|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RESPONDENT: Richard, here is a continuation of our previous thread. I agreed with your argument to reduce things to instincts to an extent. Yes, we are all born with some common instincts. RICHARD: Good ... so as to avoid confusion through vague allusions I always put my cards on the table. There are four main instinctual passions: fear and aggression and nurture and desire. There are others such as altruism, territoriality, gregariousness and so on, but I always stay with the main four that directly relate to the human condition. The human condition is epitomised by malice and sorrow which rise out of the ‘savage’ instinctual passions (fear and aggression) and the ‘tender’ instinctual passions (nurture and desire). Thus malice and sorrow generate antidotal pacifiers such as love and compassion from the ‘tender’ side (nurture/nourish) but are inadequate due to the other aspect of the ‘tender’ side (provide/protect) which hijack, sabotage and subvert peoples’ well-meant endeavours. These are all broad generalised classifications and categorisations for the convenience of comprehension and, of course, there are ‘bleed-throughs’ from the ‘dark side’ to the ‘light side’ and vice versa (because they are not compartmentalised in reality). Therefore, could you be up-front and, to whatever extent you wish, delineate even approximately which of these ‘some common instincts’ are which you say you ‘agreed with’ in my ‘argument to reduce things to instincts’ so as I will know what you mean by ‘to an extent’? RESPONDENT: However, I think the way in which each one of us grows and experiences the world around us, there are more dissimilarities than similarities. There are as many perceptions of reality, as many individual ways to look at things, as there are people. RICHARD: Indeed ... you have, as always, my concurrence in regards the ‘dissimilarities’ due to hereditarily acquired characteristics (genetic pre-disposition) for just one example. I recently wrote to this Mailing List saying that I questioned whether all humans are born equal ... I said that there are talents one has which leads to an ease in the acquisition of skills that another has to struggle to master and vice versa. I pointed out the rapid shuffling of the DNA at conception (before the doubling takes place) in the chromosome exchange which leads to a difference betwixt one foetus and another. The same applies to physical stature (muscularity, stamina and so on) which all combine to produce a staggering array of differences ... and none of this I have detailed so far has anything to do with where one is born (climate) or in what era (progress) let alone social inequality such as what class of society one is born into (educational and career opportunities) and so on. Yet the affective feelings are unambiguously global ... and have been demonstrated to be so in the many, many scientific studies around the world: they exist across the aeons and in all cultures and all age groups and both genders. No one is exempt ... the human condition is both global and historical in its spread. Those basic passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) are the hallmark of virtually any sentient being ... they are blind nature’s instinctual software package genetically encoded into the germ-cells of the spermatozoa and the ova. And these survival instincts are what has enabled us to be born at all; they are what has enabled us to be here today after multiple generations of the development of the evolutionary ‘weeding out’ process of the ‘survival of the most fitted to the environment’. This is the topic; this is the issue; this is the subject under scrutiny with the objectivity of a scientist; this is where there are only similarities and not, as you say, ‘more dissimilarities than similarities’ ... which means: this is where no human being is unique. RESPONDENT: A world view that advocates fierce individuality, obviously, is different from the one that advocates commonality of the mankind. That seems to be the main difference between your world view and mine. For me, my universe, my world, is confined to me experiences, my being. Any and everything else, in my opinion, is a conceptual construct. RICHARD: Yes I comprehend this ... you have tried this philosophy on me before in past E-Mails, and as I did not buy it then I am unlikely to do so now. May I suggest? Do not even bother writing to me if you are going to insist upon a ‘world view that advocates fierce individuality’ because by doing so you acknowledge no commonality whatsoever (by discarding common human experience as merely being ‘a conceptual construct’) and thus reduce your fellow human beings to being a concept. I have no interest in writing to someone who tells me that, for them, this flesh and blood body called Richard is a concept. I am not a concept ... and I would far rather discuss with those who acknowledge that there is a fellow human being writing these words ... with a traceable E-Mail address. Which is why I endeavoured to poke through your conceptual shield by asking:
To which you replied:
As I did not buy this safe intellectual stance I persisted:
I now notice that you have scrapped that thread entirely and are starting again without all the prior ‘to-ing and fro-ing’ discussion to get in the way. Okay, sometimes it is useful to make a fresh start ... posts do become long and unwieldily. But I will re-introduce whatever I consider to be pertinent simply because I am one-half of this dialogue. Therefore, I cannot proceed until you address yourself to this candid, honest question. Viz.:
(Hint): you can feel another’s pain if you will allow it of yourself – and of course it will hurt – but that hurt feeling will induce an honest, non-conceptual response. RESPONDENT: You seem to be arguing from your own experience – how you perceive the humanity to be the same everywhere. That argument, as coming from your own experience, is irrefutable. How can I argue against what is true to you? However, I disagree that science has empirically demonstrated universality of human experiences. Science might have demonstrated the universality of human emotions, but human experiences are intensely unique. RICHARD: First off ... you say ‘science might have demonstrated the universality of human emotions’ ... has it or has it not? Can you give a straight answer without the conditional ‘might have’ conceptual escape clause? Second, you have, as always, my concurrence in regards the ‘dissimilarities’ between each person’s individual experience (as detailed further above) ... yet as there is something so fundamental, so primal, so basic as instinctual passions and their derivative human emotions that underpins, permeates and drives each person’s individual experience, then the ‘dissimilarities’ all have an oh-so-common flavour. to wit: malice and sorrow and their antidotally generated love and compassion. RESPONDENT: Just as your experience of the humanity having a common denominator is only that – your own personal experience. No two people live under the same skin and there is nothing universal about human experiences. We are, all of us, each and every moment of our lives, different. You asked, if that is so, how is communication possible? We communicate our differences. We are different even to ourselves every time. In communicating our differences (i.e., how we think, feel, experience, differently), we constantly push the envelop of knowledge which has been the hallmark of our species and the reason for our survival. RICHARD: Perhaps it not so obvious to one who sits in an ivory tower ... but dissociation does not
eliminate but makes unreal that which causes human suffering. Perhaps you may recall the ‘Simon and Garfunkel’ hit of the ‘60’s:
‘I am a rock’? There is life after feelings ... but not through denial and detachment. RESPONDENT: Since we are constantly changing beings, religion is a lie. Science, on the other hand, can take our understanding of ourselves only thus far. Beyond which, we dwell upon the world within. Hence, meditating upon the world within is the only viable way to understand ourselves. And that understanding, by its own nature, will be one person, one instance at a time. RICHARD: Hmm, peoples are already detached from actuality ... that is the problem. To practice meditation (which is conscious detachment and withdrawal) is to be twice removed from actuality. But even ‘the world within’ is remarkably common to those who successfully access it. Yet even this extreme dissociation does not eliminate ... as there are more than a few recorded incidences of ‘Enlightened Beings’ displaying both anguish and anger, the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) does not bestow freedom from the affective feelings. The ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘tried and failed’.
RESPONDENT No 25: I have a market mentality. I want to know what I will get in exchange. I am quite bamboozled ... what to do? RICHARD: There is no problem about a ‘market mentality’ whatsoever ... ‘sacrifice’ means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: Richard, my two cents on this topic: I don’t think there is so much fanfare in actual life as you mention in your posts. RICHARD: Yes ... a person resigned to their fate settles for second-best. RESPONDENT: I think what happens is that a person realizes the futility of acting in ways that produce conflict and learns to live in peace and harmony with him/herself and with his/her surroundings. RICHARD: Yes ... a person settling for second best often redecorates. RESPONDENT: Is it possible that all the glorious sounds that ‘I’ makes in marking its exit are still sounds of the ego? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘its exit’ is a dramatic as all get-out for it is the ride of a life-time.
RICHARD: Voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: Richard, my two cents on this topic: I don’t think there is so much fanfare in actual life as you mention in your posts. RICHARD: Yes ... a person resigned to their fate settles for second-best. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Are you saying that one whose ego ends without much fanfare has resigned to his fate and settled down for second best? RICHARD: No. I am saying that one who learns to live in peace and harmony has ‘resigned to his fate and settled down for second best’. RESPONDENT: What makes you think so? RICHARD: Your words (below). Viz.: ‘and learns to live in peace and harmony’. Freedom either is or is not: there is no ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ in an actual freedom ... peace and harmony is already always just here right now. RESPONDENT: Second best ... what? Please explain. Thanks. RICHARD: A second-best way of living; a second-rate life; an ersatz life-style in lieu of the best. * RESPONDENT: I think what happens is that a person realizes the futility of acting in ways that produce conflict and learns to live in peace and harmony with him/herself and with his/her surroundings. RICHARD: Yes ... a person settling for second best often redecorates. RESPONDENT: Once again, a general failure to comprehend what you are getting at. What I am saying is this: a person realizes the futility of conflict and starts living peacefully with himself and his surroundings. RICHARD: I was responding to your description of ‘a person’ who ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ ... an actual freedom is gratuitous peace and harmony. No learning needed. RESPONDENT: What is ‘second best’ here and what is ‘redecorated’. Please explain. Thanks, again. RICHARD: Missing out on the pure and perfect – and gratis – peace and harmony which is already always just here right now is second best by any criteria ... and ‘redecorated’ is an expressive way of describing what a person is doing when he/she ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’. I could have said renovate, refurbish, revamp, spruce up, smarten-up, fix-up, give a face-lift and so on. * RESPONDENT: Is it possible that all the glorious sounds that ‘I’ makes in marking its exit are still sounds of the ego? RICHARD: Yes ... ‘its exit’ is a dramatic as all get-out for it is the ride of a life-time. RESPONDENT: Not clear what you are saying here. Your ‘Yes’ seems to imply that you agree that all the glorious sounds that the exiting ego makes are still sounds of the ego. RICHARD: Oh yes, I am agreeing ... the ‘‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory’ phrase is descriptive prose conveying how ‘the exiting ego’ experiences ‘its exit’. It is a once-in-a-lifetime grand and glorious feeling of culmination and climax: it is the swan song; the pinnacle; the zenith; the finale ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: The rest of the sentence seems to contradict the ‘Yes’ part. Please explain fully. Thanks. RICHARD: It is such a monumental thing to have happen: this event is the pivotal point wherein 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 and the such-like in one human being come to an end permanently. In a word: innocence.
RICHARD: Voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice means an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present; to devote and give over one’s being as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest, a kind-hearted benefaction. A sacrifice is the relinquishment of something valued or desired for the sake of something more important or worthy ... it is the deliberate abandonment, relinquishment, forfeiture or loss for the sake of something illustrious, brilliant, extraordinary and excellent. It means to forgo, quit, vacate, discontinue, stop, cease or immolate so that one’s guerdon is to be able to be unrepressed, unconstrained, unselfconscious, uninhibited, unrestrained, unrestricted, uncontrolled, uncurbed, unchecked, unbridled, candid, outspoken, spontaneous, relaxed, informal, open, free and easy. As I have remarked before, ‘I’ go out in a blaze of glory. RESPONDENT: Richard, my two cents on this topic: I don’t think there is so much fanfare in actual life as you mention in your posts. RICHARD: Yes ... a person resigned to their fate settles for second-best. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Are you saying that one whose ego ends without much fanfare has resigned to his fate and settled down for second best? RICHARD: No. I am saying that one who learns to live in peace and harmony has ‘resigned to his fate and settled down for second best’. RESPONDENT: What makes you think so? RICHARD: Your initial words. Viz.: ‘and learns to live in peace and harmony’. Freedom either is or is not: there is no ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’ in an actual freedom ... peace and harmony is already always just here right now. RESPONDENT: Well, then let me explain myself differently. There appear to be two different modes/expressions of finding peace and harmony (please read between the lines): (a) the glorious ending of the ego, a once in a life time event, etc., and (b) a quiet realization that there is no point in living a life of conflict. RICHARD: It does not make any difference to re-present your words in a point (a) and (b) layout ... they are still the same or similar words signifying the same or similar concept. Viz.:
The main difference between the two proposals is that you have left off the ‘and learns to live in peace and harmony’ section of your initial proposal in your point (b) rearrangement. RESPONDENT: I am wondering if (a) itself is an act of the ego? RICHARD: Yes, its exit is a dramatic act ... for it is the ride of a life-time. RESPONDENT: That is, it is a different form of ego that makes the ending of ego look very grand and glorious. RICHARD: Yes ... it is an ego who will not settle for a second-best way of living; a second-rate life; an ersatz life-style in lieu of the best and chose to be yet another person who ‘learns to live in peace and harmony’. This is because an actual freedom is gratuitous peace and harmony ... no learning is needed. In the pure and perfect – and gratis – peace-on-earth which is already always just here right now there is no need to redecorate, or renovate, or refurbish, or revamp, or spruce up, or smarten-up, or fix-up, or give a face-lift and so on. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who sees that voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice (‘self’ as in ‘I’/‘me’ who is the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and the such-like) is noble. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who understands that voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice is an altruistic offering, a philanthropic contribution, a generous gift, a charitable donation, a magnanimous present for the human race. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ who is willing to cheerfully devote and give over his/her very ‘being’ as a humane gratuity, an open-handed endowment, a munificent bequest or a kind-hearted benefaction for the benefit of each and every body. It is indeed a vastly different ‘form of ego’ whose exit is a dramatic act ... for it is the ride of a life-time. RESPONDENT: Do you consider this to be a possibility – that all the fanfare that surrounds ending of the ego is nothing but ego in disguise? RICHARD: Certainly not ... the vastly different ‘form of ego’ is utterly exposed at its moment of exit; wide open and naked to the universe. It is a once-in-a-lifetime grand and glorious feeling of culmination and climax: it is the swan song; the pinnacle; the zenith; the finale ... and the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. It is such a monumental thing to have happen: this event is the pivotal point wherein 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 and the such-like in one human being come to an end permanently. In a word: innocence.
RICHARD: It is the fittest that survive: yet ‘survival of the fittest’ does not necessarily mean (as it is popularly misunderstood) that the strongest or most muscular always survive. It means ‘the most fitted to the ever-changing environment’ (those who adapt) get to pass on their genes. The most ‘on the ball’ – adroit or shrewd or sharp or smart or cunning or wily and so on – can defeat the strongest or most muscular from time-to-time ... as is evidenced by the long, slow evolution of intelligence in a rather puny animal devoid of claws, fangs, venom, hooves, horns, fur, feathers and so on. RESPONDENT: Richard, I have followed your writings so far. Your world view (or whatever you may call it), though interesting, it still leaves some questions unanswered. For example, if the human life form, as it is, is a result of evolution, where did creation come from? RICHARD: I notice with interest the recent investigations into the sulphide-oxidising microbes (bacteria and archaea) in and around deep undersea hydrothermal vents as they do not require photo-synthesis as does all other life-forms but are the result of chemo-synthesis. The bacteria oxidize the hydrogen sulphide and convert carbon dioxide into carbon compounds and the thermophilic and hyper-thermophilic archaea, that utilise sulphur, hydrogen, methane, manganese, ammonia and other compounds, have optimal growth rates at temperatures between 100°-110°C. A food-chain based directly on the microbes – mouth-less, gut-less tube worms that contain these microbes inside their trophosome cells and over 300 species of mussels, shrimp, clams and crabs – flourish in these mini eco-systems. Microbes have also been found in the two-mile deep heat of mine shafts in Africa. These are very early days in such research and, not surprisingly, speculation has it that this may be the origin of carbon-based life ... chemically self-generating out of the very bowels of the earth itself. RESPONDENT: Also, what is creation? RICHARD: The way in which carbon-based life forms itself. RESPONDENT: What was there before creation? RICHARD: The thermally heated planet earth that carbon-based life forms itself out of. RESPONDENT: Also, evolution assumes time. RICHARD: Yes ...enormous aeons of time compared with the human life-span. RESPONDENT: What is time? RICHARD: Time cannot be described in isolation as time and space and form are seamless in that they do not and cannot operate as separate or disparate units. Time and space and form are material inasmuch that they are actually existing and form can be material in its specific meaning as actual things (solid stuff) or active force (energetic stuff). Therefore time can be portrayed as the measure of the movement of form in space and the periodicity of its rearrangement; space is an arena in which form can exist, move and rearrange itself endlessly; form is matter (either in its solid aspect or energetic phase) occupying space (which is infinite) and taking time (which is eternal) to reconfigure itself (which is perpetual). The properties of eternal time and infinite space designate a vast and utter stillness and the properties of perpetual form designate liveliness; a scintillating, sparkling vitality. In a word: infinitude. When one directly ascertains (apperceptive awareness) the properties of infinitude (infinite and eternal and perpetual) the qualities of the property of infinitude become apparent (infinitude has no opposite): pristine and consummate and impeccable. These non-dual qualities are the source of the values of infinitude (benevolent and benign and blithe). RESPONDENT: Is PCE the absolute in your world view? RICHARD: ‘Tis the ultimate experience possible. RESPONDENT: Is there an absolute? RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: What is it? RICHARD: This boundless and limitless actual universe, being beginningless and endless (unborn and undying) is absolute. Apperception (selfless awareness) is an unmediated perspicacity wherein one is this universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being; as such the universe is aware of its own infinitude. It is one’s destiny to be living the utter peace of the perfection of the purity welling endlessly as the infinitude this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe actually is.
RICHARD: As a broad generalised categorisation, ‘malice’ (the desire to hurt another person; active ill will, spite or hatred; a deep resentment) is used here as a ‘catch-all’ word for what one does to others (resentment, anger, hatred, rage, sadism and so on through all the variations such as abhorrence; acerbity; acrimony; aggression; anger; animosity; antagonism; antipathy; aversion; bad blood; temper; bellicosity; belligerence; bile; bitchiness; bitterness; cantankerousness; cattiness; crabbiness; crossness; defamation; despisal; detestation; disgust; dislike; dissatisfaction; enmity; envy; evil; execration; grievance; grudge; grudgingness; hard feelings; harm; hate; hatred; hostility; ill feeling; ill will; ill-nature; ill-temper; inimicalness; irascibility; irritability; loathing; malevolence; malignance; malignity; militancy; moodiness; murder; opposition; peevishness; petulance; pique; querulousness; rancour; repulsion; repugnance; resentment; snideness; spite; spitefulness; spleen; spoiling; stifling; sullenness; testiness; touchiness; umbrage; unfriendliness; unkindness; vengefulness; venom; vindictiveness; warlikeness; wrath). As a broad generalised categorisation, ‘sorrow’ (the desire to hurt oneself; active grief, suffering or melancholy; a deep sadness) is used here as a ‘catch-all’ word for what one does to oneself (sadness, loneliness, melancholy, grief, masochism and so on through all the variations such as agony; angst; anguish; anxiety; apprehension; bereavement; bleakness; crestfallen; deflated; dejected; depression; desolation; despondency; disappointment; disconcerted; disconsolate; discontented; discouraged; disenchanted; disillusioned; displeased; disquiet; dissatisfied; distress; dismay; downhearted; dreariness; edginess; fear; fed-up; flustered; foreboding; fretfulness; frustrated; gloominess; glum; grief; heartache; horror; lament; melancholic; miserable; misery; morose; mourning; nervousness; panic; perturbed; regret; sad; sadness; sorrow; sorrowfulness; suffering; tenseness; terror; thwarted; torment; trepidation; troubled; uneasiness; upset; woe; worry; wretchedness). RESPONDENT: Richard, elsewhere you said that there is order in nature and peace on earth (not your exact words). RICHARD: The ‘order in nature’ phrase is not my words at all ... but ‘peace-on-earth’ certainly is. RESPONDENT: Man, who is also a part of nature, why is there disorder in his life (as manifested in sorrow and malice)? RICHARD: Because of the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – genetically bestowed by blind nature at conception, in the DNA and/or the RNA, which give rise to all the affective feelings such as are grouped under the broad generalised categorisations of ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’. The survival instincts, in other words. RESPONDENT: Or, is it that the idea of ‘order in nature’ and ‘peace on earth’ themselves are flawed? RICHARD: The idea of ‘order in nature’ is certainly flawed ... but ‘peace-on-earth’ is already always just here right now as an actuality. RESPONDENT: Or, sorrow and malice themselves are part of ‘order’ and ‘peace’? RICHARD: This notion of ‘order in nature’ definitely includes malice and sorrow in it ... it being a mystical experience wherein the polar opposites are complementary poles (sorrow reciprocally begets compassion which keeps sorrow intact and malice reciprocally begets love which keeps malice intact and so on). The mystics who (accurately) report that the polar opposites become complimentary poles are well aware that the diabolical underpins the divine – some call all the misery and mayhem ‘Lila’ (‘God’s Sport’ or ‘The Divine Play’) – all of which points to why peace on earth is not on their agenda. Whereas there is neither malice and sorrow nor their antidotal counterparts of love and compassion here in the actual world. This is because the actual world – where peace-on-earth is to be found – is so squeaky-clean that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. Only altruism enables peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: Man, who is also a part of nature, why is there disorder in his life (as manifested in sorrow and malice)? RICHARD: Because of the instinctual passions – such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire – genetically bestowed by blind nature at conception, in the DNA and/or the RNA, which give rise to all the affective feelings such as are grouped under the broad generalised categorisations of ‘malice’ and ‘sorrow’. The survival instincts, in other words. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand what you exactly are you trying to get at. If you assert that ‘peace on earth’ is a condition that has always prevailed, then whatever is categorized under malice and sorrow is also a manifestation of that peace on earth. RICHARD: There is no ‘chaos’ and ‘order’ as a sub-stratum of the universe ... they are but human inventions and do not exist in actuality. The same applies to fairness/unfairness, justice/injustice and any other human concepts that, whilst being useful for human-to-human interaction, are futility in action when applied to the universe. Male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to being free: the everyday reality of the ‘real-world’ is a veneer ‘I’ paste over the top of the pristine actual world by ‘my’ very being ... and ‘being’ is the savage/tender instinctual passions (giving rise to feelings of malice/love and sorrow/compassion etc., with the resultant concepts of bad/good and evil/god and so on) which cripples intelligence by invariably producing dualistic concepts. ‘Tis all a fantasy ... feelings rule in the human world. * RICHARD: This notion of ‘order in nature’ definitely includes malice
and sorrow in it ... it being a mystical experience wherein the polar opposites are complementary poles (sorrow reciprocally
begets compassion which keeps sorrow intact and malice reciprocally begets love which keeps malice intact and so on). The mystics
who (accurately) report that the polar opposites become complimentary poles are well aware that the diabolical underpins the
divine – some call all the misery and mayhem ‘Lila’ (‘God’s Sport’ or ‘The Divine Play’) – all of which points
to why peace on earth is not on their agenda. Whereas there is neither malice and sorrow nor their antidotal counterparts of love
and compassion here in the actual world. This is because the actual world – where peace-on-earth is to be found – is so
squeaky-clean that nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. Only altruism RESPONDENT: Zero comprehension. Can you please explain what you are saying simply and, if necessary, as a few bulleted or numbered points. Thanks. RICHARD: The mystical solution to duality is indeed to see the polar opposites as being complementary poles rather than contradictions (through their sublimation and transcendence in lieu of their elimination through altruistic ‘self’-extinction). For example:
Whereas there is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – no instinctual duality whatsoever – here in this actual world (there is no ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ in an actual freedom from the human condition) as all the opposites are but affectively-derived (and therefore dualistic) concepts which exist only in the human psyche. If ‘I’ insist on staying in existence ‘I’ will unvaryingly impose ‘my’ passionate duality on top of the actual via ‘my’ very ‘being’ forever and a day. ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience the actual; ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience perfection ... all ‘I’/‘me’ can do is altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent.
RICHARD: The mystical solution to duality is indeed to see the polar opposites as being complementary poles rather than contradictions (through their sublimation and transcendence in lieu of their elimination through altruistic ‘self’-extinction). There is no ‘good’ and ‘evil’ – no instinctual duality whatsoever – here in this actual world (there is no ‘coincidentia oppositorum’ in an actual freedom from the human condition) as all the opposites are but affectively-derived (and therefore dualistic) concepts which exist only in the human psyche. If ‘I’ insist on staying in existence ‘I’ will unvaryingly impose ‘my’ passionate duality on top of the actual via ‘my’ very ‘being’ forever and a day. ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience the actual; ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience perfection ... all ‘I’/‘me’ can do is altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: I don’t understand – when duality ceases (as you say here) then peace-on-earth becomes apparent. Why qualify that as peace-on-earth? RICHARD: Am I to take it that you cannot comprehend, at least intellectually, that when the affective faculty – emotions and passions and calentures – disappears entirely (extirpated, extinguished, extinct) thus never to return for the remainder of your life that you will experience perfect peace and harmony and tranquillity here on earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body? Am I to take it that you cannot comprehend, at least intellectually, that when there is no sorrow there is no compassion and that when there is no malice there is no love? Am I to take it that you cannot comprehend, at least intellectually, that when there is no ‘bad’ there is no ‘good’ and that when there is no ‘evil’ there is no ‘god’ ... and so on and so on through all those opposites? This duality – these feelings – ceases only when the cause of this duality ceases ... ‘self’-immolation or ‘self’-sacrifice just as I have been describing over and again such that some peoples point out to me just how much I copy and paste. I do look askance at your response in this post ... there has to be some denial of all that has been said to be able to write as you have done. RESPONDENT: Peace-on-earth implies its opposite, non-peace. RICHARD: Indeed ... which is the current status for 6.0 billion peoples, here on earth. RESPONDENT: It appears to me that you are still caught in duality while you have a good intellectual understanding of what non-duality is. RICHARD: If I may ask? How does it ‘appear to you’ that I am ‘still caught in duality’? I do not know how more clear or precise I can be than to say that if ‘I’ the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) insists on staying in existence ‘I’ will unvaryingly impose ‘my’ passionate duality on top of the actual via ‘my’ very ‘being’ forever and a day ... given that I have described the affective make-up of ‘I’/‘me’ in detail in the part you snipped off. Viz.:
It is this simple: ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience the actual; ‘I’/‘me’ will never, ever experience perfection ... all ‘I’/‘me’ can do is altruistically ‘self’-immolate for the benefit of this body and that body and everybody. RESPONDENT: So, I guess my questions are the following: 1. Is my assessment of you correct – that you yourself are caught in a dualistic mode of thinking and being, but you have a good intellectual understanding of various concepts of non-dual? RICHARD: No. What I write is a description of how I am experiencing being just here right now ... my words refer to what is happening and are not theoretical philosophies first formulated, considered, proposed and then put into practice. There is no ‘I’/‘me’ inside this flesh and blood body stuffing up the works. RESPONDENT: 2. If true, then why do you do that? That is, why do you talk about non-dual, while your the reality of you is steeped in duality? RICHARD: Not so ... I have only been responding to your queries. You asked why is there malice and sorrow in humans and I described the process of the instinctual passions bestowed by blind nature at conception. It was you who first talked of ‘order in nature’ and ‘disorder in man’ ... not me. In actuality there is no ‘chaos’ and ‘order’ as a sub-stratum of the universe ... they are but human inventions and do not exist in actuality. The same applies to fairness/unfairness, justice/injustice and any other human concepts that, whilst being useful for human-to-human interaction, are futility in action when applied to the universe. RESPONDENT: I know all that you wrote about dual and non-dual. But that knowing is intellectual only. RICHARD: Again ... all that I write is a description of what is happening as a result of the total extirpation of identity (along with all that inheres in being an identity). RESPONDENT: So, I do not entertain any doubts about my reality. I compare, I judge, I oscillate between happiness and sorrow, etc. You, on the other hand, appear to be oblivious of your reality. Why do you do that? RICHARD: Yet I do not experience ‘reality’ ... living life as this flesh and blood body only – totally bereft of any psychological and psychic entity whatsoever – is a direct experiencing of the pristine actuality that the identity pastes its ‘reality’ over the top of. I have no ‘reality’ to be ‘oblivious of’ ... there is no ‘reality’ here. RESPONDENT: Do you perceive some reward in living non-dualistically? RICHARD: Certainly ... ever since the identity inhabiting this body ‘self’-immolated, when I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day, and I know that I will wake up to yet another day of perfection. This has been going on, day-after-day, for years now ... it is so normal that I take it for granted that there is only perfection. RESPONDENT: Many on this list do that – they have read K and Zen etc. and they get a high from thinking non-dualistically. So, are you like those other choiceless warriors of the list? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: If yes, why do you live a lie? RICHARD: I lived a lie for eleven years: night and day for eleven years I lived in the altered state of consciousness known as ‘spiritual enlightenment’ and I spent the first three years swanning along in a state of ‘Oneness’ with everyone and everything (I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion all rolled up into one and my reward for being the latest Saviour Of Humankind was to be able to live in an on-going ecstatic state of rapturous, ineffable and sacred bliss). Night and day for eleven years means I have intimate knowledge of why peoples live this lie – as I had plenty of time to examine all its nooks and crannies – and, by starting to examine the make-up of spiritual enlightenment in my fourth year, I found much that was murky and dirty lurking around in the outer darkness. Whereas ‘Me’, at the centre of ‘Being’, was dazzling.
RESPONDENT No. 39: Once these instinctual survival passions are eliminated what then is the response to danger such as overwhelming physical attack? Without the fight or flight response how does one deal with this type of situation? RICHARD: Fearlessly. The instinctual passion of fear triggers any one of three reactions: freeze, flight or fight ... none of which are necessarily appropriate when dealing with the most common aggressor (human beings) in today’s world. In this day and age negotiation is by far the most efficacious response to a threatening situation. And fear – adrenaline coursing through the veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on – cripples effective negotiation and is hardly conducive to a healthy outcome. Of course one still has the option to freeze or flee or fight if that is what the situation calls for ... with the added advantage of such action not being fear-driven (or courage-driven). Foolish courage – an impulse sourced in fear – can cause one to take needless risks. RESPONDENT: What you write appears reasonable to me. However, there is another side to fear that is quite unrelated to an external entity. This internal fear I think is different from the situation that you describe. Sitting by myself, I imagine many a thing. And that causes fear to arise in me. There is no real threat to my being, but my mind builds some fearful scenarios and I feel fear that is quite real. I don’t think I can run or fight this fear because there is nothing out there that I can reasonably run from or charge towards. Human mind has a very good capacity to take the imaginary for real. That has been the secret of success of the film/theater/fiction industry. Through simulation, real emotions can be generated in the fertile human mind. How can one deal with such imagined fears? I don’t have a 100% formula. But this is what I try to do: when my mind starts imagining the worst kinds of things and starts generating fears, I tell myself: OK, this is but a story. The reality is different. A lot of the time I am able to check my runaway imagination and minimize fear. I don’t know how much of this makes sense to you and others. But it does work for me. RICHARD: And yet is it not possible to be totally rid of fear – for those who dare to care and care to dare – for then one has complete dignity, as only a freed human being has, for the remainder of their life? And is this not a blessing?
RICHARD: Is it not possible to be totally rid of fear – for those who dare to care and care to dare – for then one has complete dignity, as only a freed human being has, for the remainder of their life? And is this not a blessing? RESPONDENT: As far as I am concerned, I am not there, at least not yet. I have my fair share of fears, trepidations, and anxieties. And since I am the proverbial world, I guess the world has its share of fears, trepidations and anxieties. I don’t know if it is possible to be free of fears and anxieties, or even desirable. Some amount of fear and anxiety may even be necessary for efficient performance. For example, my job entails good teaching, doing quality research, and contributing positively to my school by way of service. I do get anxious about my performance and that anxiety provides me energy to improve my performance. If I were to become complacent, I might let things slip by. So, let me make this distinction and see where it takes our discussion: there are two types of fears (probably anxiety is a better word) – (a) positive and (b) negative. Positive anxiety helps us focus on the job at hand and provides energy to solve problems. Negative anxiety, on the other hand, is distracting and wasteful. For example, if I merely worry about my performance at job, not do anything to improve my performance, and let anxiety get the upper hand, then I will be in a downward spiral – anxiety – diminished performance – more anxiety ... and so on. I was talking to one person who I thought was free of anxieties and mentioned my mental tendencies. His response was interesting: he told me that he too goes through similar phases, and uses his anxiety creatively. Krishnamurti himself is known to be giving a lot of attention to details before his public meetings – asking people to sit on the dais where he would sit and making sure that he would be visible and audible to his audience from everywhere. I think without some amount of (positive) anxiety, excellence may not be achieved. So, it is possible that what nature has programmed in us – the surge of adrenalin on occasions – has a purpose even in the modern times where we are not faced with fight-or-flight situations that you mention. Makes sense, at least a little? RICHARD: You have written a well considered evaluation of the usefulness of fear in one’s life:
Indeed it does make sense – and more than just a little – inasmuch as you have convinced me that I need to have fear in my life. Do you have any suggestions as to how I should go about this?
RICHARD: You have written a well considered evaluation of the usefulness of fear in one’s life [and] you enquire whether these points make sense ... or at least a little sense. Indeed it does make sense – and more than just a little – inasmuch as you have convinced me that I need to have fear in my life. RESPONDENT: Interesting that I ended up convincing you of the need to have fear, despite all my tentativeness that you so correctly picked out. May I ask, why did you get convinced that one ought to have some fear (anxiety) from time to time? RICHARD: We have had numerous discussions, you and I, going back a year or so on various aspects of the human condition ... fear being an aspect that featured prominently for a few posts. I have consistently proposed the utter necessity of a total and complete absence of fear (and all of the instinctual passions) if there is to be peace-on-earth. During that exchange you posted an account of your experiential situation in a then-recent car crash (‘in that fraction of a second when the other car hit mine, there was no thought, no fear, no anything’) to which I responded in full ... yet here you are writing a well considered evaluation of the usefulness of fear in one’s life as if that event had either never happened or had not shown you anything of value. So I ran the question: what if you are correct and I am in error? I arranged your exposition sequentially and sat back with it on the screen: I listened. * RICHARD: Do you have any suggestions as to how I should go about this [getting fear into my life]? RESPONDENT: Well, some of it is easy. You travelled to India. I am sure you must have experienced some anxiety while crossing roads there. RICHARD: No ... I was a living exemplar of fatalism during my six months there (which is what I advise anyone contemplating the full experience of India). RESPONDENT: When you write these posts, don’t you make an effort to write correctly and creatively? RICHARD: No, it happens effortlessly ... when I start a sentence I have no means of knowing in advance what will transpire, let alone how it will end. All I need to know is the theme and the subject matter unfolds of its own accord. I do have a reliable and repeatable format and style, which has developed over the years, so it is not an ad hoc or chaotic meandering. It is all very easy. RESPONDENT: That effort, I would surmise, comes from a sense of anxiety – do I make sense? Have I chosen appropriate words? Can I improve my post? RICHARD: Writing is such a delight – even though I am a two-finger typist – and the fingers ripple across the keyboard: given the theme the words always make sense. When I read-through the draft it is a cinch to choose the right words – I have upwards of 650,000 words at my command – and correct the typos. I never send it straight away ... and when I come back to it a read-through, as with another’s eyes, makes obvious how it can be improved (if it needs improving). RESPONDENT: I don’t know about your personal life. Do you date? Cook? RICHARD: Neither ... I am a fifty three year old male, the progenitor of four adult children and eight grandchildren from my first marriage ... all now scattered far and wide and living their own lives. My companion and I are, by choice, childless and will stay so ... enough is enough. I currently live on the most easterly point of the Australian seaboard in a small village called Byron Bay. I rent a suburban three-bedroom brick duplex one kilometre from the beach – the ocean is an almost constant back-drop in Byron Bay – and the wee small hours are my favourite time for writing ... I most often wake up at two or three o’clock in the morning and write until the first kookaburras start their laughing-like call from some trees over the back fence. Then I like to sit and sip an early morning coffee, with my feet up on the computer desk, and be with the first blue-grey light coming into the room ... through to the first glow of pre-dawn ... and then the sunrise itself. I have a colour TV and VCR in the lounge room and two computers in what was the dining area: I stroll into the village centre for a bite to eat at the local restaurants and sup the froth off a cappuccino at one of the numerous sidewalk cafés several times a week ... and generally lead what could be called a quiet domestic life-style. I have an affinity for the small-town life as I was born and raised on a dairy farm in the south-west of Australia. I had a normal birth and upbringing. I went to a standard state school and took a regular job at fifteen and then volunteered for a six-year stint in the Military at seventeen. I went into a commonplace marriage at nineteen and had an average family and although I worked at many jobs throughout my life, my main career was as a practicing artist ... although I am also a qualified art teacher. I am retired and living on a hard-won pension and instead of pottering around in the garden I am currently pottering around the internet. RESPONDENT: In both of these activities, some anxiety, in my opinion, is inevitable: am I conducting myself correctly in her presence? RICHARD: I simply am what I am as this flesh and blood body – I am unable to pretend to be otherwise – and anyone who spends time with me is attracted to that ... else they go away (there are those who have). RESPONDENT: Will the love making be glorious? etc. RICHARD: Love does not feature in my life ... thus sexual congress is always excellent. RESPONDENT: Similarly, cooking: I would bet that without some anxiety about the outcome of what we cook, results would be rather bland. RICHARD: I either eat out or order in. RESPONDENT: I would suggest that without some positive anxiety, life would be too insipid. RICHARD: When I go to bed at night I have had a perfect day RESPONDENT: And you too, whatever extirpations and such that you have gone through in your life, must be enjoying the occasional flutter in your heart that creative anxiety produces. Isn’t it so? RICHARD: No ... there is no fear here in this actual world where I live – there is no fear in a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock – not even disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, let alone anxiety, angst, fear, terror, horror or dread. What am I to do?
RESPONDENT: I don’t know about your personal life. Do you date? Cook? In both of these activities, some anxiety, in my opinion, is inevitable: am I conducting myself correctly in her presence? Will the love making be glorious? etc. RICHARD: Love does not feature in my life ... thus sexual congress is always excellent. RESPONDENT: Well, that sounds strange, if not contradictory, to me. RICHARD: I can comprehend your ‘sounds strange’ response given that the conventional wisdom
is to cover-up the base carnal passions with a gloss of love ... but why ‘contradictory’ ? The total absence of the
instinctual passions – and their compensatory love – enables an actual intimacy, Hence ‘always excellent’. RESPONDENT: Sex without love is like pizza without cheese – edible, but not a pizza really. RICHARD: Pizza – even with cheese – is hardly haute cuisine. Sex without carnal desire enables a purity that far exceeds the greatest or most profound feeling of love. RESPONDENT: Sorry about being Starr-like, but don’t you go through the pounding of heart, some tingling in and around various body parts, a surge of various emotions and excitements before, during, and after coitus with your, eh, companion? If yes, then I would say that you experience that creative anxiety that I mentioned. RICHARD: Ahh ... I think I get it, now. You seem to be indicating that if I were to add love into sex then I will have creative anxiety in my life? RESPONDENT: Also, what, if any, emotions pass through your heart when you see your children and grandchildren? RICHARD: None at all RESPONDENT: A flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock, would probably not feel much upon seeing their children and grandchildren ... RICHARD: They feel nothing ... feelings exist only in sentient beings. RESPONDENT: ... but human beings, I think, are different. RICHARD: Indeed. RESPONDENT: They hug and kiss and buy gifts and celebrate Christmas and birthdays and weddings and graduations with their children and grandchildren. Such hugging and kissing and celebrating in my opinion is the part of being human. RICHARD: Indeed ... as are 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. * RICHARD: There is no fear here in this actual world where I live – there is no fear in a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock – not even disquietude, uneasiness, nervousness or apprehension, let alone anxiety, angst, fear, terror, horror or dread. What am I to do? RESPONDENT: I don’t know, brother. RICHARD: Oh? You can write a well considered evaluation of the usefulness of fear in one’s life; you can convince another that they need to have creative anxiety in their lives ... yet when asked ‘what to do’ you say: ‘I don’t know’? You have given me the words of fear ... but where is the essence? RESPONDENT: I guess you enjoy your life as it is. RICHARD: I am indeed having a wonderful time ... that is not the point (you knew that already from past posts): the point is that you saw the need for creative anxiety and wrote a well considered evaluation of the usefulness of fear: I listened. Now what? RESPONDENT: That is, enjoy it as much as a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock does. RICHARD: Only a human has the capacity for apperceptive awareness: a flower, a tree, an ashtray, an armchair, a rock are incapable of perception ... let alone apperception. RESPONDENT: But, in my humble opinion, part of being human is to feel the emotions that I mentioned above. Makes sense? RICHARD: Indeed it does make sense – and more than just a little – inasmuch as you have convinced me that I need to have fear in my life ... and I am listening. How are we to proceed?
RESPONDENT: Do you date? Cook? In both of these activities, some anxiety, in my opinion, is inevitable: am I conducting myself correctly in her presence? Will the love making be glorious? etc. RICHARD: Love does not feature in my life ... thus sexual congress is always excellent. RESPONDENT: Well, that sounds strange, if not contradictory, to me. RICHARD: I can comprehend your ‘sounds strange’ response given that the conventional wisdom is to cover-up the base carnal passions with a gloss of love ... but why ‘contradictory’? The total absence of the instinctual passions – and their compensatory love – enables an actual intimacy, a direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unspoiled by any ‘me’ and ‘my’ neediness and greediness whatsoever. An actual intimacy surpasses the highest or deepest feeling of love possible. Hence ‘always excellent’. RESPONDENT: I don’t agree that love is all but ‘compensatory to instinctual passions’. To love another person is to feel for him/her with the same intensity as we feel for ourselves. RICHARD: Ahh ... projected narcissism, you mean? RESPONDENT: Some of this feeling, I agree, is instinctual – for example, parents feel the pain of their children as their own. But, human beings also have the capacity to love others that they are not instinctively programmed to love. I can cite my love for my dear wife as an example. Her joys and pains and trials and tribulations are mine too with the same intensity. That is love. Without love we do not relate to another. So, I don’t understand the concept of actual intimacy sans love. Without love – which is feeling for another with the same intensity as for ourselves – there is no intimacy, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Yet love, no matter how intense, is seeing (feeling) the other through rose-coloured glasses (feelings). The total absence malice and sorrow – and their compensatory love and compassion – enables an actual intimacy, a direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, unspoiled by any ‘me’ and ‘my’ neediness and greediness whatsoever. An actual intimacy surpasses the highest or deepest feeling of love possible. * RESPONDENT: Sex without love is like pizza without cheese – edible, but not a pizza really. RICHARD: Pizza – even with cheese – is hardly haute cuisine. Sex without carnal desire enables a purity that far exceeds the greatest or most profound feeling of love. RESPONDENT: I didn’t equate love with carnal desire. RICHARD: Neither did I ... I said that sex without carnal desire enables a purity that far exceeds the
greatest or most profound feeling of love. The conventional wisdom is to cover-up the base carnal passions with a gloss of love so
as to effect a pseudo-intimacy. RESPONDENT: Love is the essence of intimacy: I am the other. RICHARD: As in ‘oneness’ (an illusory feeling of togetherness)? RESPONDENT: Without that intimacy, non-procreative sex is but a physical work out. RICHARD: Without that illusory feeling of togetherness an actual intimacy, a direct experience of the pristine actuality of another, is always experienced twenty-four hours a day ... unspoiled by any ‘me’ and ‘my’ neediness and greediness whatsoever. An actual intimacy surpasses the highest or deepest feeling of love possible. * RESPONDENT: Sorry about being Starr-like, but don’t you go through the pounding of heart, some tingling in and around various body parts, a surge of various emotions and excitements before, during, and after coitus with your, eh, companion? If yes, then I would say that you experience that creative anxiety that I mentioned. RICHARD: Ahh ... I think I get it, now. You seem to be indicating that if I were to add love into sex then I will have creative anxiety in my life? RESPONDENT: Well, what I am getting at is this: love makes the heart go fonder. The tingling sensation that being in love with one’s wife, girlfriend, even one’s companion, is what I referred to as creative anxiety. How do you relate with your companion? RICHARD: As there is no separation it is impossible – and unnecessary – to ‘relate’. RESPONDENT: Do you buy her flowers? RICHARD: No ... I provide all of me twenty-four hours a day (no substitute giving is needed). RESPONDENT: Does anticipation of a romantic evening with her sets your heart aflutter? RICHARD: There is no room for ‘romantic evenings’ – or the necessity – in a twenty-four hour a day intimacy. RESPONDENT: When you hold her hands and look into her eyes does the cosmos come to a standstill? RICHARD: No ... the infinitude of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is already always still. RESPONDENT: If yes, then you experience creative anxiety that I have in mind. RICHARD: Oh. You have given me the words of ‘creative anxiety’ ... but where is the essence? * RESPONDENT: Also, what, if any, emotions pass through your heart when you see your children and grandchildren? RICHARD: None at all. I experience all people equally with the same actual intimacy ... no separation whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Describe that intimacy to me, if you don’t mind. RICHARD: Sure ... pristine perfection twenty-four hours a day. RESPONDENT: What goes through your heart when you see your grandchildren? RICHARD: Blood. RESPONDENT: Do you embrace them, baby-talk with them? RICHARD: No ... I treat them as fellow human beings (plus I very rarely see them anyway as they live physically far away). RESPONDENT: Buy them toys? RICHARD: No ... I provide all of me twenty-four hours a day (no substitute giving is needed) when and if I ever see them. RESPONDENT: Does the cosmos come to a standstill when they shriek with joy in your ears? RICHARD: No ... the infinitude of this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe is already always still. * RESPONDENT: But, in my humble opinion, part of being human is to feel the emotions that I mentioned above. Makes sense? RICHARD: Indeed it does make sense – and more than just a little – inasmuch as you have convinced me that I need to have fear in my life ... and I am listening. How are we to proceed? RESPONDENT: By answering the above questions. RICHARD: You have given me the words of fear ... but where is the essence?
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Five) 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 |
