|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RESPONDENT: ... 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: [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: Good. One issue settled. RICHARD: How is one of the issues ‘settled’? Just because the human psyche is so ‘form-less’ as to be amorphous it does not make this universe formless ... it simply provides an explanation as to why some peoples take the universe to be so (through projection of self upon actuality). This physical universe is exemplified by perpetual form. * 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: Since all space is space with border ... RICHARD: Oh? And just where is the border to this universe’s space located? RESPONDENT: ... that which is without a border is not space. Elementary, my friend. RICHARD: I take it that this is a logical conclusion? * 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: (snip quotes). RESPONDENT: Is Jiddu Krishnamurti your authority by which you judge what timeless means? RICHARD: Of course not – I am my own authority – it is simply a case of responding to you previously stating that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr. Shankara, and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti all spoke from the same ‘state of mind’ by providing an example of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti meant by the word ‘timeless’ vis-à-vis ‘eternity’. Vis.:
All of the three peoples, whom you use as examples of other people having spoken in a similar fashion to what you do about your timeless ‘god, as truth’, made it perfectly clear that the timeless they were referring to meant ‘without time’ ... that is, something metaphysical which is beyond this physical universe. * RESPONDENT: To me it is simple: that which has /all/ time, can not be confined to /a/ time. RICHARD: Yet I have never said that this physical universe is ‘confined to /a/ time’ ... I have repeatedly said ‘eternal time’ (beginningless and endless time). RESPONDENT: Hence, it is timeless. RICHARD: If its name be Brahma, yes ... if its name be universe, no. 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.: [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. (...) 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.: (snip examples). The only question which remains is how much longer are you going to keep this charade going? RESPONDENT: As long as you want to keep making things up. RICHARD: If you will provide the instances where I have been ‘making things up’ I will be only too happy to address each and every one of them ... until then this unsubstantiated comment amounts to being nothing but rhetoric. RESPONDENT: I have demonstrated beyond doubt that /all time/ = timeless, /all space/ = beyond space and /all form/ = formless. RICHARD: You have demonstrated no such thing ... let alone ‘beyond doubt’. RESPONDENT: Why do you keep insisting that it is otherwise, my friend? RICHARD: Mainly because it is otherwise: all time = eternal time; all space = infinite space; all form = perpetual form. RESPONDENT: Why not accept what is obvious? RICHARD: Because what you want me to accept ‘as obvious’ is that this physical universe is ‘timeless’ (without time) and ‘spaceless’ (without space) and ‘formless’ (without form) when it is patently obvious that these characteristics are applicable only to your ‘god, as truth’. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Why be a No. 28? RICHARD: As whatever issue it is that you have with another co-respondent has no correlation to what you and I are discussing (specifically the characteristics of this physical universe versus the characteristics of your ‘god as truth’) I fail to see the relevance of this question. ‘Twould be more productive to stay with the issue at hand would it not?
RESPONDENT: I suggest that we agree to disagree. RICHARD: Why on earth would anyone wish to ‘agree to disagree’ when all 6.0 billion of one’s fellow human beings are needlessly suffering? Can you not enter fully into an exploration and discovery of what it actually is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are? Do you really wish to but endlessly resurrect the dying embers of an ancient wisdom that has had its day; to but ineffectually try to vivify the selfish solution that has all but run its course; to but futilely attempt to breathe new life into that primeval peculiarity which is doomed to be as the small-brained dinosaur in the history of consciousness growth/mutation ... and thus never find peace-on-earth? * RESPONDENT: Why be a No. 28? RICHARD: As whatever issue it is that you have with another co-respondent has no correlation to what you and I are discussing (specifically the characteristics of this physical universe versus the characteristics of your ‘god as truth’) I fail to see the relevance of this question. RESPONDENT: Relevance of the question was in adamancy that I perceive in you. RICHARD: Yet it is the fact which is adamantine – this universe is not timeless (without time) and spaceless (without space) and formless (without form) – and I am merely pointing out the fact, again and again, that it is patently obvious that these characteristics are applicable only to your culturally-inherited ‘god, as truth’. If I say that this glass and plastic object you are reading these words on is a computer monitor which exists in time and space as form is that just me being adamant ... or is it the fact? RESPONDENT: But that is a moot point now, that I am willing to let this issue rest in peace, at least for now, under the agreement to disagree, if that is OK with you, my friend. RICHARD: Do you realise that this is the third time you have wanted an ‘agreement to disagree’? Vis.:
And:
And in our current e-mail exchange the following passage is a classic case of heritage in action:
And for as long as wisdom such as this is embodied in the hearts and minds of peoples world-wide is about as long as 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 will go on. Because thus is it clearly demonstrated that peace-on-earth is not on the spiritual agenda.
RESPONDENT: I suggest that we agree to disagree. RICHARD: Why on earth would anyone wish to ‘agree to disagree’ when all 6.0 billion of one’s fellow human beings are needlessly suffering? RESPONDENT: ‘Agree to disagree’ because there is an impasse. RICHARD: There is no ‘impasse’ other than your conviction, that the discovery which I am sharing with my fellow human beings has all been said before by the many and varied saints, sages and seers, has come up against a reasoned and coherent repudiation of your all-embracing claim ... and you have shown no demonstrable attempt to have even intellectually comprehended what I report before doing so. But ... such is the nature of those whose day-to-day life is driven by the past (in this instance the Hindu heritage). * RICHARD: ... the following passage is a classic case of heritage in action: [Respondent]: ‘All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. (...) Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time, space or form’. [endquote]. And for as long as wisdom such as this is embodied in the hearts and minds of peoples world-wide is about as long as 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 will go on. Because thus is it clearly demonstrated that peace-on-earth is not on the spiritual agenda. RESPONDENT: Well, let us agree to disagree on this one also. RICHARD: Why? Can you not see that by arbitrarily dismissing ‘all existence’ (aka this physical universe) as being relative then any earthly peace must perforce be a relative peace ... and that any absolute peace is only to be found in some timeless and spaceless and formless after-death spiritual realm? Your ‘let us agree to disagree’ appeal amounts to nothing more than a variation on the much-vaunted religious tolerance which has a proven track record of having failed again and again. In India such failure is called ‘communal violence’.
RICHARD: There is no ‘impasse’ other than your conviction, that the discovery which I am sharing with my fellow human beings has all been said before by the many and varied saints, sages and seers, has come up against a reasoned and coherent repudiation of your all-embracing claim ... and you have shown no demonstrable attempt to have even intellectually comprehended what I report before doing so. RESPONDENT: Such mule-headed insistence on being unique is the impasse, dear one. RICHARD: There is no ‘the’ impasse – I experience no problem at all – there is only your difficulty in comprehending that anybody discovering something new to human experience is of necessity distinctive in that particular aspect of their life ... such as discovering that the earth revolves around the sun and not vice versa, for example. This applies to anybody at all. RESPONDENT: I think you need to spend many more years with a sarong and a shirt and whatever else you had in the earlier journey to understand that insistence on being unique is but a trick of the ego. RICHARD: You may ‘think’ what you like, of course, yet eleven years of on-going experiencing, night and day, was ample time to explore all the ins and outs of the spiritual solution to the ills of humankind ... there is nothing more to discover about its shortcomings in that respect. Plus the evidence of history bears testimony to its arrant failure. * RICHARD: ... such is the nature of those whose day-to-day life is driven by the past (in this instance the Hindu heritage). The following passage is a classic case of heritage in action: [Respondent]: ‘All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. (...) Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time, space or form’. [endquote]. And for as long as wisdom such as this is embodied in the hearts and minds of peoples world-wide is about as long as 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 will go on. Because thus is it clearly demonstrated that peace-on-earth is not on the spiritual agenda. RESPONDENT: Well, let us agree to disagree on this one also. RICHARD: Why? Can you not see that by arbitrarily dismissing ‘all existence’ (aka this physical universe) as being relative then any earthly peace must perforce be a relative peace ... and that any absolute peace is only to be found in some timeless and spaceless and formless after-death spiritual realm? RESPONDENT: Dear one, we went over all these points ... RICHARD: Not so ... you are yet to explain how an after-death peace in some timeless and spaceless and formless spiritual realm will bring about an actual peace, here on earth, in time and space as form. RESPONDENT: ... and there was an impasse ... hence ‘agree to disagree’. RICHARD: You do seem to be missing the point that this ‘agree to disagree’ cliché you are using brings investigation and discovery to an end ... and so 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 will go on forever and a day. I will say it again: it is your ‘impasse’ ... not mine. * RICHARD: Your ‘let us agree to disagree’ appeal amounts to nothing more than a variation on the much-vaunted religious tolerance which has a proven track record of having failed again and again. RESPONDENT: Your opinion is acknowledged, dear friend. RICHARD: Good ... perhaps now you may see why it is pointless to press for tolerance in lieu of investigation and discovery? * RICHARD: In India such failure is called ‘communal violence’. RESPONDENT: What is it called in Australia, dear one? RICHARD: Generally speaking it is called ‘religious intolerance’.
RICHARD: ... such is the nature of those whose day-to-day life is driven by the past (in this instance the Hindu heritage). The following passage is a classic case of heritage in action: [Respondent]: ‘All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. (...) Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time, space or form’. [endquote]. And for as long as wisdom such as this is embodied in the hearts and minds of peoples world-wide is about as long as 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 will go on. Because thus is it clearly demonstrated that peace-on-earth is not on the spiritual agenda. RESPONDENT: Well, let us agree to disagree on this one also. RICHARD: Why? Can you not see that by arbitrarily dismissing ‘all existence’ (aka this physical universe) as being relative then any earthly peace must perforce be a relative peace ... and that any absolute peace is only to be found in some timeless and spaceless and formless after-death spiritual realm? Your ‘let us agree to disagree’ appeal amounts to nothing more than a variation on the much-vaunted religious tolerance which has a proven track record of having failed again and again. In India such failure is called ‘communal violence’. RESPONDENT: What is it called in Australia, dear one? RICHARD: Generally speaking it is called ‘religious intolerance’. RESPONDENT: Why do you practice religious intolerance? RICHARD: As I do not practice religious tolerance in the first place (despite your best efforts to get
me to practice a variation of it in this thread) your question regarding its failure in reference to me is a non sequitur Plus once again you appear to be oblivious to the fact that this ‘agree to disagree’ cliché you are using brings investigation and discovery to an end ... and so all the human suffering will go on forever and a day (just as it does in spite of the supposedly successful Hindu tolerance you espouse). As India is well known world-wide for its ‘communal violence’ (its inception as an independent modern nation in 1947 was indelibly stained with Hindu/Muslim blood shed on a massive scale) I will repeat here the question from my previous e-mail particularly relevant to this current exchange: How can an after-death peace in some timeless and spaceless and formless spiritual realm bring about an actual peace, here on earth, in time and space as form?
RICHARD: Can you not see that by arbitrarily dismissing ‘all existence’ (aka this physical universe) as being relative then any earthly peace must perforce be a relative peace ... and that any absolute peace is only to be found in some timeless and spaceless and formless after-death spiritual realm? Your ‘let us agree to disagree’ appeal amounts to nothing more than a variation on the much-vaunted religious tolerance which has a proven track record of having failed again and again. In India such failure is called ‘communal violence’. RESPONDENT: What is it called in Australia, dear one? RICHARD: Generally speaking it is called ‘religious intolerance’. RESPONDENT: Why do you practice religious intolerance? RICHARD: As I do not practice religious tolerance in the first place (despite your best efforts to get
me to practice a variation of it in this thread) your question regarding its failure in reference to me is a non sequitur RESPONDENT: Aha, but your logic has been: No. 33 is Indian, India practices communal intolerance, hence No. 33 is guilty of practising communal intolerance. By the same logic, Australia practices religious intolerance, you are an Australian, hence you practice religious intolerance. Your own logic, my friend. RICHARD: First, it is your ‘logic’, and not mine, as I am not using illation when I say
that, as I do not practice religious tolerance in the first place, your question regarding its failure in reference to me is a non
sequitur Second, I specifically said (now snipped) your ‘Hindu heritage’ and not that you are an ‘Indian’ ... [Richard]: ‘in this instance the Hindu heritage’ [endquote]. I said this because you decisively stated that you are a Hindu only a few days ago ... [Respondent]: ‘No one can cease being a Hindu’. [endquote]. You even tried to include me under the Hindu umbrella ... [Respondent]: ‘Realizing that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude is to be a Hindu. One who realizes that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude becomes omni-religious. There is no other choice’. [endquote]. Third, I never said that India practices ‘communal intolerance’ as I was responding to you implying several e-mails ago that because Hinduism is non-sectarian it is not party to religious intolerance ... [Respondent]: ‘Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another’. [endquote]. Fourth, I am not ‘an Australian’. Lastly ... if all of the above is an example of logic in action I am glad that I am not a logician. * RICHARD: Plus once again you appear to be oblivious to the fact that this ‘agree to disagree’ cliché you are using brings investigation and discovery to an end ... and so all the human suffering will go on forever and a day (just as it does in spite of the supposedly successful Hindu tolerance you espouse). As India is well known world-wide for its ‘communal violence’ (its inception as an independent modern nation in 1947 was indelibly stained with Hindu/Muslim blood shed on a massive scale) ... RESPONDENT: Au contraire, my friend: because people were not tolerant of other faiths, that there was bloodshed. RICHARD: Ahh ... I take it that you still cannot see that preaching religious tolerance simply does not work, has not worked and will not work? * RICHARD: ... I will repeat here the question from my previous e-mail particularly relevant to this current exchange: How can an after-death peace in some timeless and spaceless and formless spiritual realm bring about an actual peace, here on earth, in time and space as form? RESPONDENT: And I answered it earlier also: eternal = death-less, perpetual form = formless. RICHARD: If I may point out? That is not an answer ... that is nothing more than an attempt to equate what I report with your [quote] ‘god, as truth’ [endquote] so as to include actualism under the all-embracing Hindu aegis. Plain and simple: it just does not equate. RESPONDENT: The same mechanism that brings peace on earth that is imbued with perpetual form, is eternal etc., will also endow peace that is deathless, formless, etc. RICHARD: And just what ‘same mechanism’ might that be? For example, you have stated in a recent e-mail to another that to realise that you are ‘that’ (aka god) is to completely end violence. Vis.:
Whereas I speak of the voluntary ‘self’-sacrifice of identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ... which is the extinction of ‘being’ itself (aka god) so that all which remains is the flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. A physical solution, in other words, and not the time-honoured metaphysical solution. RESPONDENT: To insist that one absolute is different than another (and also better) is to be caught in the Web of dualistic Maya, wherefrom all sorrow, violence, domestic and child abuse, etc., emanate. RICHARD: It is this simple: you are speaking of a metaphysical absolute and I am speaking of a physical absolute – two obviously different absolutes – and as all suffering happens in time and space as form then surely any solution must be found in time and space as form ... and you are yet to explain how an after-death peace, in some timeless and spaceless and formless spiritual realm, can bring about an actual peace, here on earth, in time and space as form. RESPONDENT: Since you will not agree to this simple fact – at least not yet – I said: let us agree to disagree. RICHARD: And I said that you appear to be oblivious to the fact that this ‘agree to disagree’ cliché you are using brings investigation and discovery to an end ... and thus all the suffering will go on forever and a day. Put simply, what you are insisting I concur with is not a ‘simple fact’ at all, as you state that all existence is relative. Vis.:
Whereas I am saying that all existence is absolute ... that there is only time and space and form.
RESPONDENT: Why do you practice religious intolerance? RICHARD: As I do not practice religious tolerance in the first place (despite your best efforts to get
me to practice a variation of it in this thread) your question regarding its failure in reference to me is a non sequitur RESPONDENT: Aha, but your logic has been: No. 33 is Indian, India practices communal intolerance, hence No. 33 is guilty of practising communal intolerance. By the same logic, Australia practices religious intolerance, you are an Australian, hence you practice religious intolerance. Your own logic, my friend. RICHARD: First, it is your ‘logic’, and not mine, as I am not using illation when I say
that, as I do not practice religious tolerance in the first place, your question regarding its failure in reference to me is a non
sequitur RESPONDENT: Well, then I modify my statement: it is your Australian heritage that is responsible for your religious intolerance. RICHARD: This is a category error ... if you are really looking for an equivalence to ‘Hindu heritage’, in order to make your assumptive case against me, you would need to say ‘your Christian heritage’ (and not ‘your Australian heritage’). Needless is it to say I am not a Christian? RESPONDENT: By the way brother, if you are prone to making an exception for yourself (being free from the influence of heritage, consider granting a similar concession to another ... RICHARD: I would have already done so as a matter of course if you had not already made it decisively clear that you are a Hindu only a few days ago ... [Respondent]: ‘No one can cease being a Hindu’. [endquote]. Plus you have made many classical Hindu-based statements ... for example:
You will never find me making an equivalent Christian-based statement ... such as:
RESPONDENT: ... at least because you are, per your own assessment – ‘tolerant’. RICHARD: Not so ... I expressly stated [quote] ‘I do not practice religious tolerance’ [endquote]. If you can produce the quote where I assessed myself as being ‘tolerant’ I would be most interested to read it. Until then I will treat your statement as being the rhetoric it is. * RICHARD: You even tried to include me under the Hindu umbrella ... [Respondent]: ‘Realizing that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude is to be a Hindu. One who realizes that the universe is an omni-time, omni-form, omni-space infinitude becomes omni-religious. There is no other choice’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: And I stand by that statement ... RICHARD: Then you are standing by an error because ... (a) I am not ‘a Hindu’ ... and (b) I am not ‘omni-religious’ ... and (c) there is an ‘other choice’. I call that choice actualism ... the third alternative to either materialism or spiritualism. RESPONDENT: ... to be a Hindu means to rise above all sectarian divisions ... RICHARD: Yet as India is well known world-wide for its sectarian violence (only it is commonly called ‘communal violence’) your assertion is a denial of the facts. RESPONDENT: ... including the religious intolerance rooted in one’s Australian heritage. RICHARD: Hmm ... you can include me out of your assumption as there is no ‘Australian heritage’ extant in this flesh and blood body for such a failure of religious tolerance to arise out of. * RICHARD: Third, I never said that India practices ‘communal intolerance’ as I was responding to you implying several e-mails ago that because Hinduism is non-sectarian it is not party to religious intolerance ... [Respondent]: ‘Hinduism doesn’t preach religious intolerance – no religion is superior to another, so there is no need to impose itself on another’. [endquote]. Fourth, I am not ‘an Australian’. RESPONDENT: Really? RICHARD: Yes ... as an on-going actuality. RESPONDENT: Are you a Hindu, then? RICHARD: No. * RICHARD: Plus once again you appear to be oblivious to the fact that this ‘agree to disagree’ cliché you are using brings investigation and discovery to an end ... and so all the human suffering will go on forever and a day (just as it does in spite of the supposedly successful Hindu tolerance you espouse). As India is well known world-wide for its ‘communal violence’ (its inception as an independent modern nation in 1947 was indelibly stained with Hindu/Muslim blood shed on a massive scale) ... RESPONDENT: Au contraire, my friend: because people were not tolerant of other faiths, that there was bloodshed. RICHARD: I take it that you still cannot see that preaching religious tolerance simply does not work, has not worked and will not work? RESPONDENT: Preaching religious tolerance is different from living it. RICHARD: I was only going by what you wrote several e-mails ago. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Your truly lives it, as a true Hindu would. RICHARD: I was, of course, speaking of Hinduism at large – as exemplified in India by millions of peoples – but seeing that you are a living exponent of Hinduism’s supposedly successful tolerance perhaps you might now care explain how Hinduism’s after-death peace, in some timeless and spaceless and formless spiritual realm, can bring about an actual peace, here on earth, in time and space as form ... which, when all is said and done, is the as yet unanswered question which was snipped from the initial paragraph (further above). An engaged response would lend credence to your claims. * RESPONDENT: To insist that one absolute is different than another (and also better) is to be caught in the Web of dualistic Maya, wherefrom all sorrow, violence, domestic and child abuse, etc., emanate. RICHARD: It is this simple: you are speaking of a metaphysical absolute and I am speaking of a physical absolute – two obviously different absolutes – and as all suffering happens in time and space as form then surely any solution must be found in time and space as form ... RESPONDENT: ‘Physical absolute’ is an oxymoron ... RICHARD: Ahh ... this statement throws some light upon what you mean by ‘all existence is relative’ and that ‘only Brahma or Void is absolute’. And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute – that there is only time and space and form – do you now see why I have been so insistent that what I report, vis-à-vis what all the many and varied saints, sages and seers have to say, is totally incompatible? If so ... has it not therefore been productive that I declined to ‘agree to disagree’ as per the requirements of practicing tolerance in lieu of investigation and discovery? RESPONDENT: ... as much of it as ‘rational No. 28’ is. RICHARD: Once again you link whatever issue it is that you have with another to what is being discussed here (specifically the characteristics of this physical universe versus the characteristics of your ‘god, as truth’) as if it is meaningful to do so. Howsoever, to speak of this physical universe’s absolute characteristics is entirely reasonable ... whereas declaiming the absolute characteristics to be found in your heart is hardly ‘rational’ now, is it? Vis.:
Maybe it is just as well I am not an Assistant Professor of MIS holding PhD and MS (MIS) degrees.
RESPONDENT: To insist that one absolute is different than another (and also better) is to be caught in the Web of dualistic Maya, wherefrom all sorrow, violence, domestic and child abuse, etc., emanate. RICHARD: It is this simple: you are speaking of a metaphysical absolute and I am speaking of a physical absolute – two obviously different absolutes – and as all suffering happens in time and space as form then surely any solution must be found in time and space as form ... RESPONDENT: ‘Physical absolute’ is an oxymoron ... RICHARD: Ahh ... this statement throws some light upon what you mean by ‘all existence is relative’ and that ‘only Brahma or Void is absolute’. And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute ... RESPONDENT: This is non-sense. RICHARD: But if you had not snipped off the qualifier it would have made sense. Vis.:
You will see that this is entirely in keeping with the dictionary definition of the word ‘absolute’. Vis.:
Contrary to Hinduism’s ancient wisdom this universe is quite capable of existing by itself ... it needs no timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahma’ to create/maintain it. RESPONDENT: Existence changes all the time. RICHARD: Aye ... and such novelty is what keeps all existence from being boring (as expressed so well in the cliché ‘variety is the spice of life’). RESPONDENT: That which changes can not be absolute. RICHARD: Nevertheless, however much it changes it still remains the universe ... it does not become something else even though it is always new and thus ever fresh. RESPONDENT: Sorry. RICHARD: I am sure I would be ‘sorry’ too if I had given my heart to a ‘truth’ which never changes. Vis.:
Yet for all the years you have been nursing this static ‘truth’ in your heart the perfect purity of this actual world has been right under your nose ... all it requires is that you come to your senses (both literally and metaphorically). And this pristine actuality is coruscating ... scintillating.
RESPONDENT: Existence changes all the time. RICHARD: Aye ... and such novelty is what keeps all existence from being boring (as expressed so well in the cliché ‘variety is the spice of life’). RESPONDENT: That which changes can not be absolute. RICHARD: Nevertheless, however much it changes it still remains the universe ... it does not become something else even though it is always new and thus ever fresh. RESPONDENT: Sorry. RICHARD: I am sure I would be ‘sorry’ too if I had given my heart to a ‘truth’ which never changes. RESPONDENT: That which changes, can’t be truth. RICHARD: Exactly ... and, as this marvellously changeable universe is quite capable of existing by itself, it is just as well it needs no static ‘truth’ to create/maintain it. Life would be incredibly monotonous if it did.
RICHARD: And, as I am saying that all existence is absolute ... RESPONDENT: This is non-sense. Existence changes all the time. That which changes can not be absolute. Sorry. RESPONDENT No. 42: Can there be no movement in the absolute? RICHARD: A seminal question, which intrigued me for a number of years, was what the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ was. RESPONDENT: No wonder that after years of intriguing, you are still confused. ‘Movement’ and ‘absolute’ are contradictory to one another. If is moves, it can’t be absolute. What does it move in relation to? Elementary, my dear Richardson. :-) RICHARD: This is the ‘movement’ I was referring to:
As I said, enquiry into the nature of that movement was a seminal question ... and one that logic cannot find the answer to, either. I would suggest that you look into your heart instead ... after all, that is where you say your truth is. Who knows what you may find, eh?
RICHARD: This is the ‘movement’ I was referring to:
As I said, enquiry into the nature of that movement was a seminal question ... and one that logic cannot find the answer to, either. RESPONDENT: It is simple: if it is a movement, it can’t be absolute. RICHARD: You are simply repeating what you said further above (‘that which changes can not be absolute’ and ‘if is moves, it can’t be absolute’) in a slightly different form ... perhaps another quote may break the stranglehold your logic has on an engaged enquiry? Vis.:
As both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ emerge from and have their being in this movement then surely the question into the nature of this movement is a seminal question, non? * RICHARD: I would suggest that you look into your heart instead ... after all, that is where you say your truth is. Who knows what you may find, eh? RESPONDENT: Same – that which moves can’t be absolute. RICHARD: It would appear that your heart is as logical as your mind ... perhaps it may help to look into the ‘Song Of Creation’ you have posted several times to this list then? Vis.:
Plus it may help to spell out the relevant question a little ... how does ‘desire’ (and/or ‘mind’ and ‘matter’) arise in the beginning if there be no movement in ‘the absolute’?
RESPONDENT: It is simple: if it is a movement, it can’t be absolute. RICHARD: You are simply repeating what you said further above (‘that which changes can not be absolute’ and ‘if is moves, it can’t be absolute’) in a slightly different form ... perhaps another quote may break the stranglehold your logic has on an engaged enquiry? Vis.: B: ‘Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that’. K: ‘Would you say beyond that is this movement?’ B: ‘Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying’. K: ‘Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement’. B: ‘And it dies back into the movement’. K: ‘That’s right. It has its being in the movement’. B: ‘Yes, and matter also’. K: ‘Quite’. (‘The Ending Of Time’; page 153; 1985. Harper and Row, San Francisco). As both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ emerge from and have their being in this movement then surely the question into the nature of this movement is a seminal question, non? RESPONDENT: Non. Bohm and K seem to be merely shooting breeze. RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to access the following URL (which is where I obtained the above quote from) and read some more before dismissing it all as ‘merely shooting breeze’? Vis.: http://www.igc.org/shavano/html/bohm3.html#Dialogues You will find that the question regarding the movement in the absolute is integral to Mr. David Bohm’s formulation of implicate and super-implicate order. RESPONDENT: The entire discussion is pretty nonsensical, in my opinion. RICHARD: No more ‘nonsensical’, for example, than saying that all existence (all time and all space and all form) is relative and that only Brahma (a timeless and spaceless and formless Hindu god) is absolute. Vis.:
Here is a further excerpt from that URL above:
RESPONDENT: Ignore it. RICHARD: Your advice comes too late because the identity, who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, sincerely enquired into the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ ... with salubrious results. It turned out to be a seminal question. * RICHARD: I would suggest that you look into your heart instead ... after all, that is where you say your truth is. Who knows what you may find, eh? RESPONDENT: Same – that which moves can’t be absolute. RICHARD: It would appear that your heart is a logical as your mind ... perhaps it may help to look into the ‘Song Of Creation’ you have posted several times to this list then? Vis.: [quote]: ‘There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat. Upon that desire arose in the beginning’. (Rig Veda 10,129). Plus it may help to spell out the relevant question a little ... how does ‘desire’ (and/or ‘mind’ and ‘matter’) arise in the beginning if there be no movement in ‘the absolute’? RESPONDENT: That is simple: desire arose as an illusion in the absolute. RICHARD: If, as you say, there is no movement in the absolute then how come desire as an illusion arose in Brahma in the first place?
RESPONDENT: [The entire discussion is pretty nonsensical, in my opinion]. Ignore it. RICHARD: Your advice comes too late because the identity, who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, sincerely enquired into the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ ... with salubrious results. It turned out to be a seminal question. RESPONDENT: Well, then so be it. RICHARD: Yes, ‘so be it’ indeed ... the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent each moment again. RESPONDENT: Personally speaking, I will stay away from all such speculative hogwash. RICHARD: Sure ... but for the person who truly has truth in their heart it is neither ‘speculative’ nor ‘hogwash’. RESPONDENT: ‘What is the nature of that movement?’ – two fools speculating their way to a publishing house, in my humble opinion. And many more joining in a virtual merry go round. RICHARD: Perhaps this is an apt moment to remind you of the last lines of the ‘Song Of Creation’ you have posted several times to this list:
The highly revered ‘Rig Veda’ is arguably a much published ‘virtual merry go round’ if there ever was one yet it suited you to post this hymn to this list (several times) to support your ‘humble opinion’ at the time ... why be so coy now that there is an opportunity to back your rhetoric with substance? RESPONDENT: Someone defined cricket (the game) as follows: one fool throws a ball, another fool throws it farther, a few fools chase the ball, and thousands applaud. Replace ‘ball’ with the ‘nature of movement’ and you have an apt simile. :-) RICHARD: Ha ... this reminds me of something you wrote to another just recently:
As it seems that you have taken the ‘the ball’ to heart what does that make you? * RICHARD: I would suggest that you look into your heart instead ... after all, that is where you say your truth is. Who knows what you may find, eh? RESPONDENT: Same – that which moves can’t be absolute. RICHARD: It would appear that your heart is a logical as your mind ... perhaps it may help to look into the ‘Song Of Creation’ you have posted several times to this list then? Vis.: [quote]: ‘There was neither death nor immortality then. There was not distinction of day or night. That alone breathed windless by its own power. Other than that there was not anything else. Darkness was hidden by darkness in the beginning. All this was an indistinguishable sea. That which becomes, that which was enveloped by the void, that alone was born through the power of heat. Upon that desire arose in the beginning’. (Rig Veda 10, 129). Plus it may help to spell out the relevant question a little ... how does ‘desire’ (and/or ‘mind’ and ‘matter’) arise in the beginning if there be no movement in ‘the absolute’? RESPONDENT: That is simple: desire arose as an illusion in the absolute. RICHARD: If, as you say, there is no movement in the absolute then how come desire as an illusion arose in Brahma in the first place? RESPONDENT: This question can not be answered. Sorry. RICHARD: So endeth the lesson.
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Eleven) 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 |
