|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 34
RICHARD (to Respondent No 31): Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point:
everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Could you please clarify who ‘everybody’ is? Are they the ones from your relations, the ones from this list, or everybody else on the planet? RICHARD: It is a categorical, wide-ranging, all-inclusive ‘everybody’ (with the marked exception of a handful of people). It is every man, woman and child currently alive on this planet ... all 6.0 billion. It also includes the (possibly) 4.0 billion that have been alive on this planet for perhaps the last 50,000 years ... it includes both the sane people and the insane people. There is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: OK. RICHARD: Apperception is different from choiceless awareness. RESPONDENT: If choiceless awareness means being aware of all that is present unconditionally and all-inclusively, would that not include the mind ‘watching itself’? RICHARD: If ‘choiceless awareness’ did include the ‘mind ‘watching itself’’ then that mind (the choicelessly aware mind) would observe that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity. RESPONDENT: From the moment ‘choiceless awareness’ is, the imagined inner self is not. RICHARD: The imagined inner personal self is not ... the imagined impersonal self is, however, in ‘choiceless awareness’. RESPONDENT: It is not possible to ‘watch’ the inner centre. RICHARD: Indeed not ... one is it. One is it so impersonally that one can truthfully say: ‘There is only that’. RESPONDENT: When the inner centre is active ... one can’t see it, it seems. Because the main characteristic of the centre is that it is thought to be observing. RICHARD: Do you mean as in the phrase ‘there is only observation’? * RICHARD: Then there would be action. As there is no action of this calibre in ‘choiceless awareness’ then, no, it obviously does not ‘include the mind ‘watching itself’’ at all. RESPONDENT: You seem to have a defined concept of ‘choiceless awareness’. RICHARD: Yes ... it is not my definition, though. RESPONDENT: We may change the word. Anyway when you say: ‘... there is not action ...’ that is an assumption, isn’t it? I’m here ... you are there ... we must consider communication to understand each other, how can you tell through a couple of words my inner state? RICHARD: I was not talking about your inner state at all. I was discussing ‘choiceless awareness’ as being distinctly different from ‘apperceptive awareness’. I do not know what your inner state is ... other than it is certainly not ‘apperceptive awareness’. * RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more’ in apperception? RICHARD: No, not ‘more’ but less ... in fact less to the point of nothing at all. Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides. RESPONDENT: Well, if it is an ‘ego’ doing anything, obviously is meaningless by definition. There is perception of events of an impersonal order, without the centred known observer. RICHARD: Yes, the centred known observer is the ego. When the centred known observer is the observed (there is only observation) the ego is said to have dissolved (or died) and becoming has ceased and being is. This being is impersonal being. Are we together in this? If so, I will return then to what I wrote above ... if not we can proceed with this to see where it takes us. * RICHARD: The word ‘choiceless’ is a code-word for the mystical word ‘surrender ... just as ‘what is’ is code for the Buddhist word ‘Isness’ and ‘stepping out of the stream’ is code for the Hindu phrase ‘getting off the wheel of Karma’ and so on. In other words: the ‘divine’ alternative to being ‘human’. There is a third alternative. RESPONDENT: I know nothing of Buddhism, Hinduism, and very little of Krishnamurti. How could we try to share something here, without letting words raise a turmoil of concepts of religious and/or philosophical order? I hardly read, so when you say to me that this or that expression is derived from this or that philosophy or religion, you leave me without action, because I just don’t know which words are free of pre-conceptions from your side. Do you understand the problem? Could we ‘invent’ our own words, free from carried-over implied meaning? RICHARD: But I have already ‘invented my own words’ ... the word ‘actual’ as distinct from the word ‘real’, for example. And the phrase ‘apperceptive awareness’, for another example, that I carefully explained in one entire post. And when you initially related to it as ‘transparency’ I explained again what I meant by this term. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: Or is it because I live in a country/place where I had very little opportunity to read that I have less right to share something meaningful? I don’t know nothing of ‘divine’ or ‘getting out of the stream’ or ‘wheel of karma’. RICHARD: Well, you have come to a Mailing List where you will soon get to know those terms. RESPONDENT: This is the reason I wrote the first post to you, conveying the fact that you have a heavily religious background. RICHARD: You must be referring to the following exchange. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: The associations that happen in your understanding, are not meant by me. I have no religion, never had one, and in this small island in the southern Atlantic Ocean by the Brazilian cost, very few books are available. My friends talk of fishing ... mainly. RICHARD: Even if you know ‘nothing of Buddhism, Hinduism, and very little of K’ and even if you ‘have no religion, never had one’ this what you write, for all your disclaiming, is mystical ... and ‘apperceptive awareness’ is not. RESPONDENT: When I say ‘choiceless’ it means that is all-inclusive. RICHARD: Whereas when I say ‘choiceless awareness’ I use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meaning ... and given that he made the phrase popular he ought to know best what it means. If you have given it another meaning than his – like ‘all-inclusive’ – but then write ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ then surely you must comprehend that you leave me no alternative but to understand that by ‘all-inclusive’ you are meaning the same-same thing as ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’ and so on. Apperceptive awareness is not an awareness that ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ because the ‘universal mind’ is the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large. Apperception is when one steps out of ‘humanity’ ... not when one ‘steps out of the stream’.
RESPONDENT: First, I apologise, I’ve been pulling the trigger to fast. At this point, may I ask you the following: where in the universe is perception localised? RICHARD: The place where, in the universe, that perception is, is in the brain of any sensate being. Until space exploration is such that carbon-based life-forms are discovered to have arisen elsewhere as well as on planet earth, then this is the only known place where perception is. And perception is not ‘localised’ in the universe in the brain of any sensate being ... the universe is not perceptive per se. Only sentient beings are perceptive. RESPONDENT: Yes, but where is the perception that sees a man from inside and all the others from outside? RICHARD: That perception is indirect perception ... it is ‘I’, the identity, inside the body looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Are you now asking where inside the body is this perceiver localised rather than ‘where in the universe is perception localised’? * RESPONDENT: The species must go on for reasons that is not of our concern here. RICHARD: The reasons are important. The question is: why are we here? RESPONDENT: No. I wasn’t thinking of that, but I could listen to your point of view. RICHARD: It is beneficial to keep this question open – and not be satisfied with an intellectual answer – as only the experiential answer is fulfilling. Thus: Why am I (No. 34) here? RESPONDENT: I feel that meaning is factual, it is what is being lived. RICHARD: Yes, this is why ‘the species must go on’ ... the reason is to be lived. However, for approximately 6.0 billion peoples, ‘what is being lived’ is not satisfying, not fulfilling. They say: ‘There must be more to life than this’. Now the question is: ‘How will I find out – for myself – if there is indeed ‘more to life than this’?’ ... given that ‘the species must go on’ in order that the meaning be lived. RESPONDENT: I just saw the No. 34. No. 34 is a bunch of memories /images as result of accumulated experiences /traumas /images that appears when attention is not. It is desire to achieve results, mainly. RICHARD: In 1980, at the beginning of what was to be a four-hour PCE that was the turning-point in my life, ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ was (a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning social identity) and the instant ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ ... I was not that. Thus (when I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’) ‘I’ knew, by direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go – become extinct – and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate). ‘My’ question was: How on earth am ‘I’ to do this? * RICHARD: There is a third alternative: this actual world that the ‘real world’ is pasted over as a veneer. RESPONDENT: Yes. The localised mind of man creates an inner self, an inner centred known observer, that superimposes an imaginary world over the actual. (...) I would say: ‘the elimination of a centred known observer that becomes in time ...’ RICHARD: Yes ... why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’ really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). RESPONDENT: The fundamental cause in time, seems to be the survival of the species. RICHARD: Thus the ‘centred known observer’ has, fundamentally, a biological cause ... genetically inherited. Therefore, any move to trigger the elimination of this fundamental self is to go against nature and nature’s drive for survival. A betrayal, in other words. RESPONDENT: The intrinsic, the ongoing reason, or the ongoing factor that perpetuates the inner centre seems to be the ‘drive to be other than what is’. RICHARD: Given that what one is, fundamentally, is a fearful and aggressive yet nurturing and desiring self it is no wonder that there is a ‘drive to be other than what is’. Given that what one is creates a grim and glum ‘reality’ that is the current ‘what is’ for 6.0 billion peoples ... then ‘what is’ sucks. RESPONDENT: And this possibility of a possible change is attributed to an imaginary centred entity. RICHARD: Aye ... and, as the ‘imaginary centred entity’ has the backing of the full range of instinctually-generated passions (with their concomitant hormones) to keep itself intact, then any change so far in human history has been but a modification of what is. * RESPONDENT: All that a man perceives in this situation is the mind of mankind, but now, something more emerges. I agree that one is not the average humanity, although average humanity is also here, now. My senses, brain, are and will be human till the day I die. Again, all that is perceptible, sensible, is the human mind as one. I’m a tri-dimensional flesh and blood man ... and more. What is the more that emerges? To see this one must be real or actual or factual. We are somewhere. This is the more. We are contained in something a-dimensional. Be careful here. We must not deal with concepts. This container (approximate word, don’t look it up in the dictionary), is the universal mind. All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested ... etc. I’ll stop here for now. RICHARD: Okay, no dictionary ... I will put this simply: the ‘Universal Mind’ is nothing but the ‘human mind’ sublimated and transcended. RESPONDENT: What happened? Why do you say this? The sun was here before mankind, although all we perceive of it is ‘as mankind’. Instead of universal mind we may call it the ‘primordial matter’, or ‘emptiness’. Why do you object? RICHARD: Because you went mystical. (‘All there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’). There is no ‘universal mind’ outside of the imaginative/intuitive faculty of the human being. RESPONDENT: I’m an atheist and materialist non-philosopher. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... some of your concepts are mystical, however. RESPONDENT: This materiality of the world is not absolute. RICHARD: The materiality of the ‘real world’ is certainly not absolute. This actual world is absolute, however ... and ultimate. RESPONDENT: The perceived world is processed in this brain, through the input from the senses. RICHARD: Yes. RESPONDENT: The senses transmit only electrical impulses. The totality of the manifested world is within your brain. RICHARD: Are you saying that there is more than what is perceived? And, if so, that this ‘more’ is unmanifest (as in not physically existing)? RESPONDENT: The totality of what you perceive as world is just a human mind interpretation. There is more then the human world. RICHARD: Indeed ... I call that which is ‘more than the human world’ this actual world (as distinct from the ‘real world). RESPONDENT: And all is immersed, contained in emptiness. RICHARD: This is a mystical concept (‘emptiness’ is another word for ‘universal mind’).
RESPONDENT: If choiceless awareness means being aware of all that is present unconditionally and all-inclusively, would that not include the mind ‘watching itself’? RICHARD: If ‘choiceless awareness’ did include the ‘mind ‘watching itself’’ then that mind (the choicelessly aware mind) would observe that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity. RESPONDENT: From the moment ‘choiceless awareness’ is, the imagined inner self is not. RICHARD: The imagined inner personal self is not ... the imagined impersonal self is, however, in ‘choiceless awareness’. RESPONDENT: It is not possible to ‘watch’ the inner centre. RICHARD: Indeed not ... one is it. One is it so impersonally that one can truthfully say: ‘There is only that’. RESPONDENT: When the inner centre is active ... one can’t see it, it seems. Because the main characteristic of the centre is that it is thought to be observing. RICHARD: Do you mean as in the phrase ‘there is only observation’? RESPONDENT: Yes, without duality. RICHARD: Is it because one is ‘without duality’ (the observer is the observed means that one is all there is) that the choicelessly aware mind cannot see that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity? * RICHARD: Then there would be action. As there is no action of this calibre in ‘choiceless awareness’ then, no, it obviously does not ‘include the mind ‘watching itself’’ at all. RESPONDENT: You seem to have a defined concept of ‘choiceless awareness’. RICHARD: Yes ... it is not my definition, though. RESPONDENT: Then, that is not what I mean. RICHARD: Okay. What do you mean (so that there is no misunderstanding)? * RESPONDENT: What is the ‘more’ in apperception? RICHARD: No, not ‘more’ but less ... in fact less to the point of nothing at all. Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides. RESPONDENT: Well, if it is an ‘ego’ doing anything, obviously is meaningless by definition. There is perception of events of an impersonal order, without the centred known observer. RICHARD: Yes, the centred known observer is the ego. When the centred known observer is the observed (there is only observation) the ego is said to have dissolved (or died) and becoming has ceased and being is. This being is impersonal being. Are we together in this? If so, I will return then to what I wrote above ... if not we can proceed with this to see where it takes us. RESPONDENT: It seems that we agree ... we shall see though. This impersonal being is not centred and not separate from the observed. RICHARD: Good ... this ‘impersonal being’ (which you say is ‘not centred and not separate from the observed’) therefore is the observed. Now ‘the observed’ is another way of saying ‘everything’. Therefore, would another way of saying all this be: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’? * RESPONDENT: The associations that happen in your understanding, are not meant by me. I have no religion, never had one, and in this small island in the southern Atlantic Ocean by the Brazilian cost, very few books are available. My friends talk of fishing ... mainly. RICHARD: Even if you know ‘nothing of Buddhism, Hinduism, and very little of K’ and even if you ‘have no religion, never had one’ this what you write, for all your disclaiming, is mystical ... and ‘apperceptive awareness’ is not. RESPONDENT: When I say ‘choiceless’ it means that is all-inclusive. RICHARD: Whereas when I say ‘choiceless awareness’ I use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meaning. RESPONDENT: Which is what? RICHARD: The word ‘choice-less’ means no choice ... as in no will or volition of one’s own. (Not my will but Thy will, Oh Lord). * RICHARD: Given that he made the phrase popular he ought to know best what it means. If you have given it another meaning than his – like ‘all-inclusive’ – but then write ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ then surely you must comprehend that you leave me no alternative but to understand that by ‘all-inclusive’ you are meaning the same-same thing as ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’ and so on. RESPONDENT: Yes, wholeness (integer), unity (non-divided) ... seems to point to ‘all-inclusive’ awareness. RICHARD: Is another way of saying ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’? * RICHARD: Apperceptive awareness is not an awareness that ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ because the ‘universal mind’ is the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large. Apperception is when one steps out of ‘humanity’ ... not when one ‘steps out of the stream’. RESPONDENT: No. The mind of humanity is one of the ‘things’ within the universal container or mind. RICHARD: Ahh ... this, then, is the difference betwixt ‘apperceptive awareness’ and ‘choiceless awareness’. Apperceptive awareness is when the ‘universal container or mind’ disappears along with the ‘mind of humanity’ ... whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ is when the ‘mind of humanity’ is realised to be the ‘universal container or mind’ made manifest. In other words: ‘Be still and know that I am God’.
RICHARD: It is beneficial to keep this question open – and not be satisfied with an intellectual answer – as only the experiential answer is fulfilling. Thus: Why am I (No. 34) here? RESPONDENT: I feel that meaning is factual, it is what is being lived. RICHARD: Yes, this is why ‘the species must go on’ ... the reason is to be lived. However, for approximately 6.0 billion peoples, ‘what is being lived’ is not satisfying, not fulfilling. They say: ‘There must be more to life than this’. Now the question is: ‘How will I find out – for myself – if there is indeed ‘more to life than this’?’ ... given that ‘the species must go on’ in order that the meaning be lived. RESPONDENT: I see it like this. The species goes on unconsciously, there is no need for ‘apperception’ as you call it. Nature takes care of it through the reproduction instinct, the auto-preservation instinct, hunger for food, drink ... the species goes on like any other animal species. For man who live by these instincts alone, meaning must be searched ‘outside’, there is need to become, to achieve, to win, to have more etc. I will find out that meaning is ‘this’, I don’t need the ‘more’. The more is for the one’s living from that centre. Now, the meaning is being lived, and I don’t participate in the current that takes care of the preservation of the species. The species will continue through the ‘crowds’. I as an apperceptive man, will now participate in something totally different. The species will eventually make it, or not. RICHARD: Yes ... some enterprising person did a head-count last year and estimated that only 0.0000001 of the human population had ‘stepped out of the stream’. Which indicates that it is not something for the masses (or ‘the crowds’ as you put it). It is an elite bunch of people that ‘now participate in something totally different’ is it not? Yet the genuine question (one that is relevant for all 6.0 billion peoples) is this: Why am I (No. 34) here? RESPONDENT: I just saw the No. 34. No. 34 is a bunch of memories / images as result of accumulated experiences / traumas / images that appears when attention is not. It is desire to achieve results, mainly. RICHARD: In 1980, at the beginning of what was to be a four-hour PCE that was the turning-point in my life, ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ was (a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning social identity) and the instant ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ ... I was not that. Thus (when I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’) ‘I’ knew, by direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go – become extinct – and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate). RESPONDENT: Yes, I think I agree. To die is to be attent to the totality, it seems from here. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding through a typo: is ‘attent’ meant to be ‘attention’ or ‘attentive’ or something else? * RICHARD: ‘My’ question was: How on earth am ‘I’ to do this? RESPONDENT: Elaborate this ... RICHARD: Given that ‘I’ knew, via direct experience, that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. So when I asked (as an open question) ‘how do ‘I’ do it?’ the essential character of the perfection of the physical infinitude of this material universe was enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. * RICHARD: Why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’ really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). RESPONDENT: The fundamental cause in time, seems to be the survival of the species. RICHARD: Thus the ‘centred known observer’ has, fundamentally, a biological cause ... genetically inherited. Therefore, any move to trigger the elimination of this fundamental self is to go against nature and nature’s drive for survival. A betrayal, in other words. RESPONDENT: It seems so. What is the exact meaning of betrayal? RICHARD: To be disloyal to or behave treacherously towards. To be like a rat deserting a sinking ship, in other words. RESPONDENT: The intrinsic, the ongoing reason, or the ongoing factor that perpetuates the inner centre seems to be the ‘drive to be other than what is’. RICHARD: Given that what one is, fundamentally, is a fearful and aggressive yet nurturing and desiring self it is no wonder that there is a ‘drive to be other than what is’. Given that what one is creates a grim and glum ‘reality’ that is the current ‘what is’ for 6.0 billion peoples ... then ‘what is’ sucks. RESPONDENT: I think I understand. It is a crazy and senseless life to be lived ... and I’m quite stupid. RICHARD: No, not ‘stupid’ ... ‘stupefied’. Self-castigation only makes one ripe for humility ... and humility is but pride standing on its head. How can one have dignity when one is humiliating oneself? How will this bring about clarity? RESPONDENT: And this possibility of a possible change is attributed to an imaginary centred entity. RICHARD: Aye ... and, as the ‘imaginary centred entity’ has the backing of the full range of instinctually-generated passions (with their concomitant hormones) to keep itself intact, then any change so far in human history has been but a modification of what is. RESPONDENT: Human history ... yes, it’s collective madness. RICHARD: By ‘human history’ I also include those elitists ... the 0.00001 of the population. * RESPONDENT: This materiality of the world is not absolute. RICHARD: The materiality of the ‘real world’ is certainly not absolute. This actual world is absolute, however ... and ultimate. RESPONDENT: The actual world is absolute and ultimate, although ‘materiality’ may be questioned. RICHARD: I will re-phrase what I wrote above: The materiality of the ‘real world’ is certainly not absolute. The materiality of this actual world is absolute, however ... and ultimate. RESPONDENT: The senses transmit only electrical impulses. The totality of the manifested world is within your brain. RICHARD: Are you saying that there is more than what is perceived? And, if so, that this ‘more’ is unmanifest (as in not physically existing)? RESPONDENT: It is unmanifested to the human senses. It’s existence though is real. To say that it’s ‘not physically existing’ may give raise to questioning. Ultra-violet rays do exist, though we do not perceive them physically. RICHARD: Oh yes ... ultra-violet rays and radio-waves and such-like are perceptible physically by extension of the sense organs with physical aids (radio telescopes and electron microscopes and so on). What I was asking is: are you referring to something ‘more’ that will never be manifest to the human senses ... and will never be manifest to extensions to the human senses? RESPONDENT: The totality of what you perceive as world is just a human mind interpretation. There is more then the human world. RICHARD: Indeed ... I call that which is ‘more than the human world’ this actual world (as distinct from the ‘real world). RESPONDENT: And all is immersed, contained in emptiness. RICHARD: This is a mystical concept (‘emptiness’ is another word for ‘universal mind’). RESPONDENT: No. It is the ‘more than the human world’ like: ‘human intelligence is the external aspect of a ‘law’’ RICHARD: Oh dear ... the ‘external aspect of a ‘law’’ is more mysticism. Out of emptiness arises the ‘Dhamma’, for example, which is the manifestation of the ‘embodied law’ ... or ‘Dharma’ or ‘Logos’ (as in ‘in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god’ ... and so on). May I ask? Are you seeking peace-on-earth or the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’?
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 25): Yet I do not have a ‘wholistic intelligence’ ... therefore I present facts. The
fact is that human suffering has at least a 3,000 to 5,000 year recorded history – and as peoples everywhere are relying upon an ‘Ancient
Wisdom’ that is 3,000 to 5,000 years old – all it takes is a simple observation to see that everybody is going in the wrong direction. To wit:
How come it has taken 3,000 to 5,000 years ... and peace on earth is nowhere to be found? RESPONDENT: Wisdom that has 3000 to 5000 years? RICHARD: Yes. In the Judaic/ Christian/ Islamic thread (depending upon which school of research) the Sumerian texts are dated circa 3,000 B.C. (5,000 years ago) and the Abrahamaic texts circa 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago) and the Mosaic texts are dated circa 1400 B.C. (3,500 years ago). In the Hindu/ Buddhist/ Jain thread (depending upon which school of research) the Vedas are dated circa 3,000 B.C. (5,000 years ago) and the Upanishads 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago). The Taoist/ Confucian thread (depending upon which school of research) is drawn from the Yellow Emperor (Huang Ti) oral traditions (depending upon which school of research) are dated circa 2,000 – 3,000 B.C. and the written texts are dated circa 200 B.C. Current archaeological research is becoming ever more accurate. RESPONDENT: That is clearly a conceptualised wisdom. RICHARD: Well, yes and no ... the enlightened sages certainly lived their delusion as a reality and not as a concept (and most peoples would disagree with your description that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, for example, lived a ‘conceptualised wisdom’). Yet, either way, their influence on gullible minds has been enormous ... just look at what is discussed on this Mailing List for starters. RESPONDENT: Wisdom never had, has not, and will never have an age. RICHARD: Yet, the ancient wisdom probably pre-dates the written word (3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history) and gets lost in the mists of pre-history ... that seems to be what I would call quite an age by any standards. And that piece of wisdom you just espoused is precisely the same-same piece of wisdom that was espoused 3,000 to 5,000 years ago. If you fondly imagine that you are being original, then dream on. Meanwhile, all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides rage on around you. Which is what has been happening for 3,000 to 5,000 years. RESPONDENT: Man of Wisdom never tried to save the world. RICHARD: I have no idea what books you read ... but all the versions I have read show the opposite of what you say. RESPONDENT: Only the delirious ones, for the human world is the summing up of the individuals. RICHARD: Uh huh ... and the ones that were not delirious (who are not the ‘summing up of individuals’ presumably) were not of the ‘human world’ then? In what way did/do they differ from the ‘Wisdom of the Ancients’... and who are/were they anyway? RESPONDENT: Chain reaction of Wisdom (you mentioned somewhere)? What’s that? RICHARD: No ... I never mentioned ‘wisdom’ anywhere. I advocate individual action (the extinction of identity in it’s totality), not the acquiring of ‘wisdom’ ... be it ancient or modern. I wrote that an ‘individual freedom from the human condition could lead to a global freedom from the human condition’. This unilateral action could precipitate a ‘chain-reaction’ effect ... or not. It does not really matter either way because even if global peace was a long time coming – as is most probable due to stubbornly recalcitrant identities – the most appealing aspect of actual freedom is its instant bestowal of universal peace upon the individual daring enough to go all the way. RESPONDENT: Do you think that individuals will become conscious of the totality through osmosis? You must be joking. RICHARD: This is a ‘straw-man’ argument: you propose that I am saying something that I am not (‘osmosis’) and then proceed to rail against it. You are only finding your own theory a joke, here. RESPONDENT: Or maybe you think you have invented a ‘system’ that will turn people in the right direction. RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ this ... I live this. What I write comes out of my on-going experiencing each moment again. And no, I have not ‘invented’ anything ... I have discovered. RESPONDENT: Expound it then!! RICHARD: I have been doing nothing else but that since I first wrote to this Mailing List eighteen months ago ... have you not noticed this? RESPONDENT: There are books by the thousands with teachings about this. RICHARD: Please advise me of the names of these ‘thousands of books’ ... I have been scouring the books for eighteen years now and nary a trace have I found. I would be vitally interested in anyone else’s discovery of the same world as I experience. RESPONDENT: Ancient ones, modern ones, you name it. RICHARD: Hmm ... you will have to name them. As I say, I have been scouring the books for eighteen years now and nary a trace have I found. RESPONDENT: This is not a mass ‘school’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... this is a Mailing List. Much, much better than a ‘school’ any day. In fact, the Internet is my chosen means of dissemination for the obvious reason of being interactive and rapid. The electronic copying and distribution capacity of a mailing list service – with it’s multiple feed-back capability – is second to none. RESPONDENT: Are you seriously conveying the idea that you have found an original and revolutionary method to teach people to stop being fragmented? RICHARD: No ... I am not talking of making a fragmented identity whole, and never have for that is nothing but the ‘Ancient Wisdom’ regurgitated. I am sharing my experience of extinction of identity in its totality. RESPONDENT: Show it!! RICHARD: I have been doing nothing else but that since I first wrote to this Mailing List eighteen months ago ... have you not noticed this? RESPONDENT: You are unable to ‘show it’ to one single individual from this list. RICHARD: Methinks you will find that you are in error, here, too. RESPONDENT: You have also failed, brother!!!! RICHARD: If this were true – which it is not – why are you so pleased about my failure? But then again, you are not on your own on this: on this Mailing List, any success is jumped upon from a great height and failure is applauded enthusiastically. A strange business, non? RESPONDENT: You are worried with peace on earth? RICHARD: No, not at all. I do not know how to worry. I experience the already always existing peace-on-earth twenty four hours a day, seven days a week. RESPONDENT: You propagate war every time you write anything to anyone!!! RICHARD: Oh? In what way? By upsetting their cherished concepts, ideals, theories, imaginings and beliefs? If so, then war is in them, because these are but words on a screen ... and does not everyone all know that the word is not the thing? RESPONDENT: You are the living example of the present mentality of man. RICHARD: Oh? In what way? By being free of the human condition? RESPONDENT: You are not the saviour yet, brodi. RICHARD: Indeed not ... I set my sights further than being a mere saviour of humankind, all those years ago when I was determined to be free of the human condition, and I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I have succeeded. Human beings need something else than re-hashes of the ‘Tried and True’ if there is to be global peace-on-earth. What is a ‘brodi’, by the way?
RESPONDENT: That is clearly a conceptualised wisdom. RICHARD: Well, yes and no ... the enlightened sages certainly lived their delusion as a reality and not as a concept (and most peoples would disagree with your description that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, for example, lived a ‘conceptualised wisdom’). Yet, either way, their influence on gullible minds has been enormous ... just look at what is discussed on this Mailing List for starters. RESPONDENT: Could you indicate a List for ‘seniors’, and one for ‘veterans’, because I am not sure where do I fit ... ? RICHARD: Not that I am into grading people, but if I were to do so, then I would say that the Listening-L Mailing List is the List par excellence for both ‘seniors’ and ‘veterans’ ... provided they be pursuing the mystical freedom (to become ‘divine’ instead of ‘human’). There is a third alternative ... an actual freedom.
RICHARD: Is it because one is ‘without duality’ (the observer is the observed means that one is all there is)
that the choicelessly aware mind cannot see that it is swamped by a transmogrified and vainglorious identity? RESPONDENT: Of course this is not the case. Any identity would prevent all-inclusive observation. When there is not duality, one identifies patterns, physiological and psychological conditioned patterns, but one is not identified with them. That is the whole point. To have an identity, is the same as the existence of the observer. RICHARD: Aye ... to have ‘an identity’ is the same as saying to have ‘a fragmented identity’ (as you said in another post). Now, when the identity is the observed it is no longer fragmented ... is it not? It is whole, complete ... or, as you say elsewhere: ‘wholeness (integer), unity (non-divided)’. The fragmented identity (the imagined inner personal self) is now the whole identity (the centreless impersonal self). RESPONDENT: All events are non-personal in character. If the observer is the observed, who is there to be vainglorious? RICHARD: The transmogrified ‘imagined inner personal self’ is there to be vainglorious ... the deathless self is ‘who is there’. RESPONDENT: The existence of this ‘who’ would imply in an active centre. RICHARD: No ... it implies a centreless impersonal self. Consciousness emptied of content is a vacant mind ... a mind without choice or volition of its own. * RICHARD: What do you mean by ‘choiceless awareness’ (so that there is no misunderstanding)? RESPONDENT: I mean: the observer is the observed. And for this to be, there is not an inner centre. RICHARD: Yes, one has ceased ‘becoming’ and is ‘being’ ... one is a ‘centreless being’, eh? RESPONDENT: All events belong to an ‘universal’ (general, not mystic) order . RICHARD: And you called this ‘universal order’ ... um ... ‘natural intelligence’ in an earlier post? Viz.:
* RICHARD: Apperception only occurs when there is no identity whatsoever extant. Whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ occurs when the personal part of identity (‘I’ as ego) dissolves and expands like all get-out into being, not only everything (wholeness) but beyond time, space and form to where ‘that which is sacred and holy’ resides. RESPONDENT: Well, if it is an ‘ego’ doing anything, obviously is meaningless by definition. There is perception of events of an impersonal order, without the centred known observer. RICHARD: Yes, the centred known observer is the ego. When the centred known observer is the observed (there is only observation) the ego is said to have dissolved (or died) and becoming has ceased and being is. This being is impersonal being. Are we together in this? If so, I will return then to what I wrote above ... if not we can proceed with this to see where it takes us. RESPONDENT: It seems that we agree ... we shall see though. This impersonal being is not centred and not separate from the observed. RICHARD: Good ... this ‘impersonal being’ (which you say is ‘not centred and not separate from the observed’) therefore is the observed. Now ‘the observed’ is another way of saying ‘everything’. Therefore, would another way of saying all this be: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’? RESPONDENT: Everything perceived is ‘here’. To say Me, may have it’s inherent dangers. Me may sound a bit anthropomorphic. RICHARD: Okay ... the observed ( ‘everything’) perceived by this impersonal centreless being is everything both manifest and unmanifest? And everything both manifest and unmanifest is ‘here’, you say? Thus the perception of this impersonal being is all-seeing? And this all-seeing perception is called ‘choiceless awareness’? * RESPONDENT: When I say ‘choiceless’ it means that is all-inclusive. RICHARD: Whereas when I say ‘choiceless awareness’ I use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meaning. RESPONDENT: Which is what? RICHARD: The word ‘choice-less’ means no choice ... as in no will or volition of one’s own. (Not my will but Thy Will, Oh Lord). RESPONDENT: Ahh ... I see. No, when I say choiceless is absent of any relation to volition. All-inclusive, or non-exclusive, maybe would fit better. RICHARD: So ‘choiceless’ does not mean what it says (‘choice-less’) to you? You still have the ability to choose ... you still have will, volition of your own? Even though ‘all-inclusive’ means that all there is, is thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested? Are you saying that you are then the ‘universal mind’ made manifest? * RICHARD: Given that he made the phrase popular he ought to know best what it means. If you have given it another meaning than his – like ‘all-inclusive’ – but then write ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ then surely you must comprehend that you leave me no alternative but to understand that by ‘all-inclusive’ you are meaning the same-same thing as ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’ and so on. RESPONDENT: Yes, wholeness (integer), unity (non-divided) ... seems to point to ‘all-inclusive’ awareness. RICHARD: Is another way of saying ‘wholeness’ or ‘unity’: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’? RESPONDENT: Again, I rather say ‘all-present’, or ‘all-here’, to avoid dangerous connotations. RICHARD: Yea verily ... these are pretty dangerous connotations. The next step would be to say: ‘I am god’. * RICHARD: Apperceptive awareness is not an awareness that ‘all there is, is contained, or thought by this universal mind that moulded everything that is, was, will be, manifested, non-manifested’ because the ‘universal mind’ is the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large. Apperception is when one steps out of ‘humanity’ ... not when one ‘steps out of the stream’. RESPONDENT: No. The mind of humanity is one of the ‘things’ within the universal container or mind. RICHARD: Ahh ... this, then, is the difference betwixt ‘apperceptive awareness’ and ‘choiceless awareness’. Apperceptive awareness is when the ‘universal container or mind’ disappears along with the ‘mind of humanity’ ... whereas ‘choiceless awareness’ is when the ‘mind of humanity’ is realised to be the ‘universal container or mind’ made manifest. In other words: ‘Be still and know that I am God’. RESPONDENT: This is not very clear yet. Because the universal mind is not the end of the line. It is only the ‘subtle matter’ from what any existence or not, is ‘made’. It is the ultimate tool. The ultimate ground is ‘beyond it’. RICHARD: Ahh ... this ‘ultimate ground’ would be the same-same as what some call ‘the ground of being’? Or, as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti would say: ‘Not the god of the churches, the mosques, the synagogues – but that which is sacred, holy’. RESPONDENT: If the mind of humanity disappears, human beings disappear. RICHARD: The flesh and blood human disappear? Or the ‘human’ that ‘I’ feel and think that ‘I’ am inside this flesh and blood body disappears? RESPONDENT: If the universal mind disappears ... only god knows what would remain. RICHARD: Do you mean ‘god knows’ literally or as an expression (as in ‘nobody knows’)? RESPONDENT: But, maybe you could clear this ... I find it interesting. Words must be perfectly defined at this point ... and onwards. But let’s see. Mind of humanity is a fragment of the universal mind, made manifest as humanity. RICHARD: By ‘mind of humanity’ I was referring to the human mind (‘humanity’) writ large ... the psychological and psychic ‘mind’ inhabiting the flesh and blood brain (popularly known as the ‘lizard brain’) like a parasite. When ‘I’ disappear (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) the ‘mind of humanity’ disappears, in one flesh and blood body, and there is an actual freedom from the human condition. The already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent and one is walking around in the literal paradise that this verdant planet is ... simply hanging in the infinitude of this very material and perfect universe. The ‘mind of humanity’ and the ‘universal mind’ and the ‘ground of being’ are a product of ‘my’ mind ... not the other way around. RESPONDENT: This is the way I see it. For example: there might be other minds manifested, which would manifest other beings, eventually non-humans, but this last part may be taken as speculation. If you say that the mind of mankind disappears ... I don’t understand. RICHARD: The ‘mind of humanity’ is simply ‘my’ mind collectively ... ‘I am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is me’. When ‘I’ self-immolate, ‘humanity’ disappears out of this flesh and blood body. There may very well be carbon-based life forms elsewhere, but until space exploration is such that that is discovered ... this planet earth is the only known place where the universe is experiencing itself as an intelligent flesh and blood human being. There is no ‘natural intelligence’ running this universe.
RESPONDENT: The species goes on unconsciously, there is no need for ‘apperception’ as you call it. Nature takes care of it through the reproduction instinct, the auto-preservation instinct, hunger for food, drink ... the species goes on like any other animal species. For man who live by these instincts alone, meaning must be searched ‘outside’, there is need to become, to achieve, to win, to have more etc. I will find out that meaning is ‘this’, I don’t need the ‘more’. The more is for the one’s living from that centre. Now, the meaning is being lived, and I don’t participate in the current that takes care of the preservation of the species. The species will continue through the ‘crowds’. I as an apperceptive man, will now participate in something totally different. The species will eventually make it, or not. RICHARD: Yes ... some enterprising person did a head-count last year and estimated that only 0.00001 of the human population had ‘stepped out of the stream’. Which indicates that it is not something for ‘the masses’ (or ‘the crowds’ as you put it). It is an elite bunch of people that ‘now participate in something totally different’ is it not? RESPONDENT: Well, first I wonder how this enterprising person made this counting. RICHARD: It was Mr. Ken Wilber (writing in Mr. Andrew Cohen’s ‘What is Enlightenment’ magazine) who claimed, with some pride, that only about a thousand Enlightened Ones had emerged from 2,500 years of devout effort by millions of Buddhist monks. His estimate was, therefore, 0.0000001 of the population. RESPONDENT: Secondly, I wouldn’t say it’s an elite, because the option is open for everyone, really. RICHARD: If you examine the writings of virtually all the disciplines (if not all) you will find that the ‘inner circle’ acknowledge that release is not to be had by the ‘householder’ (by whatever name) and that only the dedicated monk has a chance for the ‘holy grail’. And of those monks (of any discipline) only 0.0000001 have attained release. So the option is not ‘open for everyone, really’ at all ... that platitude is but a sop for ‘the masses’. Just look at the tone you wrote with (above). Viz.: ‘Now, the meaning is being lived, and I don’t participate in the current that takes care of the preservation of the species. The species will continue through the ‘crowds’. I as an apperceptive man, will now participate in something totally different. The species will eventually make it, or not’. There is no such thing as ‘the species’ ... there is only flesh and blood human beings ... my fellow human being ... and I wish for each and everyone of us to ‘make it’ ... and then ‘the species’ will continue through happy and harmless human beings on the verdant paradise this planet earth is. Whereas ‘the species’ that you refer to that will continue through ‘the crowds’ is a malicious and sorrowful species ... is this what you wish for your future fellow human beings? Another 160,000,000 killed in wars this coming century? RESPONDENT: Most people are ‘satisfied’ with all this ... so way change? RICHARD: Speaking personally, no one I have met in fifty-two years of being on this planet has ever told me that they are satisfied with all this ... nor anyone I have read about or seen on the media. No one. RESPONDENT: But, yes, it seems that a small number of people makes the difference. RICHARD: Yes, a ‘small number of people’ have made an enormous difference ... they have kept the suffering humankind in appalling distress for 3,000 to 5,000 years. RESPONDENT: But if you don’t see the ‘mind of mankind’ as a whole, I wonder how do you see, or understand this difference. RICHARD: Oh, I understand better than you may think I do ... I understand only too well what you are aiming for. I lived it for eleven years ... thus I know it from the inside. It sucks. * RICHARD: Yet the genuine question (one that is relevant for all 6.0 billion peoples) is this: Why am I (No. 34) here? RESPONDENT: I just saw the No. 34. No. 34 is a bunch of memories/ images as result of accumulated experiences/ traumas/ images that appears when attention is not. It is desire to achieve results, mainly. RICHARD: In 1980, at the beginning of what was to be a four-hour PCE that was the turning-point in my life, ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ for what ‘I’ was (a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning social identity) and the instant ‘I’ saw ‘myself’ ... I was not that. Thus (when I reverted back to normal in the ‘real world’) ‘I’ knew, by direct experience, that ‘I’ was standing in the way of the actual being apparent ... and ‘I’ had to go – become extinct – and not try to become something ‘better’. That is, ‘I’ knew that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection. The only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate). RESPONDENT: Yes, I think I agree. To die is to be attent to the totality, it seems from here (attent means attention). It seems from here, that to lose ‘sight’ of the totality, implies in the immediate appearance of the inner centre, the conditioned being. RICHARD: Golly ... this paragraph has no relationship whatsoever to what I write. To die means to die (extinct means not exist) ... to die does not mean to continue to be in existence and ‘be attent to the totality’. * RICHARD: ‘My’ question was: How on earth am ‘I’ to do this? RESPONDENT: Elaborate this ... RICHARD: Given that ‘I’ knew, via direct experience, that ‘I’ could never, ever become perfect or be perfection ... then the only thing ‘I’ could do – the only thing ‘I’ had to do – was die (psychologically and psychically self-immolate) so that the already always existing perfection could become apparent. So when I asked (as an open question) ‘how do ‘I’ do it?’ the essential character of the perfection of the physical infinitude of this material universe was enabled by ‘my’ concurrence. RESPONDENT: It never happens to you that that conditioned centre appears uninvited? RICHARD: No, never. The ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ is extinct ... as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. There is no phoenix to arise from the ashes here. Thus I know, each moment again, why I am here. Yet the genuine question (one that is relevant for all 6.0 billion peoples) still remains: Why am I (No. 34) here? * RICHARD: Why does the ‘centred known observer’ exist in the first place? Is the ‘centred known observer’ really a product of time (as in ‘becomes in time’?). Or is there a more fundamental cause? (The fundamental cause of the ‘centred known observer’ must be ascertained in order to bring about fundamental change). RESPONDENT: The fundamental cause in time, seems to be the survival of the species. RICHARD: Thus the ‘centred known observer’ has, fundamentally, a biological cause ... genetically inherited. Therefore, any move to trigger the elimination of this fundamental self is to go against nature and nature’s drive for survival. A betrayal, in other words. RESPONDENT: It seems so. What is the exact meaning of betrayal? RICHARD: To be disloyal to or behave treacherously towards. To be like a rat deserting a sinking ship, in other words. RESPONDENT: You mean towards other people in general? RICHARD: No, towards ‘humanity’ (although, given ‘my’ identification of ‘humanity’ as being the flesh and blood bodies, it initially appears to be towards other people). RESPONDENT: It is a crazy and senseless life to be lived ... and I’m quite stupid. RICHARD: No, not ‘stupid’ ... ‘stupefied’. Self-castigation only makes one ripe for humility ... and humility is but pride standing on its head. How can one have dignity when one is humiliating oneself? How will this bring about clarity? RESPONDENT: Well ... John, Alice, Peter, No. 34, Richard ... these are a bunch of images. They behave ‘socially’, in a conditioned way ... they may help sometimes ... if watched closely. If left to act by themselves ... hmm ... may be trouble. RICHARD: I guess the word ‘stupefied’ fits well, because what you just wrote does not make any sense, in the context of what is being discussed. * RESPONDENT: This possibility of a possible change is attributed to an imaginary centred entity. RICHARD: Aye ... and, as the ‘imaginary centred entity’ has the backing of the full range of instinctually-generated passions (with their concomitant hormones) to keep itself intact, then any change so far in human history has been but a modification of what is. RESPONDENT: Human history ... yes, it’s collective madness. RICHARD: By ‘human history’ I also include those elitists ... the 0.00001 of the population. RESPONDENT: I don’t know anything about ‘them’. RICHARD: Do you not want to know where other people have gone wrong? Do you want to make the same mistakes over again? Do you not find it an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... but that on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed? In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. Because one does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. Because if you do not, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next. * RESPONDENT: I’m an atheist and materialist non-philosopher (...) The materiality of the world is not absolute (...) The actual world is absolute and ultimate, although ‘materiality’ may be questioned. RICHARD: The materiality of the ‘real world’ is certainly not absolute (...) The materiality of this actual world is absolute, however ... and ultimate. RESPONDENT: The senses transmit only electrical impulses. The totality of the manifested world is within your brain. RICHARD: Are you saying that there is more than what is perceived? And, if so, that this ‘more’ is unmanifest (as in not physically existing)? RESPONDENT: It is unmanifested to the human senses. It’s existence though is real. To say that it’s ‘not physically existing’ may give raise to questioning. Ultra-violet rays do exist, though we do not perceive them physically. RICHARD: Oh yes ... ultra-violet rays and radio-waves and such-like are perceptible physically by extension of the sense organs with physical aids (radio telescopes and electron microscopes and so on). What I was asking is: are you referring to something ‘more’ that will never be manifest to the human senses ... and will never be manifest to extensions to the human senses? RESPONDENT: We could refer to that also. The unknowable. Unavailable to the human mind. RICHARD: Yea verily ... um ... god only knows, eh? RESPONDENT: The totality of what you perceive as world is just a human mind interpretation. There is more then the human world. RICHARD: Indeed ... I call that which is ‘more than the human world’ this actual world (as distinct from the ‘real world). RESPONDENT: And all is immersed, contained in emptiness. RICHARD: This is a mystical concept (‘emptiness’ is another word for ‘universal mind’). RESPONDENT: No. It is the ‘more than the human world’ like: ‘human intelligence is the external aspect of a ‘law’’ RICHARD: Oh dear ... the ‘external aspect of a ‘law’’ is more mysticism. Out of emptiness arises the ‘Dhamma’, for example, which is the manifestation of the ‘embodied law’ ... or ‘Dharma’ or ‘Logos’ (as in ‘in the beginning was the word and the word was with god and the word was god’ ... and so on). RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Is the unknowable real, actual? RICHARD: The ‘unknowable’ is actual, yes ... accessible sensately as apperceptive awareness. * RICHARD: May I ask? Are you seeking peace-on-earth or the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’? RESPONDENT: I don’t understand. Is it some kind of a prayer? RICHARD: It is what the Christians say when referring to the only place where they are adamant that peace lies. Viz.: after physical death (as do Hindus with their ‘Mahasamadhi’ and Buddhists with their ‘Parinirvana’ and so for all the disciplines). RESPONDENT: I’m not seeking peace on earth. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is the impression I had gained from our correspondence. Like virtually all the rest, you are seeking ‘something else’ ... 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 for ever and a day. RESPONDENT: In that respect, what will be, will be ... although I may identify some correlations. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and what will be will be more wars and more murders and more rapes and more tortures and more domestic violence and more child abuse and more sadness and more loneliness and more grief and more depression and more suicides, eh? Because that is what ‘what will be, will be’ already looks like. RESPONDENT: I wouldn’t like to be a priest in your hands. RICHARD: Is this because the priests (and their ilk) have been actively perpetuating 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 through their desire for the ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ instead of peace-on-earth? Golly, are they not just like yourself ... only organised?
CORRESPONDENT No. 34 (Part Three) 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 |
