|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RICHARD: How is learning all this [eastern metaphysics] going to bring about a cessation of suffering for each individual and all humankind? Will knowing this eliminate animosity and anguish? What is one to do with all this information?
RESPONDENT No. 33: The following article was recently published in a newsletter for the public unfamiliar with going into the rudimentary elements of programmed/ condition living. I thought that I would make it available to this mailing list for those of you who may find it a matter to quietly ponder, rather than debate. I share it in the spirit of either one investigating the truth or falseness of what’s being conveyed or ignoring it. RICHARD: Okay, I have ‘quietly pondered’ it ... and I am not going to ‘debate it’. I read it in ‘the spirit that it was shared’ ... I investigated ‘the truth or falseness of what’s being conveyed’. I did not ‘just ignore it’. Now what?
RESPONDENT No. 34: Point (1);. No. 33 reads X; Point (2);. X just copied book A. Point (3); No. 33 never read book A; Conclusion: No. 33 finds X original. RESPONDENT No. 25: Good observation. No. 33 is in love with logic. The programmer is the programmed (?) if you will be so kind as to translate the immensity into logical steps, your post will be easy on No. 33’s eyes. If you use intuition without putting it into a logical mode, he will usually object (if you are poetic in Sanskrit, all bet’s are off. The problem with logic is that when we see ‘reality’ through a logical filter, we are really only seeing reality-as-filtered-by-logic. More, if and when No. 33 responds. Please accept my apologies if my attempts to playfully mirror you are not appreciated. RESPONDENT: Putting things across logically is the first requirement of any discussion. If that requirement is not met, there is no communication. Then ‘X’ can write any crap and assume no responsibility because ‘words are not the things’. This, to my mind, is dishonesty. Case in point: No. 28 objected to my postings calling them conceptual. I showed to him that his ‘being with fear’ was also conceptual – there was no fear at the time that he wrote the posting. To other direct seers of truth and advocates of non-verbal perception, my question has been, and is, when it is all clear to you what the truth is, and since it can not be conveyed verbally, why bother? Retire, go home, stop using words, tons of them. Are you following me? My guess is after failing to elicit any worthwhile response from seers of direct truth: 1. the perception of direct truth is a farce. 2. since there is nothing much that the person can talk about, s/he will take refuge under the umbrella of ‘it can not be said’. 3. etc. But I haven’t given up hope completely. With those who can see my point, and can come up with logically consistent arguments, I will continue to correspond. Some on the list may not have the required training or education to engage in consistent discussions. I can completely understand and accept that. But what about those whose profession itself is to be consistent, logical, and clear? I find such lack of consistency and clarity in such people shocking. But maybe illogic runs in all places. There was one person on the forum – I don’t remember his name – he narrated a story about Einstein. Someone asked Einstein to explain his general theory of relativity in simplest possible terms. Einstein replied: ‘Common notion is when you take away matter, space remains. General Relativity says – take away matter and space vanishes as well’. That, to my mind, is clarity. And I try to apply that criterion to myself. Makes sense? RICHARD: Quite frankly ... no. An example: a fruit bowl with one apple in it ... the apple is matter existing in the space delineated by the sides of the bowl. Take the apple (matter) out of the bowl ... and the space (delineated by the sides of the bowl) quite obviously remains. In fact, with the apple removed, there is more space in the bowl than before! This, the common notion, is what makes sense ... this is what clarity looks like. * RESPONDENT No. 34: Could you please explain Einstein’s statement in logical terms. RESPONDENT: Sure. Before General Theory of Relativity: Premise: Matter and space are different. Conclusion: Matter does not affect space. After General Theory of Relativity: Premise: Matter and space are related. Conclusion: Matter affects space. RICHARD: Does Mr. Albert Einstein mean that the space of the universe vanishes when all the stars and planets are removed from it ... and not local matter and space like apples and fruit bowls here on earth? If so, then immediately three points come to mind:
So, what is Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘genius’ wanting to convey? He says: ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ ... which logically means that there is no matter and no space in existence. So, what remains? Logically: nothing remains. Now, given that ‘no matter’ is another way of saying ‘formless’ and that ‘no space’ is another way of saying ‘spaceless’ then what he is presenting in the guise of theoretical physics is the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ of the ‘formless and spaceless’ ... um ... ‘nothingness’? * RESPONDENT No. 34: Did matter affected space before Einstein was born? RESPONDENT: Yes, it did. In the same way that apples fell on the ground before Newton. RICHARD: Apparently Einsteinium physics (relative time and relative space) co-exists with Newtonian physics (absolute time and absolute space) ... a sort of ‘is’ and ‘is not’ simultaneously. This is all starting to sound familiar. Given that Mr. Albert Einstein proposes that space and time are inextricably linked in a ‘space-time’ continuum, when space vanishes upon removing all matter from it, according to Mr. Albert Einstein’s brilliant mind, time must cease to exist too. If so, then what he now has, logically, is a ‘formless and timeless and spaceless nothingness’ wherein human beings have no actual existence as a flesh and blood body. Thus, apart from the unanswered question of consciousness-without-a-body, is this not unlike a description of the Nirvanic ‘Sunyata’? But, then again, he is reported as saying: [quote]: ‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion (...) if there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism ...’ [endquote]. (http://stripe.colorado.edu/~judy/einstein/god.html ) Maybe he meant ‘the science of the future will be a cosmic religion ... if there is any science that would cope with the religious needs it will be General Relativity’? It would all be an hilarious joke if only it were not taken so seriously ... I notice that NASA has appropriated millions of dollars with the notion of sending space-ships through ‘worm-holes in the space-time continuum’ ... if only they can find one existing somewhere else than in the fantasy-driven world of higher mathematics dreamed up in the halls of academia. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides continue unabated for want of funding into an investigation of what causes malice and sorrow in human beings in the first place. And to think that all this while Mr. Joseph LeDoux has been hot on the trail of empirically finding this cause. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Putting things across logically is the first requirement of any discussion. If that requirement is not met, there is no communication. Then ‘X’ can write any crap and assume no responsibility because ‘words are not the things’. This, to my mind, is dishonesty. (...) I haven’t given up hope completely. With those who can see my point, and can come up with logically consistent arguments, I will continue to correspond (...) someone asked Einstein to explain his general theory of relativity in simplest possible terms. Einstein replied: ‘Common notion is when you take away matter, space remains. General Relativity says – take away matter and space vanishes as well’. That, to my mind, is clarity. And I try to apply that criterion to myself. Makes sense? RICHARD: Quite frankly ... no. An example: a fruit bowl with one apple in it ... the apple is matter existing in the space delineated by the sides of the bowl. Take the apple (matter) out of the bowl ... and the space (delineated by the sides of the bowl) quite obviously remains. In fact, with the apple removed, there is more space in the bowl than before! This, the common notion, is what makes sense ... this is what clarity looks like. RESPONDENT: Great! :-) RICHARD: Hmm ... Mr. Albert Einstein says ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ and you say: ‘That, to my mind, is clarity’. Then Richard says ‘Take matter out and the space quite obviously remains’ and you say: ‘Great!’. May I ask? What did you intend to do when someone met your requirements for discussion as you detailed (further above)? Viz.:
Am I to take it that I did not ‘come up with a logically consistent argument’ when I presented my example of the apple and the bowl, then? Because I do not consider that ‘great’ – even with the ubiquitous smiley attached – constitutes a discussion as indicated in your ‘I will continue to correspond’ statement. * RICHARD: Does Mr. Albert Einstein mean that the space of the universe vanishes when all the stars and planets are removed from it ... and not local matter and space like apples and fruit bowls here on earth? If so, then immediately three points come to mind:
RESPONDENT: Well, according to one theory of the cosmos, I think that feat will accomplish itself in the due course of time. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in following your version of what constitutes an honest discussion with ‘logically consistent arguments’. What feat is going to ‘accomplish itself in the due course of time’? Am I to take it that you are seriously proposing that all matter is going to be removed from universe? What theory postulates this event? Does this theory address my point No. 1? (How shall this feat be carried out?) Does this theory address my point No. 2? (Where shall all the matter be placed?) Also, does this theory maintain Mr. Albert Einstein’s speculation that all space will vanish too ... which speculation you enthusiastically endorsed (further above). Viz.: ‘General Relativity says – ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’. That, to my mind, is clarity’. Does this theory address my point No. 3? (As human beings are constituted of matter will human beings be present to witness this event?) Does this theory address my floating question? (Does consciousness exists independently of matter and space?) I do so look forward to having a logically consistent correspondence with you ... a discussion that contains no dishonesty like ‘words are not the things’. * RICHARD: So, what is Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘genius’ wanting to convey? He says: ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ ... which logically means that there is no matter and no space in existence. So, what remains? Logically: nothing remains. Now, given that ‘no matter’ is another way of saying ‘formless’ and that ‘no space’ is another way of saying ‘spaceless’ then what he is presenting in the guise of theoretical physics is the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ of the ‘formless and spaceless’’ ... um ... ‘nothingness’? RESPONDENT: I think you know pretty well what the state-of-the-science is at present. RICHARD: I am a lay-person dabbling in the science as presented by the popular press ... I have no formal training or academically acquired knowledge whatsoever. From this privileged position I discern two strands of science:
RESPONDENT: Einstein died many years ago. RICHARD: Indeed he did. Mr. Albert Einstein was born in Ulm, Germany, on March 14, 1879 and died in his sleep at Princeton Hospital, USA, on April 18, 1955. However, his theories did not die with him. RESPONDENT: I watched a program on the String Theory. RICHARD: Ah, yes ... the ‘String Theory’. When I was but a youth in High School in the late 50’s and early 60’s I was taught – as fact – that the atom was the smallest piece of matter ... it was the source of all things. Then came, thick and fast, a bewildering array of particles with peculiar names and properties wherein they were sometimes matter and sometimes energy waves ... which state depended upon the human observer, apparently ... and these particles were the source of all things. And today there is this ‘String Theory’ ... a ‘string’ of energy so tiny that if one is to compare it to the size of the known universe it would be the size of a tree ... if it had form. Predictably, it is being posited as being the smallest ... um ... ‘thingamajig’ beyond which there is no smaller. And thus it, now, it is the ultimate source of all things. May I ask? Would Mr. Albert Einstein’s theory have this energy ‘string’ vanish, along with space itself, when all matter is removed from space? In other words, does this energy ‘string’ still fall within the range of matter? (Particles are, apparently, sometimes matter and sometimes energy ... a sort of ‘now it is’ and ‘now it is not’ simultaneously). If it is not considered as being matter (an energy wave is not/has no form), then will it remain after matter – and space – vanish? Which brings in the question of time (inextricably linked by Mr. Albert Einstein with space in a ‘space-time’ continuum). I did ask in my previous post if time ceases when all matter and space vanishes ... does it? If so, and if this energy ‘string’ (not being matter) does remain, then is this energy ‘string’ (the source of all matter) ... um ... ‘timeless’? I will put the question in another way: Is there a timeless and spaceless and formless energy that ‘exists for all eternity’ that is the source of all time, all space and all matter ... according to theoretical physics? RESPONDENT: There was another one on the state of the matter and space – and nothingness – inside a black hole. RICHARD: Uh, huh ... that is the $64,000 question, is it not? What lies inside a ‘black hole’? Is it the end of everything ... or is it the passage to a parallel universe where all is bright and beautiful? * RICHARD: Apparently Einsteinium physics (relative time and relative space) co-exists with Newtonian physics (absolute time and absolute space) ... a sort of ‘is’ and ‘is not’ simultaneously. This is all starting to sound familiar. Given that Mr. Albert Einstein proposes that space and time are inextricably linked in a ‘space-time’ continuum, when space vanishes upon removing all matter from it, according to Mr. Albert Einstein’s brilliant mind, time must cease to exist too. If so, then what he now has, logically, is a ‘formless and timeless and spaceless nothingness’ wherein human beings have no actual existence as a flesh and blood body. Thus, apart from the unanswered question of consciousness-without-a-body, is this not unlike a description of the Nirvanic ‘Sunyata’? But, then again, he is reported as saying: [quote]: ‘The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion (...) if there’s any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism ...’ [endquote]. Maybe he meant ‘the science of the future will be a cosmic religion ... if there is any science that would cope with the religious needs it will be General Relativity’? It would all be an hilarious joke if only it were not taken so seriously ... I notice that NASA has appropriated millions of dollars with the notion of sending space-ships through ‘worm-holes in the space-time continuum’ ... if only they can find one existing somewhere else than in the fantasy-driven world of higher mathematics dreamed up in the halls of academia. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides continue unabated for want of funding into an investigation of what causes malice and sorrow in human beings in the first place. And to think that all this while Mr. Joseph LeDoux has been hot on the trail of empirically finding this cause. Viz.: www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/ RESPONDENT: So, Richard, two questions at this point: 1. What, if any, is the value of science, scientific methods, and rationality in human affairs? RICHARD: There is immense value (as in being beneficial to human salubrity) in practical science, practical scientific methods and practical rationality in human affairs. RESPONDENT: 2. You have outlined the malice pretty well. RICHARD: Not only malice ... but sorrow as well. Malice and sorrow are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human Condition’. The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: What is your solution to ending this malice? Thanks for your time, patience, and a very interesting posting. RICHARD: For starters ... the ending of malice and sorrow involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom?
RICHARD: Malice and sorrow are intrinsically connected and constitute what is known as ‘The Human Condition’. The term ‘Human Condition’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The ending of malice and sorrow involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. Then the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: My answer is: you can’t. As long as you nurse malice and sorrow in your heart, there will be no happiness for you, nor will you be harmless to others. This fact is simpler than any of the theories that cropped up earlier. RICHARD: Maybe its very simplicity is what causes everyone to overlook it, eh? RESPONDENT: And I have taken the liberty to snip as I don’t feel much inclined or competent to discuss the theories of the origin of the universe right now. Maybe, after reading more about the current state of the science, I will pick up that thread. The Einstein example was just an illustration of what clarity means to my mind. RICHARD: Maybe it is indeed an illustration of what clarity means to your mind ... yet that clarity – and the meaning of that clarity to your mind – is not being conveyed successfully by your illustration. May I ask? Am I writing to the same person who wrote: ‘Putting things across logically is the first requirement of any discussion. If that requirement is not met, there is no communication. Then ‘X’ can write any crap and assume no responsibility’? It is not necessary that you ‘discuss the theories of the origin of the universe’ either now or at any other time ... I was merely presenting a logical follow-through of what is implied and indicated in Mr. Albert Einstein’s statement (which is the statement that you enthusiastically endorsed in the snipped part of the post. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘General Relativity says – ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’. That, to my mind, is clarity’. I also sketched out a brief resume of what his devout followers have made out of his General Theory of Relativity ... and I indicated where theoretical physics was heading to. But, of course his statement does not have to mean ‘the origins of the universe’ to you at all ... but it does means something to you, does it not? Otherwise why introduce it as an example of clarity? What does it mean to you? Why is it, to your mind, clarity? I do so look forward to having a logically consistent correspondence with you; a discussion with someone understands and accepts that some people do not have the required training or education to engage in consistent discussions ... like you so aptly pointed out in a previous post. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Some on the list may not have the required training or education to engage in consistent discussions. I can completely understand and accept that. But what about those whose profession itself is to be consistent, logical, and clear? I find such lack of consistency and clarity in such people shocking. But maybe illogic runs in all places’. But I also understand, seeing that I am but a lay-person dabbling in the science as presented by the popular press and that I have no formal training or academically acquired knowledge whatsoever whilst you do (before you switched from physics to MIS), that you may feel disinclined to pursue the subject with me. Yet from this undisciplined position I do discern two strands of science:
Where would you place the theoretical physics that is exemplified by such mathematical physicists as ... um ... Mr. Paul Davies, for example? In case you have not heard of him, he was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion. He initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’ RESPONDENT: Allow me to substitute another [illustration of what clarity means to my mind]: Richard tells me it is raining outside. I look out of the window and see it rain. Richard’s statement is clear to me. RICHARD: Hmm ... this illustration is a far cry from ‘General Relativity says – take away matter and space vanishes as well’ would you not say? It falls distinctly into the commonsense category that Mr. Albert Einstein dismissed so cavalierly. Viz.: ‘Common notion is when you take away matter, space remains’ ... and you clearly endorsed his uncommon notion (General Relativity) as being clarity: [Respondent]: ‘That, to my mind, is clarity. And I try to apply that criterion to myself’. A trifle inconsistent, non? You did say, did you not: ‘I find such lack of consistency and clarity in such people shocking. But maybe illogic runs in all places’? Perhaps you could clarify something for me that I find illogical? I will give an example: I have a fruit bowl with one apple in it ... the apple is matter existing in the space delineated by the sides of the bowl. I take the apple (matter) out of the bowl ... and the space (delineated by the sides of the bowl) quite obviously remains. In fact, with the apple removed, there is more space in the bowl than before ... yet Mr. Albert Einstein would have me believe that the space vanishes! Now, as you so clearly understand that, when Richard says ‘it is raining outside’ and you look out of the window and see it rain, you know that Richard’s statement is clear to you. Does Richard’s statement ‘the space in the bowl quite obviously remains’ have the same clarity? I only ask because you enthusiastically endorsed Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ statement by saying: ‘that, to my mind, is clarity’. RESPONDENT: But I think you don’t need those illustrations as your writing is clear to me. RICHARD: May I ask? Is my writing clear to you in the same way as Mr. Albert Einstein’s ‘take away matter and space vanishes as well’ statement is clear to you? Because, if it is then I doubt that you will comprehend such a simple question as this one: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: So, back to your question – can one live peacefully with malice and sorrow in one’s heart – the answer is ‘no’. RICHARD: Indeed not. And to think that all this while that Mr. Albert Einstein’s theories have been holding the public’s attention, Mr. Joseph LeDoux (www.cns.nyu.edu/home/ledoux/ ) has been hot on the trail of empirically finding the genetically inherited cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides. Is this because he is a practical scientist who does not have his head in the clouds looking for a solution to the human condition in some timeless and formless and spaceless nothingness?
RESPONDENT: Richard, I read your posts with interest. I think you are an intelligent person who thinks about things very carefully. I also visited the NYU Web site that you mentioned in a post and found it very informative (about the bodily origin of fear, etc.). Thanks. I need your help: My good friend No. 22 has been arguing for many years now that things don’t exist independently. RICHARD: Well, everything is physically interdependent ... one is as much the oxygen one breathes in as plants are the carbon dioxide one breathes out and the oxygen they emit is what one breathes in and so on through innumerable unnoticed multiple physical interrelationships. It maybe that your ‘good friend No. 22’ is blurring this physical interconnectedness with the Buddhist doctrine of the ‘samsaric’ interrelatedness of cause with effect with cause with effect ad infinitum ... because he did whenever I corresponded with him. RESPONDENT: My reasoning is that there must be an absolute with reference to which the relative, the transitory, the dependent, can even be talked about. The world cannot be recurrently illusionary. RICHARD: Pure reasoning insists that one must start reasoning from the known (the basic premise) which, in this case, is time and space and form. To say that time and space and form are relative there must be an absolute to define them against and one cannot conceive of the reality of an absolute ‘nothing’ unless one acknowledges the reality of a relative ‘something’ first to contrast it against in order to posit it. Thus if someone says that the ‘something’ – time and space and form – are an illusion then their ‘nothing’ – timeless and spaceless and formless – must also be an illusion. Otherwise reasoning falls flat. Is this not what you mean by ‘the world cannot be recurrently illusionary’? RESPONDENT: Good friend No. 22 cites Vedanta to illustrate Maya but conveniently ignores Brahma – the reference point for Maya. RICHARD: Could it be that he is speaking partly from the Buddhist standpoint where ‘Brahma’ has no pivotal role? I have not been following your thread so I do not know what you have covered, but at a guess, in citing Vedanta he could be citing the latter development of the Hindu viewpoint (Advaita Vedanta, which matured long after Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, goes some way to accommodating Buddhism). According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the Buddhist’s ultimate reality, ‘The Deathless’ (accessible only at ‘Parinirvana’ for a person who has attained ‘Nirvana’), has nothing to do with time and space and form whatsoever, whereas ‘The Brahmin’, whilst not being a god as such (let alone a creator god), does have some relationship (which connection varies between different schools). Mr. Gotama the Sakyan declined to supply any answers for what created and/or creates and/or is a cause of this physical universe ... his equivalent of ‘The Absolute’ (‘The Deathless’) is something else entirely. Indeed, Mr. Gotama the Sakyan maintained that there were countless numbers of universes coming into being, countless numbers of universes existing for aeons, and countless numbers of universes going out of existence at any one time ... and discouraged speculation as to why because of the infinite regression of cause and effect. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan spoke instead of ‘dependent origination’, based upon multiple interrelated causes and effects contained within ‘samsara’ (the beginningless and endless round of birth and death), as being the cause of dukkha (along with ignorance and craving) and, by positing no discernable cause for the universe, insisted that there be no source for salvation (god or gods) other than the individual’s own application of the tenets he espoused. He expressly stated that he offered the solution for ‘dukkha’ only and had no interest in supplying useless solutions to cosmogonical questions ... he said that such questions were futile and would even hinder ‘Unbinding’ (release). RESPONDENT: You are well versed in various philosophies and I am sending this message to you to help me understand if there is anything wrong with my reasoning, i.e., things cannot be recurrently illusionary and Brahma must exist – otherwise the whole idea of Maya is meaningless. If you find time – and inclination – to respond to this message, I will really appreciate your help. RICHARD: I have no intention of becoming embroiled in an unresolvable metaphysical dispute ... there is an explicit divide between Buddhism and Hinduism that is unbridgeable. As you would be well aware, I find both systems to be predicated upon incorrect assumptions and to argue points of difference in the contingent chain of thought that follows is but a fruitless endeavour. I would, however, be interested in exploring why you say that ‘Brahma must exist’ in order to support the ‘whole idea of Maya’ (the word ‘Maya’ more properly translates as ‘apparent’, in its ‘seemingly so’ meaning, than ‘illusion’). I have no problem with the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’, that 6.0 billion peoples are experiencing, as being only ‘seemingly so’ without having to posit a timeless and spaceless and formless absolute that ‘must exist’ in order to explain it away. Is it because, if one says that all of time, all of space and all of form are relative, then any absolute posited must needs be not only ‘no time’, ‘no space’ and ‘no form’ (the unknown negative of the known positive) but also include or enclose all of time, all of space and all of form ‘within it’, so to speak, in order to be the ‘Absolute’ (thus more than a mere negative)? Therefore, starting from the known, through some sleight of hand (sleight of mind) the unknown assumes greater importance and, for some people at least, the known is diminished to the point of being seen as an illusion (a spurning not unlike the ‘biting the hand that feeds you’ exercise). Is it that, if one can somehow comprehend how a negative can come to both include and surpass the positive that spawns it (perhaps with the logical copula breathlessly gripping the steering wheel) then one is a Hindu pundit!
RESPONDENT: My reasoning is that there must be an absolute with reference to which the relative, the transitory, the dependent, can even be talked about. The world cannot be recurrently illusionary. RICHARD: Pure reasoning insists that one must start reasoning from the known (the basic premise) which, in this case, is time and space and form. To say that time and space and form are relative there must be an absolute to define them against and one cannot conceive of the reality of an absolute ‘nothing’ unless one acknowledges the reality of a relative ‘something’ first to contrast it against in order to posit it. Thus if someone says that the ‘something’ – time and space and form – are an illusion then their ‘nothing’ – timeless and spaceless and formless – must also be an illusion. Otherwise reasoning falls flat. Is this not what you mean by ‘the world cannot be recurrently illusionary’? RESPONDENT: Yes. Relative can only be postulated with reference to a permanent. RICHARD: As this physical universe’s space is infinite and it’s time is eternal it is already always permanent ... hence this material universe is absolute. What some peoples call ‘relative’ (the time and space on this planet) may be easier understood if the word ‘local’ is used (as in local time and local space). When I arise from this chair and walk to the coffee-pot on the bar, it takes three-four seconds of time to move through the intervening two-three metres of space. Yet close observation shows, anywhere throughout this journey through ‘local’ time and ‘local’ space, that each moment again I am here and each place again it is now. Thus I am already always here now in the infinitude that this flesh and blood body has been existing in for fifty-two years ... it was only ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ that was forever separated from the magnificence of the actual by ‘my’ sheer presence, ‘my’ very ‘being’. ‘I’ can never, ever be here, now, for ‘I’ am not actual, and here – now – is actual. * RICHARD: The latter development of the Hindu viewpoint (Advaita Vedanta, which matured long after Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) goes some way to accommodating Buddhism. According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica the Buddhist’s ultimate reality, ‘The Deathless’ (accessible only at ‘Parinirvana’
for a person who has attained ‘Nirvana’), has nothing to do with time and space and form whatsoever, whereas ‘The Brahmin’, whilst not
being a god as such (let alone a creator god), does have some relationship (which connection varies between different schools). Mr. Gotama the
Sakyan declined to supply any answers for what created and/or creates and/or is a cause of this physical universe ... his equivalent of ‘The
Absolute’ RESPONDENT: What is the Absolute for Buddha? RICHARD: The same-same ‘Timelessness and Spacelessness and Formlessness’ of Hinduism ... he just did not posit it
as having anything to do with bringing the universe into being or sustaining it or whatever. There is no relationship betwixt Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s
‘Absolute’ ‘Brahma’, whilst having become more or less synonymous with ‘The Brahmin’ these days, does have lingering attributes of earlier Hinduism wherein ‘Brahma’ was (popularly at least) seen to be god asleep and dreaming the universe into being complete with stars and planets and people and, becoming ‘lost’ in its dream, takes the dream to be reality. Thus the name of the game (as a human being) is to wake up in your dream and realise that you are ‘Brahma’ dreaming all this time and space and form. One then spends the remainder of one’s bodily existence in a lucid dream, as it were, and physical death (Mahasamadhi) is the end of the dream completely. Mr. Buddhaghosa of Moraṇḍacetaka discarded this fantasy. Viz.: ‘No God, no Brahma can be found; no matter of this wheel of life; just bare phenomena roll; depend on conditions all’ (Visuddhi Magga). * RICHARD: Mr. Gotama the Sakyan maintained that there were countless numbers of universes coming into being, countless numbers of universes existing for aeons, and countless numbers of universes going out of existence at any one time ... and discouraged speculation as to why because of the infinite regression of cause and effect. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan spoke instead of ‘dependent origination’, based upon multiple interrelated causes and effects contained within ‘samsara’ (the beginningless and endless round of birth and death), as being the cause of dukkha (along with ignorance and craving) and, by positing no discernable cause for the universe, insisted that there be no source for salvation (god or gods) other than the individual’s own application of the tenets he espoused. He expressly stated that he offered the solution for ‘dukkha’ only and had no interest in supplying useless solutions to cosmogonical questions ... he said that such questions were futile and would even hinder ‘Unbinding’ (release). RESPONDENT: Thanks for explaining. Didn’t Buddha talk of a Void (‘sunyat’)? If he did, that might be the Absolute in his scheme of things. RICHARD: Yes. The main attribute of ‘Sunyata’ is that it is not God, not ‘Brahmā’ ... Mr. Gotama the Sakyan had no explanation for the origin of this universe (or any of the multitudinous universes that he posited in the same way that some of the bright boys at Quantumville similarly posit today). Human intelligence, being currently circumscribed by self-centredness, cannot comprehend this universe’s infinite space and eternal time. Infinitude can only be understood apperceptively (a ‘centre’ necessarily creates a ‘circumference’ in awareness). * RESPONDENT: You are well versed in various philosophies and I am sending this message to you to help me understand if there is anything wrong with my reasoning, i.e., things cannot be recurrently illusionary and Brahma must exist – otherwise the whole idea of Maya is meaningless. If you find time – and inclination – to respond to this message, I will really appreciate your help. RICHARD: I have no intention of becoming embroiled in an unresolvable metaphysical dispute ... there is an explicit divide between Buddhism and Hinduism that is unbridgeable. As you would be well aware, I find both systems to be predicated upon incorrect assumptions and to argue points of difference in the contingent chain of thought that follows is but a fruitless endeavour. I would, however, be interested in exploring why you say that ‘Brahma must exist’ in order to support the ‘whole idea of Maya’ (the word ‘Maya’ more properly translates as ‘apparent’, in its ‘seemingly so’ meaning, than ‘illusion’). I have no problem with the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’, that 6.0 billion peoples are experiencing, as being only ‘seemingly so’ without having to posit a timeless and spaceless and formless absolute that ‘must exist’ in order to explain it away. RESPONDENT: Same as what I wrote earlier – if the world is Maya, what is it Maya in relation to? RICHARD: Using the word ‘Maya’ in its ‘seemingly so’ meaning, I say I have no problem with the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’, that 6.0 billion peoples are experiencing, as being only ‘seemingly so’ because there is the impeccable actuality of the actual world (that the ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ is pasted as a veneer over) for practical comparison with. There is no need to posit a timeless and spaceless and formless absolute that ‘must exist’ in order to explain the ‘seemingly so’ ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ away. This place in infinite physical space (here as an actuality) and this moment in eternal physical time (now as an actuality) where all matter is (form as an actuality) is the infinitude (eternity and infinity as an actuality) that virtually everyone seeks in some metaphysical timeless and spaceless and formless void. There is no relationship whatsoever betwixt ‘reality’ and actuality ... one steps out of the ‘real world’ into this actual world, leaving ‘myself’ (in ‘my’ totality) behind in the grim and glum ‘reality’ where ‘I’ belong. RESPONDENT: Dreaming pre-supposes being awake. RICHARD: Aye ... but to ‘awake’ from the ‘dream’ is but to be lucidly dreaming ... the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. RESPONDENT: If there is only ‘dream’, what makes one decide that this is a dream? RICHARD: PCE’s ... which everyone I have spoken to at length have had at some stage in their lives. An identity, seeking to escape the trap of ‘real world’, can sometimes spontaneously go into abeyance and the apperceptive awareness, of the infinitude that this very material universe is, ensues and is epitomised as immaculate perfection that has always been here, is always here and will always be here. Thus nothing is ‘going wrong’, has ever been ‘going wrong’ and will never be ‘going wrong’. This relief from the vicissitudes of life in the grim and glum ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ is so intense that a warm rush of gratitude surges forth from the heart where ‘me’ as soul has been passively waiting ... and ‘I’ as ego is nowhere to be found. One’s feeling-sense of identity shifts from the head to the heart and the clean, clear and pure perfection (an actual perfection) of the PCE devolves into the Glamorous and Glorious and Majestic Perfection (a mystical perfection) of an Altered State of Consciousness (ASC) called ‘Moksha’ or ‘Nirvana’ or ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Satori’ and so on in the East – popularised in the West as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ – and one is swept up into the Glamour, Glory and Glitz of the ‘Deathless State’. The material infinitude of this physical universe’s eternal time and infinite space is transmogrified into a ‘Formless Emptiness’ that is ‘Timeless and Spaceless’ ... and one is ‘Unborn’ and ‘Undying’ in a metaphysical ‘Greater Reality’ wherein reigns an ‘Unknowable and Immutable Presence’ which is an ‘Immortal and Ceaseless Being’ which bestows a vainglorious ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’. And the already always existing peace-on-earth of this actual world is glossed over once more. * RICHARD: Is it because, if one says that all of time, all of space and all of form are relative, then any absolute
posited must needs be not only ‘no time’, ‘no space’ and ‘no form’ (the unknown negative of the known positive) but also include or
enclose all of time, all of space and all of form ‘within it’, so to speak, in order to be the ‘Absolute’ RESPONDENT: I don’t understand this last paragraph. Please explain in simpler terms. Thanks. RICHARD: When it comes to comprehending infinitude, logic falls flat on its face ... as infinitude has no opposite
there is no comparison to enable logic’s seductive ways. Thus, logically, the known is relegated to being the negative (by categorising it as ‘relative’)
and the unknown is boosted to being the positive (by categorising it as ‘absolute’) in a process of narcissistic self-aggrandisement
(identifying as being the ‘Absolute’) It is the instinctual desire for immortality that fuels punditry.
RESPONDENT No. 12: Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M. RICHARD: Whosoever scorns the lessons of history, with a mimicked disdain for knowledge, commit themselves to doggedly re-making the blunders of their illustrious predecessors. RESPONDENT No. 12: The blunder is belief that psychological time is actual. RICHARD: Nowhere, in all my reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’ have I ever found them to be making the
mistake of taking psychological time to be actual. All of them, in their own way and their own words, stated that this (essentially self-centred)
approach to the question of what time is, is the very problem that they had become free of. What books do you read that inclines you to say that
the blunder which they make is the ‘belief that psychological time is actual’? Anyway, you have side-stepped the issue ... which is: to hold a
mimicked disdain for knowledge is to commit oneself to doggedly re-making the blunders of one’s illustrious predecessors. Once again, in all my
reading of the ‘illustrious predecessors’, there is this almost universal disparagement of knowledge ... which disdain you mimicked in your ‘Richard
knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge’ comment (above). The man you like to quote made no secret of his disregard for knowledge ... to the point of
convincing gullible acolytes that he had no memory of past events (when he did) and that he had never read any of the writings of his ‘illustrious
predecessors’ (which he had). As do you. RESPONDENT: If by the illustrious predecessor you mean K, then, I would like to make the following point that I made to Konrad: Krishnamurti’s disparagement is of knowledge as the self, not of knowledge per se. He very mentions that knowledge is essential to function in the world, to do a job, to go from one place to another. But knowledge as becoming is what he is objecting to. RICHARD: Okay ... and why not apply this same astuteness to knowledge as ‘being’? RESPONDENT: And there is good reason for it. If ‘I’ were to become something else, then what roadmap do I follow? RICHARD: Thus far in human history, all the subservient ‘I’s have followed the ancient road-map colloquially called the ‘Tried and True’, little realising that it is the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... even after it is pointed out again and again. RESPONDENT: As I explain below, the ‘I’ is nothing but the totality of various psychological responses RICHARD: The ‘I’ is emotion-backed thought and to examine thought is one thing ... why this reluctance on this Mailing List to put feelings under the same scrutiny as thought? RESPONDENT: If this entity wants to become free or enlightened, then that want itself is more of the same, and hence inherently futile. RICHARD: If I may point out? This is ‘ancient wisdom’ (and almost central to Buddhism’s tenets) ... thus you are following a road-map after all. I would not be here today if the ‘I’ that was had not wanted peace-on-earth like ‘he’ had never wanted anything before. Which means – as ‘he’ revved up desire until it became obsessional – that ‘he’ headed 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the ‘Tried and True’. Consequently I know why it is the ‘Tried and Failed’. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean that a normal ‘I’ shouldn’t strive to do better in the physical world, to improve his performance, the quality of his work, his body, his intellect, etc. RICHARD: Indeed ... I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy the benefits of technological progress. I do not disparage knowledge at all (including knowledge as ‘becoming’ and knowledge as ‘being’). The more information one has the better it is to make a considered appraisal ... this rapid access to resources around the world (across cultures and down through history and between peers) has never been possible before. If it were not for mass communication (ready access to books, magazines, electronic media and ease of travel so as to compare notes) I would not be here today (‘I’ would be still trapped in ‘my’ culture’s mores). RESPONDENT: K’s objection to knowledge as a means to become more free, etc. is very logical, in my opinion. RICHARD: Hmm ... and you found Mr. Albert Einstein’s objection to the common view of space (as delineated by a fruit-bowl for example) to be ‘very logical’ as well, did you not? * RICHARD: Given the way that you responded (above) it would appear that for you this is true. Howsoever, the ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’. RESPONDENT: I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. RICHARD: All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Just for starters, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognizable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). There is no reason to assume that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>). RESPONDENT: Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? RICHARD: It is much, much more than merely ‘an after-thought’ ... and this is obvious, upon reflection, if for no other reason than its persistence in all peoples now living or dead (if it were but ‘an after-thought’ then all one would have to do is ‘think again’ and !Hey Presto! it is gone). Speaking personally, in ‘my’ investigations all those years ago, ‘I’ first started by examining thought, thoughts and thinking ... then very soon moved on to examining feelings (first the emotions and then the deeper feelings). When ‘I’ dug down into these passions (into the core of ‘my’ being then into ‘being’ itself) ‘I’ stumbled across the instincts ... and here I am today. RESPONDENT: For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? RICHARD: The ‘after-thought’ is certainly a factor in consolidating the feeling-fed verification that ‘I’ instinctively know that ‘I’ exist ... but ‘an after-thought’ does not have the requisite power (affective power as in emotional and passionate power) to create the ‘self’. RESPONDENT: For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. RICHARD: Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milliseconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’. RESPONDENT: The latter, I think, is what constitutes the self. Similarly with pleasurable activities: it is the desire to have more that creates the self. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have pleasure by the bucket load – and take for granted that there is an endless supply – and no ‘self’ gets created. * RICHARD: So strong is this instinct that it makes otherwise intelligent peoples strive for a non-physical immortality (by whatever name). Seeking to be the ‘everlasting’ (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) is merely re-phrasing what the word ‘immortality’ conveys much less ambiguously. And a non-physical ‘everlasting’ cannot be described as being actual in any book. Could it be that you are dutifully blundering? RESPONDENT: I don’t understand this paragraph. Please explain. Thanks. RICHARD: The survival instinct (blind nature’s rough and ready software programme for the perpetuation of the species) which applies only to bodily survival has been arrogated by the ‘self’ so generated, who then fondly imagines that ‘he’ or ‘she’ (an autological entity) is going to survive physical death (such survival is commonly called immortality). People whose intelligence is crippled by instinct-fed feelings, and who seek to avoid what they call ‘popular religion’s immortality’, either change the name or say that the word is not the thing and even go so far as to say that they are not seeking ... um ... the ‘everlasting’, for example). Now, a non-physical ‘everlasting’ (this physical body has a limited life-span) cannot be described as being actual ... not in any book. Yet that is what some otherwise intelligent peoples are saying on this Mailing List. The persistence of identity (even unto a ‘no-self’ after-life) is legendary by now.
RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti’s disparagement is of knowledge as the self, not of knowledge per se. He very mentions that knowledge is essential to function in the world, to do a job, to go from one place to another. But knowledge as becoming is what he is objecting to. RICHARD: Okay ... and why not apply this same astuteness to knowledge as ‘being’? RESPONDENT: Because knowledge as being doesn’t exist. RICHARD: Does this knowledge of yours (‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’) not fall under the category of ‘knowledge as the self’ and therefore worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’? RESPONDENT: Being is undescribed, indescribable. RICHARD: This knowledge of yours that ‘Being is undescribed, indescribable’ ... is it not more ‘knowledge as the self’ (and erroneous ‘knowledge’ at that)? And therefore worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’? RESPONDENT: Knowledge is in the realm of the descript. Pure being is purely out of the purview of knowledge. RICHARD: I have no difficulties in describing what ‘pure being’ is like as an experiential reality. * RESPONDENT: There is good reason for it. If ‘I’ were to become something else, then what roadmap do I follow? RICHARD: Thus far in human history, all the subservient ‘I’s have followed the ancient road-map colloquially called the ‘Tried and True’, little realising that it is the ‘Tried and Failed’ ... even after it is pointed out again and again. RESPONDENT: That is besides the point. The fact is, there is no roadmap. RICHARD: Given that the are trillions of words in the ancient scriptures then there are many, many roadmaps which, so some say, all lead to the same ‘goal’. Therefore this knowledge of yours (worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’) is yet more (erroneous) knowledge. * RESPONDENT: As I explain below, the ‘I’ is nothing but the totality of various psychological responses RICHARD: The ‘I’ is emotion-backed thought and to examine thought is one thing ... why this reluctance on this Mailing List to put feelings under the same scrutiny as thought? RESPONDENT: My definition is even more encompassing: totality of all psychological responses is the ‘I’. RICHARD: Okay, I am happy to amend my reply (above): the identity in its totality (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is instinctively-based emotion-backed thought (which means that ‘I’ as ego am derived from ‘me’ as soul at the core of ‘being’ ... and ‘being’ itself is the genetically inherited rudimentary animal self common to all sentient beings). I was giving a short answer. RESPONDENT: If this entity wants to become free or enlightened, then that want itself is more of the same, and hence inherently futile. RICHARD: If I may point out? This is ‘ancient wisdom’ (and almost central to Buddhism’s tenets) ... thus you are following a road-map after all. RESPONDENT: No. This is my own discovery. Buddha might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what I say. RICHARD: And therefore not to be examined for efficacy? * RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean that a normal ‘I’ shouldn’t strive to do better in the physical world, to improve his performance, the quality of his work, his body, his intellect, etc. RICHARD: Indeed ... I thoroughly appreciate and enjoy the benefits of technological progress. I do not disparage knowledge at all (including knowledge as ‘becoming’ and knowledge as ‘being’). RESPONDENT: Nor do I. Knowledge as becoming leads to conflict, and knowledge as being is an oxymoron. RICHARD: To say that something ‘is an oxymoron’ is, if not a disparagement, at least suggesting it is a worthless contradiction in terms. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean the I disparage knowledge. It is very factual. I observe it with the objectivity of a scientist. RICHARD: Good. Can you apply this astuteness to ‘knowledge as being’? RESPONDENT: K’s objection to knowledge as a means to become more free, etc. is very logical, in my opinion. RICHARD: Hmm ... and you found Mr. Albert Einstein’s objection to the common view of space (as delineated by a fruit-bowl for example) to be ‘very logical’ as well, did you not? RESPONDENT: Re-visiting the dead horse: yes. The logic there is – space is related to mass and it is not independent. RICHARD: Okay, if you wish to repeat the mistakes of history by calling revisiting an unfinished dialogue a ‘dead horse’ then so be it. * RICHARD: The ‘self’ is established via the genetically encoded instinctual passions that all sentient beings are born with ... commonly known as the ‘survival instinct’. RESPONDENT: I don’t think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. All animals have instincts, but only the human has a self. RICHARD: All sentient beings have some degree of awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’. Just for starters, it has been demonstrated, via the ‘scientific method’ (predictably repeatable on demand and replicable by anyone anywhere with the requisite knowledge and expertise), that chimpanzees have a recognizable rudimentary ‘self’ (as in an awareness of ‘self’ and ‘other’). There is no reason to assume that when a dog lifts a leg on a tree that it is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <dog> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <tree> (whilst it is entirely reasonable to assume that a tree is unaware of ‘self’ as in what humans call <tree> and ‘other’ as in what humans call <dog>). RESPONDENT: Let me clarify: the human self is created via thinking. RICHARD: You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self. RESPONDENT: When we act instinctively, there is no self. RICHARD: Are you really saying that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is to be selfless? * RESPONDENT: Isn’t ‘self’ really (and literally) an after-thought? RICHARD: It is much, much more than merely ‘an after-thought’ ... and this is obvious, upon reflection, if for no other reason than its persistence in all peoples now living or dead (if it were but ‘an after-thought’ then all one would have to do is ‘think again’ and !Hey Presto! it is gone). RESPONDENT: NO!! ‘Think again’ and you create more of the self. RICHARD: Hmm ... you do seem to be accrediting thought with tremendous power. Are you saying that thought has more power than the instinctual survival passions? RESPONDENT: For example, humans instinctively respond to certain situations and then the after-thought actually creates the self? RICHARD: The ‘after-thought’ is certainly a factor in consolidating the feeling-fed verification that ‘I’ instinctively know that ‘I’ exist ... but ‘an after-thought’ does not have the requisite power (affective power as in emotional and passionate power) to create the ‘self’. RESPONDENT: It does. You call me an idiot. I react. The reaction is from thinking, which is based upon the thought (image) that I am not an idiot. But the emotion producing thought acts so fast that we hardly ever notice it. I am at a point in my life where I can actually watch my emotion-producing thoughts arise in me. RICHARD: Mr. Joseph LeDoux (and others) has demonstrated that much of the (non-cognitive) emotional memory is laid down before the infant can think ... let alone comprehend cause and effect. This instinctive reactionary behaviour (which he calls the ‘quick and dirty’ reaction) is blind nature’s survival instinct in action. It can (and has been) observed and documented again and again ... yet he and other commentators predict massive denial from all kinds of people to this scientifically demonstrated data. There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years. RESPONDENT: For example, an instinctive response to avert a danger, and then after-thought: ‘I could have died’. RICHARD: Yet, on the whole, that is rarely a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ is it not? Mr. Joseph LeDoux has demonstrated that the amygdala non-cognitively generates instinctual fear (a passion) 14 milli-seconds before any sensory information gets to the cerebral cortex. This fear response simultaneously releases adrenaline, which floods the body and the cerebral cortex, before thinking begins. Thus the thoughts are fear-filled thoughts ... which is hardly the stuff of a dispassionate ‘after-thought’ created ‘self’. RESPONDENT: True. In those 14 milli-seconds there is no self either. RICHARD: You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy? RESPONDENT: There is a pure response to some stimulus. RICHARD: Are you really saying that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is a ‘pure response’? RESPONDENT: Later on the thought ‘I was afraid’ creates the self. RICHARD: You do seem to be re-stating your conclusion again and again ... mere repetition does not make it so if it be not a fact. RESPONDENT: Actually, it is the reaction: ‘I was afraid and I don’t like it ...’ that creates the self. RICHARD: Okay then: why was ‘I afraid’ in the first place (before the thought ‘I don’t like it’)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless?
RESPONDENT: Knowledge as being doesn’t exist. RICHARD: Does this knowledge of yours (‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’) not fall under the category of ‘knowledge as the self’ and therefore worthy of ‘disparagement’ and/or being ‘objected to’? RESPONDENT: No. This is not knowledge. It is a simple fact that being is outside the purview of knowledge. RICHARD: Am I to understand that when I report that knowledge as ‘being’ does exist as an easily observable fact – and verified from personal experience – it is to be disparagingly called ‘knowledge’ and is ‘objected to’ (especially on this Mailing List) ... but that when you read in a dead man’s book that ‘knowledge as being doesn’t exist’ this psittacism then miraculously becomes ‘a simple fact’ for you? And, please ... think carefully before you respond this time with something like: ‘this is my own discovery and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what I say’. * RICHARD: I have no difficulties in describing what ‘pure being’ is like as an experiential reality (...) To say that something ‘is an oxymoron’ is, if not a disparagement, at least suggesting it is a worthless contradiction in terms. RESPONDENT: I think we covered this disparagement point earlier. RICHARD: You may think so ... but I cannot call your responses an investigation, an exploration, an examination ... let alone an uncovering. RESPONDENT: K distinguishes between two different kinds of knowledge and that makes sense to me. RICHARD: I know that it makes sense to you ... yet we are here to investigate, are we not? Why does it make sense to you? How does it make sense to you? If knowledge as ‘being’ cannot be known (given that you dutifully repeat that it is outside the purview of knowledge) then how can you know that what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says is correct? Have you found out for yourself? And if so, why can it not be known? I say it can be known ... and that I do know it. And what do you do with the opportunity to discuss the matter with a living human being? You do not pursue the subject to ascertain for yourself whether a now dead man’s understanding is correct or incorrect in the light of recent biological discoveries. And yet you say that you ‘observe with the objectivity of a scientist’! RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean the I disparage knowledge. It is very factual. I observe it with the objectivity of a scientist. RICHARD: Good. Can you apply this astuteness to ‘knowledge as being’? RESPONDENT: Knowledge is always dualistic; being by its very nature is not. Knowledge, hence cannot be applied to being. RICHARD: Is this the extent of your understanding of yourself, your life and what it is to be a human being? That ‘knowledge is always dualistic’? May I ask? Are you of that school that says with finality: ‘The Truth cannot be known’? If so, do you see that you shut the door on further investigation? * RICHARD: You are not clarifying ... you are merely restating your conclusion by implicitly denying the evidence that animals have a rudimentary self. RESPONDENT: May be, but the point under discussion here is self in humans. We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion. RICHARD: But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is ‘besides the point’ as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:
Shall I proceed? Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time according to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh? Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway). Why do you ignore the evidence of science? RESPONDENT: When we act instinctively, there is no self. RICHARD: Are you really saying that to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is to be selfless? RESPONDENT: When the instinctive response takes place, there is no ego, no pre-meditation. RICHARD: Just so that I do not misunderstand you, where you say here that ‘there is no ego, no pre-meditation’ are you agreeing that ‘to act instinctively (with fear and aggression and nurture and desire for example) is to be selfless’? Because that is the question that I asked. RESPONDENT: Instinctive response just is. It cannot be described completely. RICHARD: Ahh ... I see. May I ask? Where is this so-called ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’ that you keep writing about? * RICHARD: You do seem to be accrediting thought with tremendous power. Are you saying that thought has more power than the instinctual survival passions? RESPONDENT: No. The two are different. One is non-dualistic, is indescribable; the other is dualistic and can be described (and communicated). RICHARD: Okay ... where you say ‘one is non-dualistic, is indescribable’ you are saying: ‘the instinctual survival passions are non-dualistic and indescribable’ ... for that is the question that I asked. And where you say ‘the other is dualistic and can be described’ you are saying: ‘thought is dualistic and can be described but does not have more power than the instinctual passions’ ... for that is the question that I asked. Do I understand you correctly? RESPONDENT: An after-thought of an instinctive response can be communicated, but the response per se, not. RICHARD: Are you saying that, at the instant of being lived by the instinctual passions, this primal experience cannot be communicated ... but that there can be an after-thought of them? And am I correct in understanding you to be saying that it is this ‘after-thought’ that creates the ‘self’ and not the instinctual passions themselves? If so, are you saying that those animals that have been observed to be capable of self-recognition (chimpanzees for example) can think and therefore create a ‘self’? Are you attributing thought to animals? * RICHARD: Mr. Joseph LeDoux (and others) has demonstrated that much of the (non-cognitive) emotional memory is laid down before the infant can think ... let alone comprehend cause and effect. This instinctive reactionary behaviour (which he calls the ‘quick and dirty’ reaction) is blind nature’s survival instinct in action. It can (and has been) observed and documented again and again ... yet he and other commentators predict massive denial from all kinds of people to this scientifically demonstrated data. There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years. RESPONDENT: My point is simple: whatever the instinctive response is, it can never be completely described. An after-thought, which compares that response to some other response in the memory, can be described. But pure instinctive response: no. RICHARD: My point is simple too: I say that the ‘pure instinctive response’ can be described ... and that I do describe it. What are you (you who ‘observe with the objectivity of a scientist’) going to do with this person called Richard and his report of his experience? Dismiss him and his report ... along with all those scientific investigators like Mr. Joseph LeDoux? He and other commentators predict massive denial from all kinds of people to this scientifically demonstrated data. There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years. * RICHARD: You are very quick to re-state your conclusion here ... are you of the ‘Tabula Rasa’ school of philosophy? RESPONDENT: I don’t know. RICHARD: Do you want to know? Are sentient beings born a ‘clean slate’ or not? Is this not an important issue? What is the point of building an elaborate hypothesis if the premise it is based on is erroneous? There has been much research into this growing science in these last few years. RESPONDENT: Actually, it is the reaction: ‘I was afraid and I don’t like it ...’ that creates the self. RICHARD: Okay then: why was ‘I afraid’ in the first place (before the thought ‘I don’t like it’)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless? RESPONDENT: ‘I afraid’ is also a response of the memory. RICHARD: Okay then: why is there fear in the first place (before the ‘I afraid’ that is ‘also the response of memory’ which comes before ‘I don’t like it’ which you say creates the self)? Are you saying that to be fearful (purely fearful) is to be selfless? RESPONDENT: In the moment of pure fear, there is no fear. RICHARD: Are you also going to say: ‘in the moment of pure malice, there is no malice’; ‘in the moment of pure abhorrence, there is no abhorrence’; ‘in the moment of pure acerbity, there is no acerbity’; ‘in the moment of pure acrimony, there is no acrimony’; ‘in the moment of pure aggression, there is no aggression’; ‘in the moment of pure anger, there is no anger’; ‘in the moment of pure animosity, there is no animosity’; ‘in the moment of pure antagonism, there is no antagonism’; ‘in the moment of pure antipathy, there is no antipathy’; ‘in the moment of pure aversion, there is no aversion; ‘in the moment of pure bellicosity, there is no bellicosity’; ‘in the moment of pure belligerence, there is no belligerence’; ‘in the moment of pure bitchiness, there is no bitchiness’; ‘in the moment of pure cantankerousness, there is no cantankerousness’; ‘in the moment of pure bitterness, there is no bitterness’; ‘in the moment of pure cattiness, there is no cattiness’; ‘in the moment of pure despisal, there is no despisal’; ‘in the moment of pure detestation, there is no detestation’; ‘in the moment of pure disgust, there is no ‘disgust; ‘in the moment of pure enmity, there is no enmity’; ‘in the moment of pure envy, there is no envy’; ‘in the moment of pure evil, there is no evil’; ‘in the moment of pure hate, there is no hate’; ‘in the moment of pure hostility, there is no hostility’; ‘in the moment of pure loathing, there is no loathing’; ‘in the moment of pure moodiness, there is no moodiness; ‘in the moment of pure rancour, there is no rancour’; ‘in the moment of pure repugnance, there is no repugnance; ‘in the moment of pure spitefulness, there is no spite’; ‘in the moment of pure vengefulness, there is no vengeance; ‘in the moment of pure wrath, there is no wrath’ and so on and so on? RESPONDENT: Fear as we know is but an after-thought. RICHARD: Pure fear is an affective feeling ... a passion. It has nothing to do with thought. RESPONDENT: There is just the preparedness of the body to meet with situations. RICHARD: You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because ‘the preparedness of the body to meet with situations’ is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear. This is what science looks like ... not that pseudo-science you are coming out with. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear. RICHARD: Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. Do you take me to be an idiot? Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) and this is just as silly. Look, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’. And all sentient beings are born with this fear.
RESPONDENT: Fear as we know is but an after-thought. RICHARD: Pure fear is an affective feeling ... a passion. It has nothing to do with thought. RESPONDENT: There is just the preparedness of the body to meet with situations. RICHARD: You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because ‘the preparedness of the body to meet with situations’ is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear. This is what science looks like ... not that pseudo-science you are coming out with. RESPONDENT: Well, ‘pure fear’ is the description – what happens in such a moment is indescribable under best of the situations, scientific or otherwise. RICHARD: It is not ‘indescribable’ at all ... it is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on (leading to ‘freeze’ or ‘fight’ or ‘flight’). Of course it can be described ... and in nuances ranging from disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension through to anxiety, fear, terror, horror, panic and dread. * RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear. RICHARD: Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. Do you take me to be an idiot? Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) and this is just as silly. Look, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’. RESPONDENT: And I fail to see how can such a thing ever be observed in a dualistic manner. RICHARD: Where have I ever said that knowledge can only be ‘observed in a dualistic manner’? That is your stance ... not mine. The human brain is quite capable of not only observing what is happening in itself but observing that it is observing what is happening in itself at the same time. This remarkable ability even has a name: apperception. RESPONDENT: At the moment of pure fear (that is just a label) there is something indescribable. RICHARD: It is not ‘indescribable’ at all ... it is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on (leading to ‘freeze’ or ‘fight’ or ‘flight’). Of course it can be described ... and in nuances ranging from disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension through to anxiety, fear, terror, horror, panic and dread. RESPONDENT: And a moment later, the memory responds and categorizes the experience as fear. RICHARD: In my experience, at the moment of fear (or disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, anxiety, terror, horror, panic and dread), I would ‘sit with it’ as it were and experience it as it was happening as fear (or disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, anxiety, terror, horror, panic and dread). This is because I wanted to know, I wanted to find out, once and for all, that which has paralysed human beings for millennia ... I observed ‘my’ psyche (which is the ‘human’ psyche) with the objectivity of a scientist. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti got it right: observer is the observed. RICHARD: What I have noticed, in this thread, is that you have repeatedly fallen back on Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words whenever there is an opportunity to explore new ground RESPONDENT: Body’s instinctive responses are not fear. RICHARD: There are numerous instincts – and there is dissension among biologists as to which is what and where – but they all more or less acknowledge that (what I categorise as fear and aggression and nurture and desire for convenience and consistency) are more or less common to all sentient beings. You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because ‘the body’s instinctive response’ is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear. This is what science looks like ... not that pseudo-science you are coming out with. RESPONDENT: That is body’s own intelligence. RICHARD: Are you trying to tell me that it is intelligent to panic and lash out blindly? I was in the military for six years as a youth and young man ... I have seen the ‘body’s own intelligence’ in action ... and no way would I call that intelligent. RESPONDENT: It is the memory, the trace of that response, that is what we fear. Not body’s responses. RICHARD: At the precise moment of actual danger – at that very exact instant – memory does not function ... there is nothing but the instinctual response. And this instinctive response is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear. * RICHARD: And all sentient beings are born with this fear. RESPONDENT: All sentient bodies are born with natural intelligence to respond to situations. RICHARD: Aye ... and they are called instincts. Basically, the survival instincts are known as fear and aggression and nurture and desire (allowing for dissension among various biologist according to their school) and peoples like yourself choose to call the instinctual response the ‘natural intelligence’ of the body. As intelligence is defined as: (Oxford Dictionary): ‘The faculty of understanding; intellect; quickness or superiority of understanding, sagacity; the action or fact of understanding something; knowledge, comprehension (of something)’ I cannot see how instincts have the faculty of understanding (as in intellect) which has the quickness or superiority of understanding (as in sagacity) and the capacity for the action or fact of understanding (as in knowledge and/or comprehension of something). Or to put it another way: I cannot see how the instinctive adrenaline-driven ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction shows the ability to reflect, plan and implement considered activity ... which is intelligence in operation. RESPONDENT: Fear is always in the past. RICHARD: No ... thinking about fear is in the past, but at the actual moment of fear there is only fear. And at the moment, thought does not necessarily operate ... there is the instinctual ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction operating full blast. RESPONDENT: The observer is the fear. RICHARD: Yes ... this is ‘I’ in all ‘my’ nakedness. RESPONDENT: The after-thought, the thought: ‘it shouldn’t have happened to me’ ‘I don’t like it’ etc. ... these are the harbingers of fear. RICHARD: Yes ... thinking about fear – even if sitting safely in one’s own home when there is no immediate danger – can trigger off the full array of fear (ranging from disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension through to anxiety, fear, terror, horror, panic and dread). But fear exists prior to thought ... thought does not create fear: it already exists. RESPONDENT: I am afraid we are stuck at this point ... RICHARD: Please ... easy on this ‘we’ business. I am not stuck at all. RESPONDENT: ... and since I don’t see any immediate resolution, let us agree to disagree. RICHARD: Why do you wish to ‘agree to disagree’? Can you not join in on an exploration and discovery? Do you wish to but endlessly seek in a dead man’s words ... and never find? RESPONDENT: Nice talking with you, Richard! RICHARD: And it is nice talking with you, too. May I leave you with the following observation?
I would particularly draw your attention to where you specifically say ‘then ‘X’ can write any crap and assume no responsibility because ‘words are not the things’ and again ‘s/he will take refuge under the umbrella of ‘it can not be said’.
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Two): 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 |
