|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RICHARD: ... the very stuff of this universe is immortal (perpetual) whereas the shape or form that this stuff takes, which is born, grows, ages, and dies, is what is mortal (transitory) .... be it flesh and blood bodies, planets, stars or nebulae (or even houses and cars and so on). I have also referred to this all-pervading perpetuality in earlier posts to you in regards buildings, pixels on computer screens and other examples. Vis.: (snip examples). Therefore a mortal or transitory shape or form, comprised of immortal or perpetual stuff, can indeed ‘know that which is immortal’ ... or, as I have said before, as this flesh and blood body only (which means sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) I am this universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such the universe is stunningly aware of its own infinitude. And if you gaze deeply into the inky darkness betwixt the stars you will be standing naked before infinitude. RESPONDENT: Tagore expressed very similar sentiments in the following words (In Gitanjali): ‘I stand under the golden canopy; Of thine evening sky; And life my eager eyes towards thine face ... I have come to the brink of eternity; From which nothing can vanish ...’. Different metaphor, same sentiments. RICHARD: Are you so sure? To whom was Mr. Rabindranath Tagore referring when he penned the words ‘thine evening sky’ and ‘thine face’ (the word ‘thine’ is synonymous with the word ‘thy’ and with the word ‘your’). Here is the verse in full:
The words ‘... infinite is thy mansion, my lord’ indicate that he is referring to a god and not the physical universe which I was talking about further above (the ‘her’ whom he is seeking, and who has gone from his small house, is probably a reference to his dead wife ... presumably now with his god in some after-death abode which he calls ‘thy mansion’). RESPONDENT: To obstinately refuse to acknowledge what has been expressed by others is a trick of the ego, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Au contraire ... to obstinately persist, again and again, in trying to fit what I am speaking clearly and unambiguously of under the broad umbrella of Hinduism is a trick of the conditioned mind. Hinduism strains in vain to be all things to all people.
RICHARD: ... To whom was Mr. Rabindranath Tagore referring when he penned the words ‘thine evening sky’ and ‘thine face’ (the word ‘thine’ is synonymous with the word ‘thy’ and with the word ‘your’). Here is the verse in full: [quote]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for her in all the corners of my room; I find her not. My house is small and what once has gone from it can never be regained. But infinite is thy mansion, my lord, and seeking her I have to come to thy door. I stand under the golden canopy of thine evening sky and I lift my eager eyes to thy face. I have come to the brink of eternity from which nothing can vanish; no hope, no happiness, no vision of a face seen through tears. Oh, dip my emptied life into that ocean, plunge it into the deepest fullness. Let me for once feel that lost sweet touch in the allness of the universe’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). The words ‘... infinite is thy mansion, my lord’ indicate that he is referring to a god and not the physical universe which I was talking about further above (the ‘her’ whom he is seeking, and who has gone from his small house, is probably a reference to his dead wife ... presumably now with his god in some after-death abode which he calls ‘thy mansion’). RESPONDENT: What Tagore is talking about is universe that is infinite. His own house (meaning ego) is small (and mortal) as compared to the infinitude and beyond time-ness of the universe. ‘Her’ is an allusion to freedom while still existing as a flesh and blood body. He finds her (freedom) not in the house of his ego but in the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: ‘Tis a simple matter to see what you are saying:
First of all, why would anybody go searching for ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ in all the corners of their ‘ego’? Secondly, how does it make sense to say that ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’, once gone from [my] ‘ego’, can never be regained? Furthermore, how can this physical universe (comprising of time, space and matter) be ‘beyond time-ness’ anyway? Lastly: who does ‘my lord’ refer to in your metaphor? Shall we look at what I presumed to be the case:
Also, and as Mr. Rabindranath Tagore acknowledged his indebtedness to the Baul poets, ‘her’ can also refer to love or lover. * RESPONDENT: Exactly the same sentiments are expressed by another flesh-and-blood body that frequents this mailing list. :-) RICHARD: Humph ... just for starters I have never said ‘infinite is thy beyond time-ness universe, my lord’ anywhere at all in any of my writing. On the contrary, I have expressly disclaimed both the timeless and any god, by whatever name, who creates and/or is creating and/or is sustaining this physical universe. Try this excerpt on for size and see how it fits:
He also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses:
And there is plenty more quotes where that one came from
I have expressly disclaimed ‘formless’ many, many times. * RESPONDENT: To obstinately refuse to acknowledge what has been expressed by others is a trick of the ego, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Au contraire ... to obstinately persist, again and again, in trying to fit what I am speaking clearly and unambiguously of under the broad umbrella of Hinduism is a trick of the conditioned mind. RESPONDENT: Tagore did not speak under the umbrella of Hinduism ... RICHARD: Goodness me ... Mr. Rabindranath Tagore is well-known for his attempts to combine the best of the Indian tradition and the Western tradition. RESPONDENT: ... he clearly and unambiguously stood under the canopy of the evening sky and looked up ... RICHARD: In the verse you quoted he did, yes ... I was speaking generally. RESPONDENT: ... and it appears to me that he found the same infinitude there that you found betwixt stars. RICHARD: Not so ... he sought for his lord’s eternity (and he only stood on the brink of it at that). * RICHARD: Hinduism strains in vain to be all things to all people. RESPONDENT: If it strains, it can’t be Hinduism. RICHARD: Hinduism only appears to succeed in being all things to all people for a Hindu or a Hindu wannnabe ... nobody else takes any notice of such pretentiousness. In fact ecumenicalism does not even work amongst the various sects of a single religion.
RESPONDENT: What Tagore is talking about is universe that is infinite. His own house (meaning ego) is small (and mortal) as compared to the infinitude and beyond time-ness of the universe. ‘Her’ is an allusion to freedom while still existing as a flesh and blood body. He finds her (freedom) not in the house of his ego but in the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: ‘Tis a simple matter to see what you are saying: [Respondent’s example]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ in all the corners of my ‘ego’; I find ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ not. My ‘ego’ is small and what (freedom as a flesh and blood body) once has gone from [my] ‘ego’ can never be regained. But infinite is thy ‘beyond time-ness universe’, my lord, and seeking ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ I have to come to thy door’. [end example]. First of all, why would anybody go searching for ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ in all the corners of their ‘ego’? RESPONDENT: Out of ignorance. RICHARD: Seeing that freedom as a flesh and blood body means no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul it takes far more than ‘ignorance’ to go searching for it in the ego ... this is just plain silliness. * RICHARD: Secondly, how does it make sense to say that ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’, once gone from [my] ‘ego’, can never be regained? RESPONDENT: Play of Maya. RICHARD: Seeing that ‘freedom as a flesh and blood body’ means no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul it is simply silly to say that it (a) can be gone from [my] ‘ego’ in the first place ... and (b) can never be regained ... and (c) that it is the ‘play of ‘Maya’. * RICHARD: Furthermore, how can this physical universe (comprising of time, space and matter) be ‘beyond time-ness’ anyway? Lastly: who does ‘my lord’ refer to in your metaphor? RESPONDENT: Same way in which it encompasses all time, all form and all space. RICHARD: I simply cannot understand your answer to my two queries ... if you wish for me to comprehend what you are wanting to convey could you rephrase it in a way that makes sense? Specifically:
* RICHARD: Shall we look at what I presumed to be the case: [Richard’s example]: ‘In desperate hope I go and search for [my wife] in all the corners of my room; I find [my wife] not. My house is small and what once has gone from it can never be regained. But infinite is thy [after-death abode], my lord, and seeking [my wife] I have to come to thy door’. [end example]. Also, and as Mr. Rabindranath Tagore acknowledged his indebtedness to the Baul poets, ‘her’ can also refer to love or lover. RESPONDENT: That love is the love for the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Then it is not freedom as a flesh and blood body which you are talking of ... none of what you write about in this thread is, in fact. * RESPONDENT: Exactly the same sentiments are expressed by another flesh-and-blood body that frequents this mailing list. :-) RICHARD: Humph ... just for starters I have never said ‘infinite is thy beyond time-ness universe, my lord’ anywhere at all in any of my writing. On the contrary, I have expressly disclaimed both the timeless and any god, by whatever name, who creates and/or is creating and/or is sustaining this physical universe. Try this excerpt on for size and see how it fits: [quote]: ‘When the creation was new and all the stars shone in their first splendour, the gods held their assembly in the sky and sang. Oh, the picture of perfection! the joy unalloyed!’ (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: Same as staring at inky darkness betwixt stars and asserting that the infinitude of the universe encompasses all form, space, and time. RICHARD: Not so. To see the infinitude of all space, all time and all matter one stands naked (sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... neither creation nor gods to be seen. Vis.:
How on earth can it the same? * RICHARD: He also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? * RICHARD: And there is plenty more quotes where that one came from: [quote]: ‘In this playhouse of infinite forms I have had my play and here have I caught sight of him that is formless’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: That which contains all forms and the formless cannot be different from one another. RICHARD: There is no ‘the formless’ outside of the human psyche. RESPONDENT: Try putting all possible forms together in a container and see what form does the container take. RICHARD: Simple ... the human psyche. * RICHARD: I have expressly disclaimed ‘formless’ many, many times. RESPONDENT: But your universe has all forms, right? RICHARD: It is not my universe ... it was here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead. RESPONDENT: Now put all the forms together and see what form emerges. RICHARD: It is called ‘the universe’ ... so much for you avowal to stick with its proper name, eh? Vis.:
Yet here you are now, four e-mails later, calling it ‘the formless’. * RESPONDENT: To obstinately refuse to acknowledge what has been expressed by others is a trick of the ego, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Au contraire ... to obstinately persist, again and again, in trying to fit what I am speaking clearly and unambiguously of under the broad umbrella of Hinduism is a trick of the conditioned mind. RESPONDENT: Tagore did not speak under the umbrella of Hinduism ... RICHARD: Goodness me ... Mr. Rabindranath Tagore is well-known for his attempts to combine the best of the Indian tradition and the Western tradition. RESPONDENT: Exactly my point: he did not speak under the umbrella of Hinduism. RICHARD: If I may point out? Your exact point was that he stood ‘under the canopy of the evening sky’ and not ‘under the umbrella of Hinduism’ ... here is your original sentence in full:
If you wish to change your initial point then by all means do so ... just do not expect me to buy your ‘exactly my point’ latter-day assertion. * RESPONDENT: ... he clearly and unambiguously stood under the canopy of the evening sky and looked up ... RICHARD: In the verse you quoted he did, yes ... I was speaking generally. RESPONDENT: ... and it appears to me that he found the same infinitude there that you found betwixt stars. RICHARD: Not so ... he sought for his lord’s eternity (and he only stood on the brink of it at that). RESPONDENT: The omni-form, omni-time, omni-space universe is the lord. RICHARD: For you and for Mr. Rabindranath Tagore, maybe, but not for me ... I call it by its proper name: the universe. RESPONDENT: Whether you stand on the brink of eternity or in the middle of it, it matters not. If it matters, then you are not at the brink/middle of eternity. RICHARD: Not at all ... ‘standing at the brink’, in religio-spiritual terminology, means gaining a glimpse only. * RICHARD: Hinduism strains in vain to be all things to all people. RESPONDENT: If it strains, it can’t be Hinduism. RICHARD: Hinduism only appears to succeed in being all things to all people for a Hindu or a Hindu wannnabe ... nobody else takes any notice of such pretentiousness. RESPONDENT: Realizing that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude is to be a Hindu. RICHARD: This is a classic example of Hinduism attempting to co-opt all under its umbrella ... your juggernaut approach will never, ever convince me that (a) I am a Hindu ... or (b) what I write of is Hinduism ... or (c) that Hinduism has already discovered what I speak of. An actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history. * RICHARD: In fact ecumenicalism does not even work amongst the various sects of a single religion. RESPONDENT: One who realizes that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude becomes omni-religious. RICHARD: Well now ... I have not become and never will be ‘omni-religious’. RESPONDENT: There is no other choice. RICHARD: There is indeed ... and I call it actualism (in a deliberate contrast to materialism and spiritualism).
RESPONDENT: To obstinately refuse to acknowledge what has been expressed by others is a trick of the ego, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Au contraire ... to obstinately persist, again and again, in trying to fit what I am speaking clearly and unambiguously of under the broad umbrella of Hinduism is a trick of the conditioned mind. Hinduism strains in vain to be all things to all people. RESPONDENT: If it strains, it can’t be Hinduism. RICHARD: Hinduism only appears to succeed in being all things to all people for a Hindu or a Hindu wannnabe ... nobody else takes any notice of such pretentiousness. RESPONDENT: Realizing that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude is to be a Hindu. RICHARD: This is a classic example of Hinduism attempting to co-opt all under its umbrella ... your juggernaut approach will never, ever convince me that (a) I am a Hindu ... or (b) what I write of is Hinduism ... or (c) that Hinduism has already discovered what I speak of. An actual freedom from the human condition is entirely new to human history. RESPONDENT: You claimed once that you are the only one to have discovered what you discovered ... RICHARD: For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes. I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for over twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. RESPONDENT: ... and I showed you the fallacy of your thinking. RICHARD: And I asked you if you were proposing that I do a door-to-door survey of every man, woman and child on this planet before I make such a claim ... and you never did respond. RESPONDENT: Looks like you are going back to the old assertion, which can never be verified to be true. RICHARD: Not so ... I simply omitted to add the qualifier ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’. RESPONDENT: Why are you doing that? RICHARD: Because I failed to see the necessity of adding the qualifier ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’ when you and I had already discussed this before. RESPONDENT: Is it a trick of your ego? RICHARD: No ... it is simply a case of omitting to add the qualifier ‘for as far as I have been able to ascertain’. RESPONDENT: If yes, then all that you wrote so painstakingly comes to a simple naught. RICHARD: Then you will be pleased to see that all that I have written has not come to naught, eh? RESPONDENT: And you do not even have to stare at the inky darkness to realize this simple truth. RICHARD: Indeed not ... for it is a logical truth. And to have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of your logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is. Although there are still some adherents to Mr. Karl Popper’s conceptual logic, that nothing can ever be known for sure, his theories have, by and large, been refuted and discarded by more than a few peoples many years ago (logically it can never be proved that a One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater does not exist, for example). Yet it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical logic. An academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ ... whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’. RESPONDENT: So, why this insistence that you are the only one, when that assertion can never be verified to be true? RICHARD: I am the only one by default, of course, until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise. Where is this person/where are these people? If you could provide names and addresses or book titles or URL’s or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever it is that you are cognisant of I would be most pleased ... as I could compare notes, as it were, with a person that could intimately understand what I am talking about. Somebody has to be the first to discover anything in any field of human endeavour ... why is this so difficult to comprehend?
RICHARD: Mr. Rabindranath Tagore also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? RESPONDENT: No. I never believed in any organized religion. RICHARD: Allow me to refresh your memory:
Have you all-of-a-sudden ceased being a Hindu? RESPONDENT: In 1993 I was dealt a sever, nearly devastating blow. That blow made me question the very basis of life, of justice, morals, and such. Through a near-death experience I realized that life is not what we make it out to be; instead it is infinitely more deep than the shallowness of everyday existence. God, as truth, pervades everything that is there, and once you touch that truth, then all doubts vanish. From that point on, I view things differently. There is no belief in me of any denomination, atheistic, monotheistic or pantheistic. Truth has no such language, but while expressing that truth, different words may come handy. RICHARD: Aye ... and such a handy word is pantheism: for a pantheist their god is immanent (as in the way you expressed it as ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’) as compared with a theist whose god is transcendent (expressed as not the infinitude of the universe and not all-pervading) ... broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god who is beyond the universe. Whereas in panentheism a god is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent?
RICHARD: ... Have you all-of-a-sudden ceased being a Hindu? RESPONDENT: In the narrow sectarian sense of the word, I was never a Hindu. RICHARD: The discussions you and I have had recently have already made this quite clear ... surely it must be obvious that I was not speaking of you being a Hindu in ‘the narrow sectarian sense’? RESPONDENT: In the broader sense, no one can cease being a Hindu. RICHARD: I must ask what you mean by ‘no one’ ... do you mean ‘no one’ born a Hindu or do you mean ‘no one’ out of the six billion peoples alive on the planet today? Here are the latest figures I have come across regarding the percentage of the world population regarded as being Hindus:
So as to put my query precisely are you saying that ‘no one’ out of the 800 million-1 billion peoples who are Hindu by the accident of birth can ‘cease being a Hindu’ ... or are you referring to every man, woman and child on the planet? * RESPONDENT: ... There is no belief in me of any denomination, atheistic, monotheistic or pantheistic. Truth has no such language, but while expressing that truth, different words may come handy. RICHARD: Aye ... and such a handy word is pantheism: for a pantheist their god is immanent (as in the way you expressed it as ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’) as compared with a theist whose god is transcendent (expressed as not the infinitude of the universe and not all-pervading) ... broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god who is beyond the universe. Whereas in panentheism a god is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: My truth is right here, in my own heart. RICHARD: Of course ... which should make it easy for you to answer the question without recourse to scriptures as you reply: is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent?
RICHARD: Mr. Rabindranath Tagore also explicitly says ‘my God’ in other verses: [quote]: ‘In one salutation to thee, my God, let all my senses spread out and touch this world at thy feet’. (‘Gitanjali, Song Offerings’ by Rabindranath Tagore). RESPONDENT: The God is the infinitude of the universe. RICHARD: Are you a pantheist? (snip) RESPONDENT: ... There is no belief in me of any denomination, atheistic, monotheistic or pantheistic. Truth has no such language, but while expressing that truth, different words may come handy. RICHARD: Aye ... and such a handy word is pantheism: for a pantheist their god is immanent (as in the way you expressed it as ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’) as compared with a theist whose god is transcendent (expressed as not the infinitude of the universe and not all-pervading) ... broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god who is beyond the universe. Whereas in panentheism a god is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: My truth is right here, in my own heart. RICHARD: Of course ... which should make it easy for you to answer the question without recourse to scriptures as you reply: is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: I don’t know, my friend. RICHARD: This is the reason why I ask:
When your ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative’ statement is juxtaposed with your ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’ statements it appears to be that your ‘truth’ (which, being right there in your heart, should be easy to access so as to find out once and for all) is a panentheistic truth ... which means not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Vis.: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blfaq_theism_pan.htm And so as to forestall another ‘I don’t know’ response this may be an apt moment to point out that when somebody declares themselves as knowing and/or having realised the truth or god they are bound to be asked penetrating questions ... and as the ability to reply accurately and honestly can only help to validate one’s declaration surely you would not expect to be treated any different? Incidentally, pantheism (and panentheism) is a category ... not a ‘denomination’.
RICHARD: ... for a pantheist their god is immanent (as in the way you expressed it as ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’) as compared with a theist whose god is transcendent (expressed as not the infinitude of the universe and not all-pervading) ... broadly speaking theism refers to a creator god who is beyond the universe. Whereas in panentheism a god is not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). Is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: My truth is right here, in my own heart. RICHARD: Of course ... which should make it easy for you to answer the question without recourse to scriptures as you reply: is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: I don’t know, my friend. RICHARD: This is the reason why I ask: [Respondent]: ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative. [Richard]: ‘What is this universe ‘relative’ to ... ? [endquotes]. When your ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative’ statement is juxtaposed with your ‘god is the infinitude of the universe’ and ‘god, as truth, pervades everything that is’ statements it appears to be that your ‘truth’ (which, being right there in your heart, should be easy to access so as to find out once and for all) is a panentheistic truth ... which means not only all-pervading (immanent) but beyond the universe as well (transcendent). RESPONDENT: The way in which you define universe, it is synonymous with the Absolute. RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is not ‘synonymous with the Absolute’ (if by capitalising the ‘Absolute’ you are referring to the Hinduism’s Absolute, that is) ... it simply is absolute as-it-is. RESPONDENT: For the transient to exist, there has to be an intransient. RICHARD: And I am asking you whether your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’). It is a simple question. RESPONDENT: So, the transient existence is relative to the intransient, the way in which you put it, the universe. RICHARD: That is the way I put it, yes ... but I am asking you about the way you put it. RESPONDENT: Absolute, or the intransient (which you call the universe) is necessary for the change to be perceived. RICHARD: I know that is what I call it ... but I am asking you about your ‘god, as truth’ and whether it is other than the universe as well as being the universe. RESPONDENT: Hence, the universe that contains all time and all shapes and all space is the backdrop against which time, form, and space take are perceived. It can not be otherwise. RICHARD: Okay ... so here is the question again: is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? * RICHARD: And so as to forestall another ‘I don’t know’ response this may be an apt moment to point out that when somebody declares themselves as knowing and/or having realised the truth or god they are bound to be asked penetrating questions ... and as the ability to reply accurately and honestly can only help to validate one’s declaration surely you would not expect to be treated any different? RESPONDENT: I have replied accurately and honestly. RICHARD: Here is the question:
Now ... where is your answer (which, you say, you have replied ‘accurately and honestly’ to)? RESPONDENT: You insist on saying things differently, for whatever reason. RICHARD: Mainly because they are different. RESPONDENT: That which contains all time, has to be time-less, that which contains all forms has to be form-less, that which contains all space, has to be beyond space. That is a simple requirement. RICHARD: So, is this your answer? That your ‘god, as truth’ (the truth which is right there in your heart) is ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’? Put simply: your ‘god, as truth’ is other than the universe? RESPONDENT: But since it seems to be pleasing your ego, I agreed to go with ‘all-time’, ‘all-form’ and ‘all-space’ universe. RICHARD: Why on earth are you saying things just to please another person (irregardless of whether you consider them to have an ‘ego’ that needs to be pleased or not)? RESPONDENT: Saying things differently doesn’t make them different. RICHARD: But words mean different things when the ‘things’ being referred to are different, though. RESPONDENT: Cookies are called biscuits in India, for example. RICHARD: And also in Australia ... but cookies/biscuits wherever they are share the same characteristics. RESPONDENT: And Richards become Dicks in the US. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is a précis of what is being discussed: you say ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative’ and I ask relative to what? You seem to say, in this e-mail, that ‘all existence’ is relative to ‘the Absolute’ which is ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’ ... yet you attempt to make out that your ‘god, as truth’ is synonymous to what I am saying (that this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is absolute as-it-is without any other). Can you now see why Hinduism cannot be all things for all people?
RESPONDENT: The way in which you define universe, it is synonymous with the Absolute. RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is not ‘synonymous with the Absolute’ (if by capitalising the ‘Absolute’ you are referring to the Hinduism’s Absolute, that is) ... it simply is absolute as-it-is. RESPONDENT: For the transient to exist, there has to be an intransient. RICHARD: And I am asking you whether your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’). It is a simple question. RESPONDENT: And I answered it earlier also: the way in which you define ‘universe’, no, it is not relative to anything. Since you also refer to ‘universe’ as absolute, I think we have (an absolute) agreement. RICHARD: Where is the agreement? You say, further below, that your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god as truth’) is ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’ and I say that this physical universe is eternal time, perpetual form and infinite space. Vis.:
You are obviously not talking of this physical universe ... this physical universe is not ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’ by any stretch of imagination. * RESPONDENT: So, the transient existence is relative to the intransient, the way in which you put it, the universe. RICHARD: That is the way I put it, yes ... but I am asking you about the way you put it. RESPONDENT: Since we are in agreement, the way I put it is the same way you put it. RICHARD: But we are clearly not ‘in agreement’ ... this is what you have said about your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’):
Whereas I say that this physical universe is eternal time, perpetual form and infinite space. * RESPONDENT: Absolute, or the intransient (which you call the universe) is necessary for the change to be perceived. RICHARD: I know that is what I call it ... but I am asking you about your ‘god, as truth’ and whether it is other than the universe as well as being the universe. RESPONDENT: Once again, the way in which you define ‘universe’, my God or Truth will fit that description. RICHARD: Yet this is what you have previously told me:
You clearly say that ‘all existence’ (aka this physical universe) is relative and that ‘only Brahma or Void is Absolute’. * RESPONDENT: Hence, the universe that contains all time and all shapes and all space is the backdrop against which time, form, and space take are perceived. It can not be otherwise. RICHARD: Okay ... so here is the question again: is your god, or the truth you realised, beyond the universe as well as immanent? RESPONDENT: The way you define ‘universe’, no, nothing is beyond it. RICHARD: Again, this answer of yours is at odds with what you have previously told me:
As this physical universe is ‘that [which] can be sensed’ you are clearly saying that this physical universe ‘ceases to be’ with ‘time-less’. * RESPONDENT: You insist on saying things differently, for whatever reason. RICHARD: Mainly because they are different. RESPONDENT: But I thought we agreed: ‘universe’ is absolute and so is truth. RICHARD: There are markedly differing characteristics:
You are simply fastening on the word ‘absolute’ and ignoring everything else. * RESPONDENT: That which contains all time, has to be time-less, that which contains all forms has to be form-less, that which contains all space, has to be beyond space. That is a simple requirement. RICHARD: So, is this your answer? That your ‘god, as truth’ (the truth which is right there in your heart) is ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’? Put simply: your ‘god as truth’ is other than the universe? RESPONDENT: Answered equally simply, the way in which you define ‘universe’, it is all encompassing and nothing is, or can be, beyond it. RICHARD: Yet you say (to take but one example) that which contains all space, has to be ‘beyond space’. * RESPONDENT: But since it seems to be pleasing your ego, I agreed to go with ‘all-time’, ‘all-form’ and ‘all-space’ universe. RICHARD: Why on earth are you saying things just to please another person (irregardless of whether you consider them to have an ‘ego’ that needs to be pleased or not)? RESPONDENT: Because I am a gentleman. RICHARD: Are you not interested in ascertaining the facts of the matter ... are facts to be discarded for the sake of a facile agreement? * RESPONDENT: Saying things differently doesn’t make them different. RICHARD: But words mean different things when the ‘things’ being referred to are different, though. RESPONDENT: I fail to comprehend how two /absolutes/ can be different. RICHARD: Maybe repetition will drive the point home:
* RESPONDENT: Cookies are called biscuits in India, for example. RICHARD: And also in Australia ... but cookies/biscuits wherever they are share the same characteristics. RESPONDENT: So do two absolutes: same all-all characteristics. RICHARD: For the third time, then:
* RESPONDENT: And Richards become Dicks in the US. RICHARD: Hmm ... here is a précis of what is being discussed: you say ‘I guarantee, all existence is relative’ and I ask relative to what? You seem to say, in this e-mail, that ‘all existence’ is relative to ‘the Absolute’ which is ‘time-less’ and ‘form-less’ and ‘beyond space’ ... yet you attempt to make out that your ‘god, as truth’ is synonymous to what I am saying (that this infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is absolute as-it-is without any other). RESPONDENT: Two absolutes must absolutely be the same. RICHARD: Here is the fourth repetition:
* RICHARD: Can you now see why Hinduism cannot be all things for all people? RESPONDENT: Absolutely no: all absolutes are all things for all people all the time. That’s the beauty of absolutes, in my humble opinion. RICHARD: Only by ignoring, or by blurring distinctions, for the sake of an artificial agreement.
RESPONDENT: The way in which you define universe, it is synonymous with the Absolute. RICHARD: This infinite, eternal and perpetual universe is not ‘synonymous with the Absolute’ (if by capitalising the ‘Absolute’ you are referring to the Hinduism’s Absolute, that is) ... it simply is absolute as-it-is. RESPONDENT: For the transient to exist, there has to be an intransient. RICHARD: And I am asking you whether your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’). It is a simple question. RESPONDENT: And I answered it earlier also: the way in which you define ‘universe’, no, it is not relative to anything. Since you also refer to ‘universe’ as absolute, I think we have (an absolute) agreement. RICHARD: Where is the agreement? (snip). RESPONDENT: You are going around a mulberry bush. RICHARD: Aye ... and I am quite happy to keep on going around it until you stop going around it. RESPONDENT: One more time: that which is omni- time, space, and form can not but be beyond time, space and form. RICHARD: If its name be Brahma, yes ... if its name be universe, no. RESPONDENT: I asked you to do this simple experiment: take all possible forms and put them in a container and see what form emerges. RICHARD: You must be referring to the following exchange:
This reply is because this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all form ... this universe is all form (this universe is perpetual form) and any proposed ‘container’ can only be the human psyche. RESPONDENT: Similarly, put all space in a container and leave room for more and see what happens. RICHARD: Similarly, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all space ... this universe is all space (this universe is infinite space). RESPONDENT: Also, let you container have all the time, past, present and future and tell me what is the time of existence of your container. RICHARD: Also, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all time (be it past, present or future) ... this universe is all time (this universe is eternal time). RESPONDENT: Two absolutes have to be the same, my friend. RICHARD: Only if you focus on the word ‘absolute’ and ignore the differing characteristics: I am talking of a physical absolute and you are talking of a metaphysical absolute ... there is a marked difference. Vis:
RESPONDENT: Universe, as defined by you, and whatever else may someone call his or her absolute, have to be the same. RICHARD: How? Look, several times recently you have posted the Hindu ‘Creation Hymn’ to this mailing list (Rig Veda 10, 129) which asks the question who or what was before the creation of this physical universe. Vis.:
Therefore, your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but is something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’) ... because ‘that’ alone is what is, prior to the universe. Which all goes to indicate that you are a panentheist, non?
RESPONDENT: I asked you to do this simple experiment: take all possible forms and put them in a container and see what form emerges. RICHARD: You must be referring to the following exchange: [Respondent]: ‘Try putting all possible forms together in a container and see what form does the container take. [Richard]: ‘Simple ... the human psyche. RESPONDENT: Well, the human psyche, as far as I know, is without a form (form-less). RICHARD: Yes, so ‘form-less’, in fact, as to be amorphous. RESPONDENT: Psyche from W-M on-line: 2 not capitalized [Greek psychE] a: soul, self; b : mind. RICHARD: The word ‘psyche’ (Greek: ‘psukhe’: breath, soul, life; related to ‘psukhein’: breathe, blow) is associated with breath and breathing ... and thus to life and living (as opposed to death and dying, as in ‘taking your last breath’). Such a focus on breath and breathing has corollaries in other cultures (‘chi’ in China, pronounced ‘ki’ in Japan) and is also known as ‘vitalism’ (popular in Europe in the early twentieth century) or ‘vital élan’ ... plus the word ‘prana’ (meaning ‘vital air’, from the root ‘pran’: ‘to breathe’) refers to what is known as the vital energy or vital force or life principle. For many early peoples what animated the body was breath (air, vital air, vital force, life force, life principle and so on), because when a person stopped breathing they were dead ... their soul had left their body as their last breath. In the animistic religions of the Bronze Age and earlier, spirit was everywhere, especially in the air (in the ‘ether’) and it is no coincidence that the ‘etheric body’ is considered the ‘vital body’ or ‘essential body’ (the Sanskrit ‘akasha’ means the same as ‘ether’ ... hence ‘akashic’ and ‘etheric’ refer to a similar psychic phenomenon). Hence amorphous. * RICHARD: This reply is because this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all form ... this universe is all form (this universe is perpetual form) and any proposed ‘container’ can only be the human psyche. RESPONDENT: All forms can’t be but formless, dear friend. RICHARD: I take it that this is a logical conclusion? * RESPONDENT: Similarly, put all space in a container and leave room for more and see what happens. RICHARD: Similarly, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all space ... this universe is all space (this universe is infinite space). RESPONDENT: Infinite space has to be beyond space. RICHARD: This does not make sense ... infinite space is simply space without a border. RESPONDENT: Otherwise, where do you put the additional space beyond the finite space, dear friend? RICHARD: As space is infinite your query is a non sequitur You could take a glass jar with a screw-top lid, for example, and shift that bit of space to anywhere you may choose in infinite space. * RESPONDENT: Also, let you container have all the time, past, present and future and tell me what is the time of existence of your container. RICHARD: Also, this physical universe is not a ‘container’ of all time (be it past, present or future) ... this universe is all time (this universe is eternal time). RESPONDENT: Which makes it time-less, dear one. RICHARD: No ... it makes it everlasting, limitless. RESPONDENT: In eternity, time must cease. RICHARD: No ... in eternity time is beginningless and endless. RESPONDENT: That is the definition of eternity ... that which is beyond time. Again, from W-M on-line: eternal = valid or existing at all times: timeless. RICHARD: That is one of the meanings ascribed to the word, yes ... however, it is not the meaning I was conveying (as well you know). This is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had to say on the subject:
Just as there are those who water down ‘selfless’ (no self) into meaning ‘unselfish’ (a not selfish self), there are those who make ‘timeless’ (no time) mean ‘eternity’ (unlimited time). Even dictionaries do this. * RESPONDENT: Universe, as defined by you, and whatever else may someone call his or her absolute, have to be the same. RICHARD: How? Look, several times recently you have posted the Hindu ‘Creation Hymn’ to this mailing list (Rig Veda 10, 129) which asks the question who or what was before the creation of this physical universe. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘The Creation Hymn: ... The atmosphere was not nor the heavens which are beyond. What was concealed? Where? In whose protection? (...) That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else’. [endquote]. Therefore, your ‘intransient’ (your ‘god, as truth’) is not only the universe (‘god is the infinitude of the universe’) but is something else as well which the universe is relative to (‘all existence is relative’) ... because ‘that’ alone is what is, prior to the universe. RESPONDENT: The sages who wrote the creation hymn stared at the inky emptiness betwixt stars ... and wondered. RICHARD: Maybe that is the problem ... maybe they should have just looked in wonder and amazement instead of speculating about some spurious ‘creation’ of a universe which already exists, has always existed, and will always exist. RESPONDENT: The last line of the hymn renders all doubts as to it being a representative of any faith to a nought: ‘Surely he knows, or perhaps he knows not’. RICHARD: Yet as I never mentioned it being a ‘faith’ (I took it to have been realised in their hearts just as you say your ‘god, as truth’ is to be found) your response is irrelevant. * RICHARD: Which all goes to indicate that you are a panentheist, non? RESPONDENT: You and I are staring at the same inky darkness betwixt stars my friend ... with one difference: occasionally you start comparing shades of your inkiness with mine. RICHARD: It is the other way around ... you have been doing nothing else but trying to make my original discovery into being the same as what the many and varied saints, sages and seers down through the centuries have been saying. Vis.:
The only question which remains is how much longer are you going to keep this charade going?
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Ten) 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 |
