘delight’ (as in ‘it is such a joy and a delight to be here’). The word ‘delight’, incidentally, comes from the Latin ‘delectare’ (hence ‘delectation’, ‘delectable’) meaning ‘charm’, allure’ ... and so on through all sub-sets of nuance. It is pertinent to comprehend that dictionaries are descriptive (and not prescriptive as are scriptures) and reflect more about how words came about, how they have changed, and how they have expanded into other words, rather than what they should mean. I tend to provide dictionary definitions only so as to establish a starting-point for communication ... from this mutually agreed-upon base each co-respondent can apply their own specific nuance of meaning to words as are readily explainable and mutually understandable (such as I do with ‘real’ and ‘actual’ and with ‘truth’ and ‘fact’, for example). Generally I can suss out what the other means by a word via its context and both where they are coming from and what they are wanting to establish ... if not I ask what they are meaning to convey. As for it being ‘great fun’ communicating via the internet ... it is simply marvellous that I can sit here in my lounge-room in a seaside village and have my words be available, and potentially accessible by all 6.0 billion peoples on this planet (‘potentially’ meaning, of course, being given access to computers – such as in internet cafes – and the ability to read and comprehend English), totally free of charge ... and with nary a tree being chopped down in order to do so. Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT No. 33: Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused. Hope this explains my views in the matter. RESPONDENT: So, are you saying that there are many, many paths to truth? That every path is a path to truth? And, doesn’t that then imply, sir, that truth can be said to be pathless land because there is zero distance between thou and that? RICHARD: Am I correct in reading you to be saying that it is indeed so that truth be a pathless land (because there is ‘zero distance between thou and that’)? If so then does this not mean that truth does not lie in any temple, in any mosque, in any church and it has no path to it except through one’s own understanding of oneself, inquiring, studying, learning ... then there is that which is eternal?
RESPONDENT No. 33: Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused. Hope this explains my views in the matter. RESPONDENT: So, are you saying that there are many, many paths to truth? That every path is a path to truth? And, doesn’t that then imply, sir, that truth can be said to be pathless land because there is zero distance between thou and that? RICHARD: Am I correct in reading you to be saying that it is indeed so that truth be a pathless land RESPONDENT: Well, I am not sure if it means all that – let me share what I see, and then perhaps you will respond. Truth is not in any specific place. It is not for example more in any temple, mosque, or church than it is in any star, hole, or toxic waste dump. RICHARD: Truth is here on earth then? RESPONDENT: And, it isn’t as if truth is hidden and must be sought, because truth is that which is. Seeking or travelling a path imply that what is here and now is not it. RICHARD: Yet is that not the problem ... ‘that what is here and now’ is not it? Is not Truth formless, spaceless and timeless? And is not ‘that what is’ the physical body; and is not ‘here’ located in space; and is not ‘now’ situated in time? Therefore, must one not psychically seek or bodilessly travel from here (in space) to ‘there’ (spaceless) and from now (in time) to ‘then’ (timeless) to find truth? RESPONDENT: But, as there is no actual division between oneself and truth – I agree with what you’ve written above – ‘it has no path to it except through one’s own understanding of oneself, inquiring, studying, learning ... then there is that which is eternal’. RICHARD: I take it that you do not consider that inquiring, studying, learning so as to understand oneself, in order that there be that which is eternal, constitutes being a path to truth, then?
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not know of any research on this subject [the genetic inheritance of the survival instincts] when I started to actively investigate the human condition in myself 20 or more years ago: as I intimately explored the depths of ‘being’ it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the source of ‘self’ – were the root cause of all the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: Yes, but are they not also the source of all that human beings are and do? RICHARD: Not ‘all’, no ... this flesh and blood body is the air breathed, the water drunk, the food eaten and the sun’s energy absorbed. Just as the trees and the grasses and the flowers thrive without any instinctual passions so too is it eminently possible for a thinking, reflective human being to flourish, in pure delight and enjoyment on this magical paradise that this verdant and azure planet already is, sans the affective faculty. The living of this comes with the extinction of ‘self’ in its entirety (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) which altruistic action enables this always existing purity and perfection into being apparent for the remainder of one’s life. And this is marvellous.
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I did not know of any research on this subject [the genetic inheritance of the survival instincts] when I started to actively investigate the human condition in myself 20 or more years ago: as I intimately explored the depths of ‘being’ it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the source of ‘self’ – were the root cause of all the ills of humankind. RESPONDENT: Yes, but are they not also the source of all that human beings are and do? RICHARD: Not ‘all’, no ... this flesh and blood body is the air breathed, the water drunk, the food eaten and the sun’s energy absorbed. Just as the trees and the grasses and the flowers thrive without any instinctual passions so too is it eminently possible for a thinking, reflective human being to flourish, in pure delight and enjoyment on this magical paradise that this verdant and azure planet already is, sans the affective faculty. The living of this comes with the extinction of ‘self’ in its entirety (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) which altruistic action enables this always existing purity and perfection into being apparent for the remainder of one’s life. And this is marvellous. RESPONDENT: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT: What you seem to really be saying is that the imaginary psychological self who identifies and associates with various desires must be extinct for life to truly be lived (this imaginary psychological self and its image-bound spell acting rather like a thick cloud which obscures the energetic depth and infinitude of a cloudless sky). RICHARD: What I am saying is that the ‘self’ (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is the ‘various desires’. The ending of ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) is the ending of the instinctual passions. To merely ‘identify and associate with various desires’ is to be one-step removed from yourself (detached from yourself). RESPONDENT: It is this imaginary self-image which is the agitator of wars (and no doubt the chimpanzee, with its rudimentary self-image-structure, is able to be xenophobic too – though fortunately not to such a twisted and destructive extent as his fellow primate – the human being). RICHARD: This ‘imaginary self-image’ arises intuitively in the instinctual passions themselves (intuitive ‘self’-consciousness’) and is the instinctual passions, at base. As such, the instinctual passions, in conjunction with their intuitive ‘self’-consciousness, are the ‘agitator of wars’. That this intuitive ‘feeling-self’ (‘me’ as soul) has given rise to a narcissistic ‘thinking-self’ (‘I’ as ego) in the human animal only serves to make the wars more deviously contrived than the wars of the chimpanzee. The chimpanzee have been observed and documented
RESPONDENT: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT No. 19: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RESPONDENT: I don’t follow why you are bringing in what you take to be K’s word for not being of time. As I understand it, Richard was saying that the living earth grows us (and trees, grasses, flowers, etc.) and that the living universe grows the earth, stars, and (other) planets. Are you saying ‘creation’ is a better way of saying it? Hasn’t that word been hijacked by organized religions? By the way, Richard – what I am asking is why do you say that the instinctual passions are not our very base since they have grown out of the larger field of the universe? Are there non-instinctual passions? RICHARD: There are no ‘non-instinctual passions’ whatsoever ... all passion is instinctual (including the cultivated or refined passions) at its root. As to why I say they are ‘not our very base’ (even though ‘they have grown out of the larger field of the universe’) is, quite obviously, because they are dispensable. Something (whatever) that is dispensed with, whilst that which contained or carried it remains (and remains functioning smoothly sans that something), cannot in any way be described as being a ‘very base’ in any context. Just try deleting something essential in a computer programme, for example, and see what happens. Then try deleting something deemed essential in a computer programme ... and when the computer programme continues to operate smoothly sans that which was deemed essential it will be obvious that this something was not at the programme’s ‘very base’ after all. A poor analogy perhaps ... but most analogies are. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• In regards the word ‘Creation’ being hijacked by religions: current research indicates that religions had their beginnings as fertility cults (as per the fertility figurines dating back into pre-history, for example, and evidence of fertility rites in the fields, for another instance). For what it is worth, the word ‘creation’ etymologically comes from the Latin ‘creatus’ pp. of the word ‘creare’: bring forth, produce, cause to grow (prob. rel. to ‘crescere’; (‘grow’), so ‘creative’, ‘creation’, ‘creator, ‘creature’. (The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology). I would be inclined to the notion that the religions may not have hijacked the word at all. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••
RESPONDENT: The instinctual passions are our base. RICHARD: The very earth beneath our feet is ‘our base’ ... this planet grows human beings just as it grows the trees and the grasses and the flowers (although in the final analysis, of course, it is the universe itself which is ‘our base’ as it ‘grows’ the suns and planets ... and I am putting ‘grows’ in scare quotes deliberately as it is an analogous term). RESPONDENT No. 19: ‘Creation’ is the word Krishnamurti used to describe the state of being not in time. RESPONDENT: I don’t follow why you are bringing in what you take to be K’s word for not being of time. As I understand it, Richard was saying that the living earth grows us (and trees, grasses, flowers, etc.) and that the living universe grows the earth, stars, and (other) planets. Are you saying ‘creation’ is a better way of saying it? Hasn’t that word been hijacked by organized religions? By the way, Richard – what I am asking is why do you say that the instinctual passions are not our very base since they have grown out of the larger field of the universe? Are there non-instinctual passions? RICHARD: There are no ‘non-instinctual passions’ whatsoever ... all passion is instinctual (including the cultivated or refined passions) at its root. As to why I say they are ‘not our very base’ (even though ‘they have grown out of the larger field of the universe’) is, quite obviously, because they are dispensable. Something (whatever) that is dispensed with, whilst that which contained or carried it remains (and remains functioning smoothly sans that something), cannot in any way be described as being a ‘very base’ in any context. Just try deleting something essential in a computer programme, for example, and see what happens. Then try deleting something deemed essential in a computer programme ... and when the computer programme continues to operate smoothly sans that which was deemed essential it will be obvious that this something was not at the programme’s ‘very base’ after all. A poor analogy perhaps ... but most analogies are. RESPONDENT: Well, I believe it has conveyed your meaning, so perhaps it is not so poor. I wonder though why then you did not simply use the word ‘passions’ instead of the apparently redundant term ‘instinctual passions’? RICHARD: Three reasons: 1. because all the passions are genetically-inherited; 2. because of the endemic denial (the ‘Tabula Rasa’ theory) of the passions being instinctual ... and 3. because if or when I say ‘instincts’ peoples generally think of the reflexes (and birds flying south for winter and so on). Whereas the words ‘genetically-inherited instinctual passions’ leaves recalcitrant egos and compliant souls no room to manoeuvre (without being silly). RESPONDENT: Are there no passions whatsoever remaining once the container is emptied of what turn out to be not only non-essential but counterproductive elements? RICHARD: None whatsoever. RESPONDENT: How is there joy and capacity for appreciating the vital creative aliveness of all that is if the passions are expurgated? RICHARD: First, whenever I use the word ‘joy’ (usually in a phrase like ‘the sheer joy and delight of being alive’) I use it in its ‘conscious enjoyment’ meaning (the root of the word ‘joy’ is ‘rejoice’ meaning ‘enjoy’, ‘gladden’) and not any affective meaning of the word. Second, the flesh and blood body is simply brimming with sensory organs and a nervous system such as can send somewhere in the region of 150,000 signals to the brain each second. Third, conscious awareness enables delightful amazement and fascinating wonderment ... a wondrous marvelling at being the doing of this business called being alive on this paradisaical playground called planet earth. The passions are but a pathetic surrogate for direct experiencing. RESPONDENT: And, what is it that erases or expurgates the problematic parts of the programming (i.e. the ‘instinctual passions’)? RICHARD: The very action of ‘self’-immolation itself. RESPONDENT: Are there not passions which are independent of the self-image; of the ‘me’/‘I’? RICHARD: No. * RICHARD: In regards the word ‘Creation’ being hijacked by religions: current research indicates that religions had their beginnings as fertility cults (as per the fertility figurines dating back into pre-history, for example, and evidence of fertility rites in the fields, for another instance). For what it is worth, the word ‘creation’ etymologically comes from the Latin ‘creatus’ pp. of the word ‘creare’: bring forth, produce, cause to grow (prob. rel. to ‘crescere’; (‘grow’), so ‘creative’, ‘creation’, ‘creator, ‘creature’. (The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology). I would be inclined to the notion that the religions may not have hijacked the word at all. RESPONDENT: Well, perhaps it was a poor analogy. But what I meant was that the idea of a supernatural entity who was the genesis of the ‘creation’ which occurred in seven days has strongly influenced my conditioned associations for that word. Thus, rather than pointing to the timeless unfolding of an ever-opening flower ... RICHARD: But where did the word ever point to ‘the timeless unfolding of an ever-opening flower’? RESPONDENT: ... the word ‘creation’ tends to trigger a notion of a fixed point in time at which the universe as we know it was engineered into being somewhat like the creation of a sculpture. A piecemeal, time bound, and mechanical model for ‘creation’ seems to have hijacked that word, which evidently was based on the life-producing capacity of the universe as demonstrated by plants, crops, animals, and peoples. RICHARD: Not the ‘life-producing capacity of the universe’, no ... the earliest religions detected thus far in current research shows them to be based on the life-producing capacity of the human female. The Early Sumerian religion, circa 3,800+ BCE, for just one example, has ‘Ki’, whose name more often appears as ‘Ninhursag’ (queen of the mountains), ‘Ninmah’ (the exalted lady), or ‘Nintu’ (the lady who gave birth), as their earth goddess giving birth to the various gods. Another deity, known as ‘Tiamet’ (‘watery deep’, ‘ocean’), when not held by some to be the original watery deep before dividing into heaven and earth (somewhat reminiscent of the Chinese Tao), is then held by others to be the very planet earth itself. Anthropomorphism has a long history. RESPONDENT: So – it seems – I am somewhat disinclined to your inclination with regard to the word ‘creation’ having not been hijacked by organized ‘religions’. RICHARD: Most of this that I refer too here predates the modern day Middle-Eastern monotheistic religions by millennia ... back into pre-history. The god of the monotheistic religions, who did not either ‘give birth’ to the world nor ‘grow’ it (their god’s ‘Creation’ myth is prestidigitation ex nihilo just like the Big Bang ‘Creation’ theory of modern times), can be traced to circa 2,000 BCE. Howsoever do not let your misinclination, regarding a circa 2,000 BCE religions’ hijacking tendencies, to become re-inclined to my inclination regarding the fructiferous feminine principle as being the primal religion circa 3,800+ BCE, by letting these dates incline your disinclination into the direction of allowing information impressed on dated clay tablets to take root and ‘grow’, eh? By all means stick with your ‘timeless unfolding of an ever-opening flower’ superimposition if that is the version you favour.
RESPONDENT: ... Are there non-instinctual passions? RICHARD: There are no ‘non-instinctual passions’ whatsoever ... all passion is instinctual (including the cultivated or refined passions) at its root. RESPONDENT: ... I wonder though why you did not simply use the word ‘passions’ instead of the apparently redundant term ‘instinctual passions’? RICHARD: Three reasons: 1. because all the passions are genetically-inherited; 2. because of the endemic denial (the ‘Tabula Rasa’ theory) of the passions being instinctual ... and 3. because if or when I say ‘instincts’ peoples generally think of the reflexes (and birds flying south for winter and so on). Whereas the words ‘genetically-inherited instinctual passions’ leaves recalcitrant egos and compliant souls no room to manoeuvre (without being silly). RESPONDENT: How is there joy and capacity for appreciating the vital creative aliveness of all that is if the passions are expurgated? RICHARD: First, whenever I use the word ‘joy’ (usually in a phrase like ‘the sheer joy and delight of being alive’) I use it in its ‘conscious enjoyment’ meaning (the root of the word ‘joy’ is ‘rejoice’ meaning ‘enjoy’, ‘gladden’) and not any affective meaning of the word. Second, the flesh and blood body is simply brimming with sensory organs and a nervous system such as can send somewhere in the region of 150,000 signals to the brain each second. Third, conscious awareness enables delightful amazement and fascinating wonderment ... a wondrous marvelling at being the doing of this business called being alive on this paradisaical playground called planet earth. The passions are but a pathetic surrogate for direct experiencing. RESPONDENT: Ah, perhaps we are using the word ‘passions’ differently. What you seem to mean by that word, I would call second-hand passions – meaning they are reactions of an imaginary psychologically separated self based in the past (be it a year or a nanosecond). True passions – to me are all of the amazements and fascinating wonderments of which you speak above. RICHARD: I see that I discussed the origins of this ‘imaginary psychologically separated self’ only recently:
I notice that in that exchange you were quite explicit that the problem was that ‘the imaginary psychological self ... identifies and associates with various desires’. I notice that I was quite explicit that the ‘self’ is the ‘various desires’ and that it arises intuitively in the instinctual passions themselves ... and thus is the instinctual passions, at base (‘desire’ being an instinctual passion, of course). Now you are talking of ‘second-hand passions’ being the reactions of the psychological ‘self’ who is ‘based in the past’ ... and then go on to discuss the nature of ‘true passions’. Before you expand upon the nature of these ‘true passions’ perhaps you could be explicit about their origin or source or base ... if such origin or source or base be not the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: Are there not passions which are independent of the self-image; of the ‘me’/’I’? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Please see the comments above. RICHARD: Yes, I read them with interest and am keen to have your feedback as to the origin or source or base of what you call ‘true passions’ (if such origin or source or base be not the instinctual passions) ... seeing that you already know that the origin or source or base of the psychological ‘self’ is that it is ‘based in the past (be it a year or a nanosecond)’ and not in the instinctual passions ... as I am so explicitly saying. * RICHARD: In regards the word ‘Creation’ being hijacked by religions: current research indicates that religions had their beginnings as fertility cults (as per the fertility figurines dating back into pre-history, for example, and evidence of fertility rites in the fields, for another instance). For what it is worth, the word ‘creation’ etymologically comes from the Latin ‘creatus’ pp. of the word ‘creare’: bring forth, produce, cause to grow (prob. rel. to ‘crescere’; (‘grow’), so ‘creative’, ‘creation’, ‘creator, ‘creature’. (The Oxford Dictionary of English Etymology). I would be inclined to the notion that the religions may not have hijacked the word at all. RESPONDENT: Well, perhaps it was a poor analogy. But what I meant was that the idea of a supernatural entity who was the genesis of the ‘creation’ which occurred in seven days has strongly influenced my conditioned associations for that word. Thus, rather than pointing to the timeless unfolding of an ever-opening flower ... RICHARD: But where did the word ever point to ‘the timeless unfolding of an ever-opening flower’? RESPONDENT: In the middle eastern representation of God, creation is described as a building much like a carpenter builds or a sculptor sculpts. In the so called ‘pre-historic’ representations, creation is described in terms of fertility and birth. No linear beginning is implied as with the building of a house, but rather cycles are implied as in: birth > pre-pubescence > fertility > conception > gestation > giving birth > death. RICHARD: I am in broad agreement with what you say here ... thus far. Incidentally, ‘pre-history’ is not ‘so-called pre-history’ ... it is called pre-history (‘history’ being the written record). Anything prior to 3,800-4,000 BCE is called ‘oral tradition’ ... the pre-literate record passed on by word of mouth. RESPONDENT: It is the cycle of fertility which can be likened to an ever-opening flower. The universe is that flower and the blossoming is before (and as) us. RICHARD: Hmm ... I am not aware of any early religions that likened the world/the universe to ‘that flower’ (by any description). The literature I have come across conveys that it is the source or origin or base of the world/the universe which is ‘ever-opening’ (by any description). Some hold that this source or origin or base literally gives birth to the world/the universe through opened thighs (the feminist movement has spawned some very valuable research into this area). That is, worlds/universes may come and go (as in being born, existing for some period, then dying) ... but that which is the source or origin or base of the worlds/universes is never-born and never-dies. Also, this pre-historic tradition complements Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s description of a movement, that has no beginning and no ending, a movement, not in time, which is constantly fresh, endlessly flowering, which he called ‘the sacred’ ... the timeless and formless and spaceless ‘otherness’ which is the origin of everything, all matter, all nature, all humankind. Viz.:
This is a far cry from a source or origin or base that you say is described ‘in terms of fertility and birth’ (as in ‘birth > pre-pubescence > fertility > conception > gestation > giving birth > death’) ... wherein you are implying (if not actually proposing) that the source or origin or base is subject to birth and death. * RESPONDENT: ... the word ‘creation’ tends to trigger a notion of a fixed point in time at which the universe as we know it was engineered into being somewhat like the creation of a sculpture. A piecemeal, time bound, and mechanical model for ‘creation’ seems to have hijacked that word, which evidently was based on the life-producing capacity of the universe as demonstrated by plants, crops, animals, and peoples. RICHARD: Not the ‘life-producing capacity of the universe’, no ... the earliest religions detected thus far in current research shows them to be based on the life-producing capacity of the human female. The Early Sumerian religion, circa 3,800+ BCE, for just one example, has ‘Ki’, whose name more often appears as ‘Ninhursag’ (queen of the mountains), ‘Ninmah’ (the exalted lady), or ‘Nintu’ (the lady who gave birth), as their earth goddess giving birth to the various gods. Another deity, known as ‘Tiamet’ (‘watery deep’, ‘ocean’), when not held by some to be the original watery deep before dividing into heaven and earth (somewhat reminiscent of the Chinese Tao), is then held by others to be the very planet earth itself. Anthropomorphism has a long history. RESPONDENT: A worldview which sees nature as a dead mechanism is only centuries old, but it has grown like a cancer. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that a ‘worldview’ which sees nature as a living goddess is not likewise a cancer? Because it is certainly spreading like one (in the West) these last few decades.
RICHARD: The passions are but a pathetic surrogate for direct experiencing. RESPONDENT: Ah, perhaps we are using the word ‘passions’ differently. What you seem to mean by that word, I would call second-hand passions – meaning they are reactions of an imaginary psychologically separated self based in the past (be it a year or a nanosecond). True passions – to me are all of the amazements and fascinating wonderments of which you speak. RICHARD: I see that I discussed the origins of this ‘imaginary psychologically separated self’ with you only recently: <snip discussion> I notice that in that exchange you were quite explicit that the problem was that ‘the imaginary psychological self identifies and associates with various desires’. RESPONDENT: For clarification, the wording of the above statement is better put thus: ‘the imaginary psychological self identifies and associates with/as various desires’. Note that I am not saying there is such an imaginary psychological self independent of its association and identification with – and as – various desires. RICHARD: Are you now saying that ‘the imaginary psychological self’ is desire (passion) at root? If no ... then what is desire (and where is it sourced) and what is the ‘self’ (and where is it sourced)? * RICHARD: I notice that in that exchange I was quite explicit that the ‘self’ is the ‘various desires’ and that it arises intuitively in the instinctual passions themselves ... and thus is the instinctual passions, at base (‘desire’ being an instinctual passion, of course). Now you are talking of ‘second-hand passions’ being the reactions of the psychological ‘self’ who is ‘based in the past’ ... and then go on to discuss the nature of ‘true passions’. Before you expand upon the nature of these ‘true passions’ perhaps you could be explicit about their origin or source or base ... if such origin or source or base be not the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: Their origin is not the second-hand passions which are the reactions of an image-based psychological self, but true passions are sourced in the universe itself which has sprouted them. RICHARD: I see that I need to phrase this specifically: are the ‘true passions’ the instinctual passions sans ‘the imaginary psychological self’s association and identification with/as the various desires’ ... or not? * RESPONDENT: Are there not passions which are independent of the self-image; of the ‘me’/‘I’? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: Please see the comments above. RICHARD: Yes, I read them with interest and am keen to have your feedback as to the origin or source or base of what you call ‘true passions’ (if such origin or source or base be not the instinctual passions) ... seeing that you already know that the origin or source or base of the psychological ‘self’ is that it is ‘based in the past (be it a year or a nanosecond)’ and not in the instinctual passions ... as I am so explicitly saying. RESPONDENT: Please see above and let me know if you’d like me to further clarify it, or please express the ways in which you find it incompatible with your viewing of the facts. RICHARD: I would be interested to know why you asked ‘are there not passions which are independent of the self-image; of the ‘me’/‘I’’ (given that you say that ‘the imaginary psychological self identifies and associates with/as various desires’). It is this – as yet unexplained – distinction betwixt ‘second-hand passions’ and ‘true passions’ and the part which ‘the ‘me’/‘I’’ plays in this distinction that is unclear ... it reads as if it is the ‘self’s association and identification with/as the ‘true passions’ that perverts them and converts them into being ‘second-hand passions’, you see. It reads as if the ‘self’ is separate, from the passions which it is, at root ... and is trying to distance itself even further. * RESPONDENT: It [creation] is the cycle of fertility which can be likened to an ever-opening flower. The universe is that flower and the blossoming is before (and as) us. RICHARD: I am not aware of any early religions that likened the world/the universe to ‘that flower’ (by any description). The literature I have come across conveys that it is the source or origin or base of the world/the universe which is ‘ever-opening’ (by any description). Some hold that this source or origin or base literally gives birth to the world/the universe through opened thighs (the feminist movement has spawned some very valuable research into this area). That is, worlds/universes may come and go (as in being born, existing for some period, then dying) ... but that which is the source or origin or base of the worlds/universes is never-born and never-dies. Also, this pre-historic tradition complements Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s description of a movement, that has no beginning and no ending, a movement, not in time, which is constantly fresh, endlessly flowering, which he called ‘the sacred’ ... the timeless and formless and spaceless ‘otherness’ which is the origin of everything, all matter, all nature, all humankind. <snip quotes> This is a far cry from a source or origin or base that you say is described ‘in terms of fertility and birth’ (as in ‘birth > pre-pubescence > fertility > conception > gestation > giving birth > death’) ... wherein you are implying (if not actually proposing) that the source or origin or base is subject to birth and death. RESPONDENT: The ground of being can be viewed through and likened to various particulars. Like a ground – as the ground of the earth from which life springs; like a mother – as a mother gestates and gives birth to a new being; to an ever-opening blossom which changes through time but is self-renewing; to an eternal flame or river which is timelessly flowing. All of these and more metaphors may be used to point to this miraculous, living universe which is our root. I am not so concerned about whence in time such metaphors first arose. RICHARD: Yet you were most concerned that such metaphors were hijacked ... but you do not want to know when, where, how, why or what they arose for in the first place? Also, it is not so much ‘whence in time’ such metaphors arose that I am talking of ... it is that those very metaphors (including those which you have just delineated) never, ever pointed to ‘this miraculous living universe’ being our root. They all pointed to something other than this universe (as in an ... um ... an ‘otherness’). This is what this portion of the thread is about, as far as I am concerned, thus the dates and personages per se do not have my interest other than in providing that vital information. * RESPONDENT: A worldview which sees nature as a dead mechanism is only centuries old, but it has grown like a cancer. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that a ‘worldview’ which sees nature as a living goddess is not likewise a cancer? Because it is certainly spreading like one (in the West) these last few decades. RESPONDENT: Well, if it opens our eyes to seeing we are related to nature rather than seeing nature as a hostile ‘other’ – then I would not liken it to a cancer. RICHARD: Yet it does not ‘open our eyes to seeing we are related to nature’ at all. All of the peoples I have personally met, read about, heard about, watched on any media, who espouse or adhere to the ‘living goddess’ paradigm all have had their eyes opened to seeing that they are related to a bodiless ‘spirit’ (by whatever name ‘nature’ is metamorphosed into being). Then they do not have the eyes to see the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. Their eyes have been closed to the actual world even more than they already were. RESPONDENT: But if it is based primarily in images rather than in the world as perceived without the filter of thought – then it is merely the same old dis-ease wearing new garb. RICHARD: Hmm ... what about ‘the world as perceived without the filter of passion’? Why is it that ‘the imaginary psychological self’ (which at the beginning of this post ‘identifies and associates with/as various desires’ as if the passions are primary) reverts to being ‘based primarily’ in thought at the end of the post? Just what does ‘with/as’ mean to you? Or: why does thought cop all the blame whilst the feelings get off scot-free?
RICHARD: Are you now saying that ‘the imaginary psychological self’ is desire (passion) at root? If no ... then what is desire (and where is it sourced) and what is the ‘self’ (and where is it sourced)? RESPONDENT: When the organism is hungry, there is desire for food. That is sourced in the intelligence that is the mind/body-universe relationship. RICHARD: It would appear, then, that desire is at root what you call further below a ‘true passion’ (being sourced in ‘the intelligence that is the mind/body-universe relationship’)? RESPONDENT: Enter the human being with a brain capable of psychological representation of the world. The ‘self’ is but a psychological representation – not unlike the image which Narcissus is reported to have fallen in love with. The psychological self – being an image – deals in images. Psychological desire arises as a representational hunger – second hand in that it is dealing in psychological images of things (pretty woman (or man), fast car, beautiful painting, good job, etc.). RICHARD: It would appear, then, that the ‘self’ is at root what you call further below a ‘second-hand passion’ (being sourced in ‘psychological desire’)? RESPONDENT: So, as someone else I believe has pointed out (it may have been No. 12) the self cannot actually be expurgated because it never had first hand existence in the first place (except as an image). RICHARD: It would appear, then, that the instinctual passions cannot be expurgated (being sourced in ‘the intelligence that is the mind/body-universe relationship’)? Viz.:
Please correct me if I have misunderstood but it would appear, then, that you are saying (in effect) what many, many peoples have told me over the years: ‘you can’t change human nature’ (aka the instinctual passions)? * RESPONDENT: Their [the true passions] origin is not the second-hand passions which are the reactions of an image-based psychological self, but true passions are sourced in the universe itself which has sprouted them. RICHARD: I see that I need to phrase this specifically: are the ‘true passions’ the instinctual passions sans ‘the imaginary psychological self’s association and identification with/as the various desires’ ... or not? RESPONDENT: Yes, they are not sourced in the imaginary psychological self, though that does not preclude the imaginary psychological self from acting in concert with them. RICHARD: It would appear, then, that what you call the ‘true passions’ are indeed what I call the instinctual passions. * RICHARD: I would be interested to know why you asked ‘are there not passions which are independent of the self-image; of the ‘me’/‘I’’ (given that you say that ‘the imaginary psychological self identifies and associates with/as various desires’). It is this – as yet unexplained – distinction betwixt ‘second-hand passions’ and ‘true passions’ and the part which ‘the ‘me’/‘I’’ plays in this distinction that is unclear ... it reads as if it is the ‘self’s association and identification with/as the ‘true passions’ that perverts them and converts them into being ‘second-hand passions’, you see. RESPONDENT: The psychological self, being a representation – and therefore a thing of the past, is divided from the ‘true’ passions because it is operating in psychological time which is the past. RICHARD: It would appear, then, that the ‘self’ is indeed separate from the ‘true passions’ (the instinctual passions). And, as you say (further above) that ‘the self cannot actually be expurgated because it never had first hand existence in the first place (except as an image)’ just what is it, then, that you are advocating so as to bring to an end all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition? Viz.:
Is the solution to being ‘divided from the true passions’ ... um ... to be the instinctual passions? RESPONDENT: This capacity of the human brain allows us to do various inventive things technologically – but it also affords us a great deal of space to become beings operating so primarily with second-hand images that we lose touch with and become divided from the firsthand world of actual experience. So, while the psychological self is a representation which has arisen out of the primary universe, it is also in a psychological sense separate from that world and is capable of imagining those walls of division to be absolute, though in fact they are not. When the psychological self operates in awareness of its limited representational nature – then the division is no longer mis-taken as absolute. RICHARD: And, as you said (further above) that ‘the self cannot actually be expurgated because it never had first hand existence in the first place (except as an image)’ it would appear, then, that you are indeed saying (in effect) what many, many peoples have told me over the years: ‘you can’t change human nature’ (aka the instinctual passions)? RESPONDENT: That, as I see it, would be where this perspective crosses paths with the ego death/extinction state of which you often speak. RICHARD: As the ‘ego death/extinction state’ which I speak of means the total eradication of both the identity in toto and the instinctual passions which spawns it ... how can it be that your perspective ‘crosses paths’ when it would appear that for you the instinctual passions are inviolate and the self (being but an image) cannot be expurgated? Again: is the solution to being ‘divided from the true passions’ to be the instinctual passions? * RESPONDENT: The ground of being can be viewed through and likened to various particulars. Like a ground – as the ground of the earth from which life springs; like a mother – as a mother gestates and gives birth to a new being; to an ever-opening blossom which changes through time but is self-renewing; to an eternal flame or river which is timelessly flowing. All of these and more metaphors may be used to point to this miraculous, living universe which is our root. I am not so concerned about whence in time such metaphors first arose. RICHARD: Yet you were most concerned that such metaphors were hijacked ... but you do not want to know when, where, how, why or what they arose for in the first place? Also, it is not so much ‘whence in time’ such metaphors arose that I am talking of ... it is that those very metaphors (including those which you have just delineated) never, ever pointed to ‘this miraculous living universe’ being our root. They all pointed to something other than this universe (as in an ... um ... an ‘otherness’). This is what this portion of the thread is about, as far as I am concerned, thus the dates and personages per se do not have my interest other than in providing that vital information. RESPONDENT: The reason I spoke of the word ‘creation’ as having been ‘hijacked’ was because it is so associated with a literal Christian reading of ‘genesis’ in my experience of how that word tends to be conventionally used. That is why to me it makes better sense to speak in terms of the flowing magic of this multidimensional world which is each moment pouring out creatively anew – not unlike an ever-opening flower. And, I think that most religious descriptions of life are sourced in such a creative perspective but become ossified through time by the tendency of the human brain to become caught by its representational images of such things – which though they have the benefit of being fixed and therefore easily grasped and disseminated – have the disadvantage of being no more effective at conveying actuality than the effectiveness of attempting to catch the wind in one’s hand. RICHARD: I fail to comprehend why you are having difficultly addressing the point I raise that even if ‘most religious descriptions of life are sourced in such a creative perspective’ they never, ever pointed to ‘this miraculous living universe’ being our root. Where is the substance of what you keep on saying? * RESPONDENT: A worldview which sees nature as a dead mechanism is only centuries old, but it has grown like a cancer. RICHARD: Are you suggesting that a ‘worldview’ which sees nature as a living goddess is not likewise a cancer? Because it is certainly spreading like one (in the West) these last few decades. RESPONDENT: Well, if it opens our eyes to seeing we are related to nature rather than seeing nature as a hostile ‘other’ – then I would not liken it to a cancer. RICHARD: Yet it does not ‘open our eyes to seeing we are related to nature’ at all. All of the peoples I have personally met, read about, heard about, watched on any media, who espouse or adhere to the ‘living goddess’ paradigm all have had their eyes opened to seeing that they are related to a bodiless ‘spirit’ (by whatever name ‘nature’ is metamorphosed into being). Then they do not have the eyes to see the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. Their eyes have been closed to the actual world even more than they already were. RESPONDENT: But if it is based primarily in images rather than in the world as perceived without the filter of thought – then it is merely the same old dis-ease wearing new garb. RICHARD: What about ‘the world as perceived without the filter of passion’? Why is it that ‘the imaginary psychological self’ (which at the beginning of this post ‘identifies and associates with/as various desires’ as if the passions are primary) reverts to being ‘based primarily’ in thought at the end of the post? Just what does ‘with/as’ mean to you? Or: why does thought cop all the blame whilst the feelings get off scot-free? RESPONDENT: What you refer to as the feelings are also a product of the representational brain. RICHARD: What I refer to as the feelings are the instinctual passions ... I specifically asked: what about ‘the world as perceived without the filter of passion’? I will be more specific: Why does thought cop all the blame whilst the instinctual passions get off scot-free? RESPONDENT: Thought-as-filter can be just as much a function of second-hand emotions as it can be ‘cold reason,’ it seems to me. RICHARD: Is this sentence all there is to your response (or did the remainder of your response get cut off in transit)?
CORRESPONDENT No. 25 (Part Nine) 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 |
