|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 42
RESPONDENT No. 25: Richard, when I read your posts I keep having the impression that you could be a CIA artificial intelligence entity attempting to play the spiritual messiah role. RICHARD: Yet I repeatedly say that there is no religiosity, no spirituality, no mysticality and no metaphysicality in me whatsoever ... that I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. I also say (repeatedly) that I set my sights further than merely being (yet again) another of the long list of failed Messiahs and Masters, Gurus and God-Men, Saints and Sages, Avatars and Saviours and that I am not likely to fall back into that position now that I am free from the human condition. I speak plainly, up-front, out-in-the-open, unambiguously and frankly ... I say what I mean and I mean what I say. How on earth anyone can get ‘playing the spiritual messiah role’ out of all my critiques on the ‘Tried and Failed’ beats me. So, as I do not know why you gain that impression ... it looks as if you will have to answer your own question. RESPONDENT No. 25: What a way to lead humanity – with a machine. RICHARD: What inspires you to assume I am ‘leading humanity’ ... I propose unilateral action. And what inspires you to liken me to a machine ... when machines cannot consciously reflect, plan and implement considered activity. RESPONDENT No. 25: As well as my concerns about the possibility of a big brother watching us. What do you say? RICHARD: If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in Mr. George Orwell’s paranoid fantasy I am
totally unconcerned. If one complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols one is left free to live one’s life
as wisely or as foolishly as one wishes. If you mean ‘a big brother’ as in an older sibling in a family hierarchy ...
such a person only has as much psychological and psychic power over you as you give them leave to have such an effect. Apart from
physical power, no-one can force their power on another without the other’s acquiescence and compliance. It is a truly and
remarkably free world we live in! RESPONDENT: Your answer could be improved with a bit of humour – become a little more human, like? RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but why just ‘a little more human, like’ though? Would you like me to include a dash of anger, perhaps? A sprinkling of hate? Toss in a trifling of sadness? A measure of grief? Add a garnish of love? Wrap it in compassion and !Bingo! ... a lot more human, like. RESPONDENT: Less robotic ... RICHARD: Speaking personally, what I find ‘robotic’ is all the oh-so-predictable wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed Messiah or Master, Guru or God-Man, Saint or Sage, Avatar or Saviour. Also, all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered religious or spiritual teaching renders its mute testimony to ‘robotic’ behaviour ... for anyone with the eyes to see. RESPONDENT: ... less staccato. RICHARD: And less fortissimo as well? More pianissimo maybe? RESPONDENT: While you reset the humour dial, the ‘claims’ dial could also do with a little going over. RICHARD: Are you of that school of thought that says ‘you can’t change human nature’?
RESPONDENT: Your answer could be improved with a bit of humour – become a little more human, like? RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... but why just ‘a little more human, like’ though? Would you like me to include a dash of anger, perhaps? A sprinkling of hate? Toss in a trifling of sadness? A measure of grief? Add a garnish of love? Wrap it in compassion and !Bingo! ... a lot more human, like. RESPONDENT: Less robotic ... RICHARD: Speaking personally, what I find ‘robotic’ is all the oh-so-predictable wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed Messiah or Master, Guru or God-Man, Saint or Sage, Avatar or Saviour. Also, all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered religious or spiritual teaching renders its mute testimony to ‘robotic’ behaviour ... for anyone with the eyes to see. RESPONDENT: ... less staccato. RICHARD: And less fortissimo as well? More pianissimo maybe? RESPONDENT: While you reset the humour dial, the ‘claims’ dial could also do with a little going over. RICHARD: Are you of that school of thought that says ‘you can’t change human nature’? RESPONDENT: I really don’t know much about it – k sounds very sensible to me when he says ‘you’ can’t change even yourself, let alone ‘human nature’, whatever that is. RICHARD: The phrase ‘human nature’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. Otherwise known as ‘the human condition’. As you find Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to be ‘very sensible’ when he says ‘‘you’ can’t change even yourself, let alone ‘human nature’’ then it is no wonder that you consider that my ‘‘claims’ dial could also do with a little going over’. Hence also your need for me to ‘reset the humour dial’. And as you say ‘I really don’t know much about it’ I must ask: do you make a habit of telling other people what to do when you do not really know yourself or was it a special exception in my case?
RICHARD: Simply in the spirit of balance and objectivity, and to see how he actually wrote and spoke, it did not take me long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows:
RESPONDENT: Thanks, Richard, I find this list strangely exhilarating. Have to wonder what that says about me. RICHARD: I would be very interested to hear what you discover as you explore what it ‘says about you’ as I find the subject fascinating. What have you discovered thus far? RESPONDENT: But aren’t all these words legitimate descriptions of what the world actually is, this man-made world in which we live? RICHARD: Very accurate indeed ... I am wont to describe it as ‘the litigious Land Of Lament’ when I am referring to the ‘real world’ (what you call ‘this man-made world’). RESPONDENT: If you sent a copy to Newt Gingrich or to the Republican politburo, they would probably thank you. Their language of political insult could do with a general overhaul; it has become such a stale code that the general public hardly responds to it any more. But perhaps they wouldn’t accept the gift, fearing that such language would be seen as a self-portrait their perverted ochlocracy. RICHARD: About a quarter of a century ago, when I learned that the Australian National Parliament was being broadcast on AM Radio whilst it was sitting, I tuned in for the first time in my life (being somewhat apolitical as I was). I was amazed, shocked and alarmed, as the dawning realisation came over me whilst I listened, riveted, that these squabbling, bickering, arguing, point-scoring, duck-shoving, backstabbing and bootlicking human beings were authorised by the populace to run this country. They had the power (backed by the officially sanctioned guns) to make major life-or-death decisions regarding the subject citizens (bearing in mind I had just recently finished six years of voluntarily serving in the military) ... and this was staggering to contemplate. What a fool I had been to believe. This foolish feeling enabled me to start looking into myself ... and I found the same-same in me. Ain’t life grand!
RICHARD: Simply in the spirit of balance and objectivity, and to see how he actually wrote and spoke, it did not take me long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows:
RESPONDENT: Thanks, Richard, I find this list strangely exhilarating. Have to wonder what that says about me. RICHARD: I would be very interested to hear what you discover as you explore what it ‘says about you’ as I find the subject fascinating. What have you discovered thus far? RESPONDENT: You’re kind of putting me on the spot there. Actually I feel it says nothing very deep about me other than I like his language very much. RICHARD: Okay ... what is it that you like about ‘his language’ then? That he calls a spade a spade? That is, if some aspect of human activity is to be accurately described as ‘degenerate, petty, self-serving, rubbish, parasitical ...’ and so on, he says so? RESPONDENT: It’s just that various people here have at times implied that my admiration for K’s language implies an uncritical acceptance of his words. I’m satisfied that that is not the case. RICHARD: I first read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1983 and, after reading hundreds of other authors on this subject since then, his articulate expression of the mystical solution to the human condition stands unsurpassed, as far as I am concerned (and no one can ever say that I have an uncritical acceptance). I would go so far as to say that no one else contributed so much, so clearly, and so consistently about the subject in the twentieth century. Even if such a contribution were only measured by the prodigious output and the vast collection of letters, diaries, other people’s recollections and so on ... but the eloquent language, yes, reflects his preparedness and his ability to subjectively explore with scant regard for traditional icons. RESPONDENT: But as a routine courtesy I attribute any borrowings to him, especially when I’m discussing statements that I feel I haven’t fully understood. RICHARD: Ahh ... perhaps herein lies the clue to ‘various people’ having ‘implied uncritical acceptance’ then. If you have not fully understood it is of little use to use another’s words (whoever) to otherwise explain/flesh out your point. Irregardless of the ‘do not interpret’ rule, one needs to be able to say the same thing in one’s own words ... or else it amounts to parroting (I am not being personal as I do not recall any of these instances of yours that you refer to). RESPONDENT: It seems strange that this site attracts so many who are entirely out of sympathy with K. RICHARD: Why strange? I consider his greatest contribution was his ‘doubt everything (question everything) ... including the speaker’. This forum’s openness to all views relating to human suffering reflects this wisdom wonderfully. And a critique has a different flavour to a criticism. I am not aware of any of the pointless ... um ... flaming that can happen on some other forums happening here. RESPONDENT: Not surprising when you think about it. There seem to be hordes of people who cut themselves loose from K, perhaps because they find the going too challenging, and then turn on him with a vengeance. But that is to be expected really. RICHARD: This is news to me ... I have not personally met any people such as you describe nor heard of any (but I do not move in whatever those circles are where this presumably takes place). The ‘going is challenging’, yes ... but then life is an adventure, when all is said and done.
RESPONDENT: ... we are what Einstein called the ‘pathological species’. It’s no more than the working out of our pathology, as long as we glorify our history, instead of seeing it with James Joyce as ‘the nightmare from which we need to awaken’ ... <snip> ... as long as we do nothing to cure our pathology, there is no sense. I’m raising the question of our pathology because I think we need to address it. Everyone for himself, not as a whole. As a whole we always wait for the other to go first. As a whole we’re stuck in the stench of our history. And we deserve it ... <snip> ... we deserve it because we do nothing about it ... <snip> ... can I address that, and do you care to address that ... <snip> ... does the possibility exist of working together? Not for reasons of comforting the self, but from an understanding of the necessity of doing so? RICHARD: I have taken the liberty of snipping out all the to-ing and fro-ing, through the many posts on this topic, which tend to obscure, move away from or circle around your central point ... because your central point, which you have doggedly stuck to no matter the responses, strikes me as being perhaps the most pertinent insight I have read on this Mailing List all year. For indeed it is so where each and every person continues to do nothing about their ‘pathology’, other than glorifying the ‘nightmare’ and the ‘stench of our history’, does one merit the full fruits of one’s culpability. And with reference to this accountability I take particular note of the following sentence:
... for herein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow (‘comforting the self’) and the perpetuation of suffering. Incidentally, the ‘innocent’ do not suffer ... innocence is something totally new to human experience.
RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, for stitching together such a coherent thread from my earlier posts. I must admit that I’m somewhat shocked by hearing my voice reflected in your summation in a way that sounds so much more cogent than when I speak on my own behalf. I’m a bit blown away by it, really. RICHARD: Excellent ... for it is your own cognisance being reflected back to you which you are being ‘blown away’ by. In the jargon it is called ‘being a light to oneself’. Ain’t life grand! RESPONDENT: When you say: ‘Incidentally, the ‘innocent’ do not suffer ... innocence is something totally new to human experience’, I wonder. RICHARD: I am, of course, using ‘innocence’ To be incapable of suffering is a blessing. RESPONDENT: Would it be because the innocent do not resist death or anything else they may meet in the course of life? Does lack of resistance mean no suffering? RICHARD: A person nursing malice and sorrow to their bosom may very well ‘not resist death or anything else’ until they are blue in the face and never, ever come across innocence. Quite the obverse, in fact: their ‘lack of resistance’ actively perpetuates suffering. RESPONDENT: Perhaps the acceptance of death is the key for the true appreciation of life. Without including (enclosing) death we miss the essence of life. RICHARD: All peoples I have spoken with at length deep down resent being here (‘I didn’t ask to be born’) and one cannot embrace death until one first appreciates the marvel of being alive. I would be particularly inclined to examine your sentence ‘... one could, of course, ask God why he has arranged things in this blatantly unfair way’ in this respect (with a view to locating the basic resentment). Indignation (a feeling associated with unfairness) is usually an indication of resentment, for example. RESPONDENT: One other point. I hadn’t equated ‘the glorification of sorrow’ (your term) with ‘comforting the self’. But in a new book by Sunanda Patwarden about her life with the k factor, she stresses how insistent he was on the subject of psychological hurt as the centre of the self. And thus ‘the perpetuation of suffering’ that you point to above. RICHARD: Yes, this is what I mean by the term ‘nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom’ ... which brings me back to your central point where each and every person, who continues to do nothing about their ‘pathology’, thus rightfully earns the full fruits of their culpability. I am specifically interested in exploring: ‘furthermore, hasn’t he [God] hidden the miracle of love in the deepest sorrow?’ for therein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow and the perpetuation of suffering.
RICHARD: I am specifically interested in exploring: ‘furthermore, hasn’t he [God] hidden the miracle of love in the deepest sorrow?’ for therein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow and the perpetuation of suffering. RESPONDENT: ‘God’ is here seen as a kind of stooge who messed up in allowing the innocent to suffer (as No. 20 seems to think), so in order to balance the negative with the positive, I wanted to credit him with having ‘hidden the miracle of love in the deepest sorrow’. But if we dismiss the fantasy of God, we may have to sacrifice the fanciful sentimentalism of the ‘suffering innocent’. RICHARD: Okay ... shall we then ‘dismiss the fantasy of God’ and ‘sacrifice the fanciful sentimentalism of the ‘suffering innocent’’ with the utmost dispatch? Now what? Has ‘the miracle of love [hidden] in the deepest sorrow’ vanished as a result of so doing? Has the ‘the deepest sorrow’ ceased? Or, at the very least, has ‘the glorification of sorrow’ ceased? RESPONDENT: Life must not be turned into a sentimental proposition of justice and fairness. These are good principles of correct human conduct, but we mustn’t project them unto nature. RICHARD: Indeed ... life is neither fair nor unfair, just or unjust. May I ask? How do you square this with your previous stance: ‘... one could, of course, ask God why he has arranged things in this blatantly unfair way’? When you ‘dismiss the fantasy of God’ and no longer ‘project them [justice and fairness] unto nature’ does ‘this blatantly unfair way’ that things are disappear as a result of so doing? Or, at the very least, has indignation/resentment ceased? RESPONDENT: Or even demand that others obey these principles. Principles can be obeyed only by those who accept them. RICHARD: Is it possible to live without the need for ‘principles’; without the need to ‘obey these principles’; without the need to ‘accept them’ (so that one may obey them)? For is this not what ‘innocence’ means? RESPONDENT: I can never be the judge of another’s behaviour. It’s questionable whether I should even judge my own. Isn’t that what traps us? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally: • Condone rape and child abuse? Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. RESPONDENT: In that trap perhaps we ‘invent’ and ‘glorify sorrow and perpetuate suffering’. We are proud to exhibit our hurt rather than ashamed about our failure to end it. RICHARD: As in ‘you have hurt my feelings’ (rather than ‘why do I nurse feelings to my bosom such that I actively invite being hurt all the time’)? RESPONDENT: The miracle of love is set free when the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed. RICHARD: Ahh ... this answers my question (further above) as to whether ‘the miracle of love
[hidden] in the deepest sorrow’ vanishes (when ‘the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed’). Okay ... the next
obvious question is this: what is it that makes it ‘the miracle of love’ 1. Is love a ‘miracle’ because it is hidden in sorrow? If it is (1) then is love dependent upon sorrow for its existence or is there some other reason for hiding in sorrow? If it is (2) then how is it that love is thaumaturgical yet has to skulk around in sorrow? RESPONDENT: Perhaps my remarks are a bit peripatetic. I could have spoken more directly I guess. RICHARD: No problem ... I consider we are proceeding famously. RESPONDENT: But I wasn’t sure that I understood your proposition 100%. RICHARD: I am associating your response (‘I hadn’t equated ‘the glorification of sorrow’ (your term) with ‘comforting the self’. But in a new book by Sunanda Patwarden about her life with the k factor, she stresses how insistent he was on the subject of psychological hurt as the centre of the self. And thus ‘the perpetuation of suffering’ that you point to above’) with my term (‘nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom’) ... plus staying with your central point where each and every person, who continues to do nothing about their ‘pathology’, thus rightfully earns the full fruits of their culpability. I took you literally where you asked: ‘does the possibility exist of working together? Not for reasons of comforting the self, but from an understanding of the necessity of doing so?’. I am not having an academic discussion – there will be no ‘comforting the self’ issuing forth from this pen – thus I always delve into the affective feelings. Put simply: the problem lies in the affective feelings (malice and sorrow) ... yet the solution proposed throughout ‘the stench of history’ also lies in the affective feelings (love and compassion). Which is why innocence is something totally new to human experience.
RICHARD: ... shall we then ‘dismiss the fantasy of God’ and ‘sacrifice the fanciful sentimentalism of the ‘suffering innocent’’ with the utmost dispatch? Now what? Has ‘the miracle of love [hidden] in the deepest sorrow’ vanished as a result of so doing? Has the ‘the deepest sorrow’ ceased? Or, at the very least, has ‘the glorification of sorrow’ ceased? RESPONDENT: Sorrow hasn’t ceased, perhaps, but it should be a little more accessible. RICHARD: Okay ... being ‘a little more accessible’ permits a deeper or more exhaustive exploration (which must be beneficial), eh? From this, more accessible position, could you see sorrow ever ceasing? Or is sorrow an essential part of life? RESPONDENT: The miracle of love I take to be the ground of reality itself, which we have buried underneath our worries. RICHARD: Aye ... there is more than a few people who speak of love being the ‘ground of reality’. It is significant that ‘the ground of reality’ is not only ‘hidden in sorrow’ but also ‘buried underneath worries’ ... is it not? It is especially significant seeing as we have dismissed ‘the fantasy of God’. * RESPONDENT: Life must not be turned into a sentimental proposition of justice and fairness. These are good principles of correct human conduct, but we mustn’t project them unto nature. Or even demand that others obey these principles. Principles can be obeyed only by those who accept them. RICHARD: Is it possible to live without the need for ‘principles’; without the need to ‘obey these principles’; without the need to ‘accept them’ (so that one may obey them)? For is this not what ‘innocence’ means? RESPONDENT: Let me be a little tentative here. It’s kind of new ground. What are principles? Aren’t they certain rules embedded in reality, perhaps including the laws of nature (gravity for instance) ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Surely the type of principles you were speaking of could not include the laws of nature such as gravity? The specific principles you were referring to in this exchange are ‘justice and fairness’ ... which you designate as being the ‘good principles of correct human conduct’ that were not to be ‘projected unto nature’. You also say that principles are ‘certain rules embedded in reality’ (and the ‘ground of reality’ we already know is the ‘miracle of love’) so both the principles such as ‘justice and fairness’ and ‘love’ itself (the ‘ground’ of the ‘reality’ they are embedded in) obviously are not nature (not natural). As we have already dismissed ‘the fantasy of God’ then principles embedded in reality such as gravity cannot be supernatural principles (God’s Law). As principles such as ‘justice and fairness’ cannot be natural principles (natural laws) or supernatural principles (God’s Laws) then they must be human principles (human laws), human love and a human ground of reality ... would you not say? If so – if they are indeed human principles – is it possible to live without the need for the human principles of ‘justice and fairness’; without the need to ‘obey’ these human principles; without the need to ‘accept’ these human principles (so that one may obey these human principles)? RESPONDENT: ... but also rules that govern the actions of the psyche, e.g. unresolved hurt will beget problems. Then it makes sense to say self-knowledge is the precondition of innocence. RICHARD: Bearing in mind that you said ‘let me be a little tentative here ... it’s kind of new ground’ would it be helpful to draw a distinction between two common uses of the word ‘principle’? (a) principles as rules or laws of cause and effect and (b) principles as rules or laws of moral and/or ethical values? Then it may be clearer what coming upon ‘innocence’ entails. * RESPONDENT: I can never be the judge of another’s behaviour. It’s questionable whether I should even judge my own. Isn’t that what traps us? RICHARD: Shall I put it this way (about not being judgmental)? Do you personally: Condone rape and child abuse? Approve of rape and child abuse? Have no opinion about rape and child abuse? Disapprove of rape and child abuse? Proscribe rape and child abuse? Is it not simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this judging is called making a decision regarding personal and communal salubrity. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure of your use of language here. RICHARD: I was responding to your statement that you ‘can never be the judge of another’s behaviour’. When a person rapes someone, or when a person abuses a child, that activity is called ‘behaviour’. As it is not your behaviour in the scenario I sketch then from your point of view that person’s behaviour (raping and abusing) is called ‘another’s behaviour’. What I am asking you this: • Do you personally condone that person’s behaviour? (Condone: overlook, disregard, ignore, close the eyes to, excuse, forgive, pardon). Put simply: if you are 100% genuine where you say that you ‘can never be the judge of another’s behaviour’ then you are relying upon other people (police, magistrates, jurors and so on) to do your ‘dirty work’ for you so that you will be (somewhat) safe from criminals or banditry in general. And if these police, magistrates, jurors and so on adopted your principle of never judging another’s behaviour as well as you then the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would soon rule the world. Perhaps, in hindsight, it was but an unliveable ideal? RESPONDENT: I also doubt that the person who is unhurt (innocent) needs rules to proscribe ‘rape and child abuse’. RICHARD: Ahh ... good. This is what I was asking (further above): is it possible to live without the need for ‘principles’; without the need to ‘obey these principles’; without the need to ‘accept them’ (so that one may obey them)? For is this not what ‘innocence’ means? RESPONDENT: The rules that society has invented to control human behaviour may be as much an expression of how low we have sunk as a necessity to regulate human conduct. RICHARD: Okay ... so rules (moral and/or ethical principles) are indeed human rules that human society has invented to control human behaviour ... which means that the ‘ground of reality’ they are embedded in (the ‘miracle of love’) is human love after all? And human love is an affective feeling ... as is hatred, for example. * RESPONDENT: In that trap perhaps we ‘invent’ and ‘glorify sorrow and perpetuate suffering’. We are proud to exhibit our hurt rather than ashamed about our failure to end it. RICHARD: As in ‘you have hurt my feelings’ (rather than ‘why do I nurse feelings to my bosom such that I actively invite being hurt all the time’)? RESPONDENT: Not just ‘you have hurt my feelings’, also ‘society hurt my feelings in the past. Now I’m an innocent wreck’. RICHARD: Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by ‘innocent’ in ‘innocent wreck’? I find it an odd juxtaposition of words given the meaning of the word ‘innocent’. * RESPONDENT: The miracle of love is set free when the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed. RICHARD: Ahh ... this answers my question (further above) as to whether ‘the miracle of love [hidden] in the deepest sorrow’ vanishes (when ‘the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed’). Okay ... the next obvious question is this: what is it that makes it ‘the miracle of love’? 1. Is love a ‘miracle’ because it is hidden in sorrow? Or: 2. Is love a ‘miracle’ because it has supernatural qualities? RESPONDENT: Why not both? As in ‘Love is when sorrow is understood’, but also ‘love is when the self is not’. RICHARD: Because if it is ‘both’ then you have not dismissed ‘the fantasy of God’ after all (any god’s love is supernatural). Shall we try again? • If it is (1) then is love dependent upon sorrow for its existence or is there some other reason for hiding in sorrow? * RESPONDENT: I wasn’t sure that I understood your proposition 100%. RICHARD: I took you literally where you asked: ‘does the possibility exist of working together? Not for reasons of comforting the self, but from an understanding of the necessity of doing so?’. I am not having an academic discussion – there will be no ‘comforting the self’ issuing forth from this pen – thus I always delve into the affective feelings. Put simply: the problem lies in the affective feelings (malice and sorrow) ... yet the solution proposed throughout ‘the stench of history’ also lies in the affective feelings (love and compassion). RESPONDENT: Thanks for replaying the above quote from my letter to No. 20. I have so often broached this issue of working together at this site and never received any discernible echo. Strange, when this is a place where those interested in k can get together. When he himself, in his latter years, tirelessly invoked the need to think together. RICHARD: Yes ... I do consider that mailing lists are second to none in regards to a largely uncensored contact with a breadth of experience and views. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – allows for an uninhibited expression and questioning. RESPONDENT: On your last sentence I’m not clear. I can see that ‘the problem lies in the affective feelings’, the unresolved feelings I would say. The solution I would think lies in the resolution of those feelings which makes room for love and compassion. RICHARD: What are you indicating by ‘the unresolved feelings’ and ‘the resolution of those feelings’? How would you satisfactorily resolve the feelings grouped under the catch-all words ‘malice and sorrow’? Do they not remain in situ after even the most earnest resolution (resolution is not the same as dissolution)? If there is no dissolution how on earth can there be innocence? * RICHARD: Which is why innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Your last sentence also gives me pause. I could let it go as another way of saying innocence is the end of hurt (experience). But it seems that you have something else in mind. RICHARD: No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent: all the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (usually anger and anguish disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, for just one example, purported to comprehend this salient point:
However, the Christian scriptures show that he could not live-up to his own ‘Teachings’ on at least two occasions in three years ... but, then again, his god (presumably whom you referred to as ‘God’ in this and prior posts) is an angry (yet antidotally loving) god; a vengeful (yet antidotally just) god; and a jealous (yet antidotally forgiving) god. If this is what innocence is then we may as well chuck in the towel now, eh? As I remarked before: the problem lies in the affective feelings (malice and sorrow) ... yet the solution (love and compassion) proposed by the saints and the sages and the seers for 3,000-5,000 years of recorded history also lies in the affective feelings. The evidence of history shows that the saints and the sages and the seers have been unable to extricate or isolate either love out from malice or compassion out from sorrow or vice versa ... the affective feelings are inextricably linked. This is why I picked-up on your statement about ‘the miracle of love’ being ‘hidden in the deepest sorrow’. For therein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow and the perpetuation of suffering.
RESPONDENT: ... rules that govern the actions of the psyche, e.g. unresolved hurt will beget problems. Then it makes sense to say self-knowledge is the precondition of innocence. RICHARD: ... would it be helpful to draw a distinction between two common uses of the word ‘principle’? (a) principles as rules or laws of cause and effect and (b) principles as rules or laws of moral and/or ethical values? <snip> RESPONDENT: The rules that society has invented to control human behaviour may be as much an expression of how low we have sunk as a necessity to regulate human conduct. RICHARD: Okay ... so rules (moral and/or ethical principles) are indeed human rules that human society has invented to control human behaviour ... which means that the ‘ground of reality’ they are embedded in (the ‘miracle of love’) is human love after all? RESPONDENT: Here I have a number of problems. First I would like to differentiate your ‘(b) principles as rules or laws of moral and/or ethical values?’ I see that there is something behind those rules, which I described as a psychological principle of hurt begetting all the problems of the ego. RICHARD: Aye, I got that the first time you said it (further above) and I responded: (a) principles as rules or laws of cause and effect. RESPONDENT: The ‘rules of conduct’ are society’s response to a misreading of the principle. If we are sensitive to the reality of the principle we don’t need rules. In this view love is not human. Not a human invention. RICHARD: I am not suggesting that love is a ‘human invention’ (as are morals and/or ethics) ... I am saying that if love is not a natural principle (as is the law of gravity) and not supernatural principle (as we have dismissed ‘the fantasy of God’) then love is human love. An affective feeling, in other words ... as is hatred, for example. * RICHARD: And human love is an affective feeling ... as is hatred, for example. RESPONDENT: Affective feelings live in the psyche, love is when there is no psyche, no need for one. The psyche being a complex defence mechanism. RICHARD: What you are suggesting here is that love is not an affective feeling (as the ‘affective feelings live in the psyche’ then when there ‘is no psyche’, you say, ‘love is’). You are also proposing that when ‘love is’ all the affective feelings disappear along with the psyche they live in. * RESPONDENT: In that trap perhaps we ‘invent’ and ‘glorify sorrow and perpetuate suffering’. We are proud to exhibit our hurt rather than ashamed about our failure to end it. RICHARD: As in ‘you have hurt my feelings’ (rather than ‘why do I nurse feelings to my bosom such that I actively invite being hurt all the time’)? RESPONDENT: Not just ‘you have hurt my feelings’, also ‘society hurt my feelings in the past. Now I’m an innocent wreck’. RICHARD: Perhaps you could expand upon what you mean by ‘innocent’ in ‘innocent wreck’? I find it an odd juxtaposition of words given the meaning of the word ‘innocent’. RESPONDENT: I would be happy with pseudo-innocent. RICHARD: Oh, I did not realise that ... I understood you to be wanting to go all the way. RESPONDENT: My quotation marks intend to signal that this is the voice of hurt speaking. RICHARD: Yes, I see that now. * RESPONDENT: The miracle of love is set free when the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed. RICHARD: Ahh ... this answers my question (further above) as to whether ‘the miracle of love [hidden] in the deepest sorrow’ vanishes (when ‘the sentimentalism of sorrow is exposed’). Okay ... the next obvious question is this: what is it that makes it ‘the miracle of love’? 1. Is love a ‘miracle’ because it is hidden in sorrow? Or: 2. Is love a ‘miracle’ because it has supernatural qualities? RESPONDENT: Why not both? As in ‘Love is when sorrow is understood’, but also ‘love is when the self is not’. RICHARD: Because if it is ‘both’ then you have not dismissed ‘the fantasy of God’ after all (any god’s love is supernatural). Shall we try again? If it is (1) then is love dependent upon sorrow for its existence or is there some other reason for hiding in sorrow? If it is (2) then how is it that love is thaumaturgical yet has to skulk around in sorrow? RESPONDENT: Not dependent on sorrow, but buried by sorrow. Our failure to understand the nature of love may give it the appearance of a shameful quality. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: Put simply: the problem lies in the affective feelings (malice and sorrow) ... yet the solution proposed throughout ‘the stench of history’ also lies in the affective feelings (love and compassion). RESPONDENT: ... I can see that ‘the problem lies in the affective feelings’, the unresolved feelings I would say. The solution I would think lies in the resolution of those feelings which makes room for love and compassion. RICHARD: What are you indicating by ‘the unresolved feelings’ and ‘the resolution of those feelings’? How would you satisfactorily resolve the feelings grouped under the catch-all words ‘malice and sorrow’? Do they not remain in situ after even the most earnest resolution (resolution is not the same as dissolution)? If there is no dissolution how on earth can there be innocence? RESPONDENT: If hurt is seen as the father of the psyche, which I take to be the cumulative affective illusion, then the ending of hurt (by exposure) would also end all affective accumulation. RICHARD: Okay. * RICHARD: Which is why innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Your last sentence also gives me pause. I could let it go as another way of saying innocence is the end of hurt (experience). But it seems that you have something else in mind. RICHARD: No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent: all the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (usually anger and anguish disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, for just one example, purported to comprehend this salient point: ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law ... it was said to the people long ago: ‘do not murder, anyone who murders will be subject to judgment’ ... but I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment ... be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect’. (Matthew 5:17, 21-22, 48). However, the Christian scriptures show that he could not live-up to his own ‘Teachings’ on at least two occasions in three years ... but, then again, his god (presumably whom you referred to as ‘God’ in this and prior posts) is an angry (yet antidotally loving) god; a vengeful (yet antidotally just) god; and a jealous (yet antidotally forgiving) god. If this is what innocence is then we may as well chuck in the towel now, eh? As I remarked before: the problem lies in the affective feelings (malice and sorrow) ... yet the solution (love and compassion) proposed by the saints and the sages and the seers for 3,000-5,000 years of recorded history also lies in the affective feelings. The evidence of history shows that the saints and the sages and the seers have been unable to extricate or isolate either love out from malice or compassion out from sorrow or vice versa ... the affective feelings are inextricably linked. This is why I picked-up on your statement about ‘the miracle of love’ being ‘hidden in the deepest sorrow’. For therein lies the key to understanding both the origin of the glorification of sorrow and the perpetuation of suffering. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure what to say here. My feeling is that I’ve already said it. So I’ll wait and see what you’ll do with it. Even if we should end our exchange here, I owe you for coming to my rescue in a number of hopeless encounters on this list, also for clarifying and helping me clarify my own thinking, and not least for the clarity of your dissection. RICHARD: Okay.
RESPONDENT: Richard, thanks for your last post. Also for the entire thread. I’m wondering, with the amount of agreement that your last answer seemed to contain, where we differ in the end. RICHARD: Ahh ... my use of ‘okay’ was too ambiguous and misleading, I see in hindsight, as I was intending to indicate that I had no further queries in those areas as you had explained yourself fully (indeed you said that ‘I’m not sure what to say here ... my feeling is that I’ve already said it’). I would have been better-off writing ‘Okay, I have the picture now’. For example, if I arrange some of your sentences sequentially it reads (to me) like this:
If I were coming from the point of view that love, as the ground of reality, is the miracle solution to all the ills of humankind I would be in broad agreement with what you write ... and would wish to pursue it further with you so as to have it manifest in my daily life. However, I lived that manifestation, night and day, for eleven years and thus have major reservations as to love’s miraculous qualities vis-à-vis peace on earth ... so this is where I consider we differ:
In brief: I am suggesting that love’s innocence, as the ground of reality revealed when the self is not, does not meet the ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by evil’ requirements for innocence (I cannot see how a person still subject to anger and anguish can be called innocent) ... which is why I propose that innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Your discussion of innocence leaves me stumped for its radical position. Since it excludes all humanity, as it has walked the earth to date, I don’t know what it would actually entail. RICHARD: It entails a total end to both malice and sorrow plus their antidotal love and compassion: innocence means peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... not an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’, as The Self (by whatever name), in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm. RESPONDENT: I’m also still wondering about your use of ‘affective feelings’, especially your inclusion of love in that category. RICHARD: Sure ... it is a radical proposition, I realise. However, this is because I have only ever been interested in bringing to an end 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 ... here on earth. RESPONDENT: Finally your use of the word ‘supernatural’ is unclear to me. Is there a link to ‘non-material’. RICHARD: Yes there is ... generally speaking the word ‘supernatural’, as contrasted to ‘natural’,
refers to anything of or pertaining to the psyche RESPONDENT: In case you feel like picking up on any of these topics, or – perhaps better – some other non-solicited items, I’d greatly appreciate it. RICHARD: Basically, I have only one topic: peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
RICHARD: If I were coming from the position that love, as the ground of reality, is the miracle solution to all the ills of humankind I would be in broad agreement with what you write ... and would wish to pursue it further with you so as to have it manifest in my daily life. However, I lived that manifestation, night and day, for eleven years and thus have major reservations as to love’s miraculous qualities vis-à-vis peace on earth ... so this is where I consider we differ:
In brief: I am suggesting that love’s innocence, as the ground of reality revealed when the self is not, does not meet the ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by evil’ requirements for innocence (I cannot see how a person still subject to anger and anguish can be called innocent) ... which is why I propose that innocence is something totally new to human experience. RESPONDENT: When there is no self, how could there be anger and anguish? RICHARD: Yes ... that was my very question all those years ago. The saints and sages and seers, who said there was no self, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? * RESPONDENT: Your discussion of innocence leaves me stumped for its radical position. Since it excludes all humanity, as it has walked the earth to date, I don’t know what it would actually entail. RICHARD: It entails a total end to both malice and sorrow plus their antidotal love and compassion: innocence means peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body ... not an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’, as The Self (by whatever name), in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm. RESPONDENT: I assume there have been people who were free from malice and sorrow. RICHARD: Yes, so did I, all those years ago ... only I did not realise it was an assumption of mine at the time. I was soon to find out, to my astonishment, that it was but an assumption when I first started my investigation. It was a stunning discovery ... and the question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? * RESPONDENT: In case you feel like picking up on any of these topics, or – perhaps better – some other non-solicited items, I’d greatly appreciate it. RICHARD: Basically, I have only one topic: peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: I wonder if you would be prepared to outline briefly how you arrived at your present position, especially why it requires some of the steps that I have been questioning. RICHARD: Put briefly: I have only ever been interested in peace-on-earth ... and the ‘I’ that was saw that it was as culpable as the next person (or as you put it so well ‘as long as we do nothing to cure our pathology there is no sense’). It made no sense whatsoever that a supposedly innocent person would be subject to anger and anguish from time-to-time. The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers?
RESPONDENT: In case you feel like picking up on any of these topics, or – perhaps better – some other non-solicited items, I’d greatly appreciate it. RICHARD: Basically, I have only one topic: peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: I wonder if you would be prepared to outline briefly how you arrived at your present position, especially why it requires some of the steps that I have been questioning. RICHARD: Put briefly: I have only ever been interested in peace-on-earth ... and the ‘I’ that was saw that it was as culpable as the next person (or as you put it so well ‘as long as we do nothing to cure our pathology there is no sense’). It made no sense whatsoever that a supposedly innocent person would be subject to anger and anguish from time-to-time. The question I asked was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the saints and sages and seers? RESPONDENT: I read your post, but am not clear of its focus. RICHARD: Basically, I have only one focus: peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Also I get a bit confused about earlier and later comments. RICHARD: Okay ... this one pretty well sums it all up:
No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent. All the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers) despite preaching peace and harmony. To take just one example from the multifarious scriptures (the collected works of many and varied saints and sages and seers) one only has to look to the example of Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene ... who purported to comprehend this salient point. Viz.:
However, the Christian scriptures show that he could not live-up to his own ‘Teachings’ on at least two occasions in three years ... but, then again, the source of his teachings – his god – is an angry (yet antidotally loving) god; a vengeful (yet antidotally just) god; and a jealous (yet antidotally forgiving) god. None of which meets the ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by evil’ requirements for innocence (I cannot see how a person still subject to anger and anguish can be called innocent). As for peace-on-earth, Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene said things such as: ‘my kingdom is not of this world (...) you are from below; I am from above; you are of this world; I am not (...) don’t imagine that I came to bring peace to the earth ... no, I came to bring a sword (...) in my Father’s house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you ... and if I go and prepare a place for you ... that where I am, there ye may be also ... and whither I go ye know, and the way ye know’? I also give this example as it is particularly pertinent at this time of the year for about 1.0 billion peoples living in the English-speaking western democracies ... whose morals and ethics are biblically-based (including the humanistic UN Declaration of Human Rights). All over the western world the majority of the peoples are looking forward to taking time off work and worries; looking forward to celebrating a cultural festival that is based on a religious event that supposedly occurred long ago in the past in another country. Familiar tunes – that are heard only at this time of the year – are being played on every radio station, in every television studio and in every large store one enters into. It is impossible to remain ignorant of the holiday-like atmosphere – it permeates every nook and cranny of this society that I live in – and I find that the revelry temporarily invigorates the population, whether they devoutly observe the religious anniversary or merely celebrate an annual secular carnival. People everywhere are expressing feelings of good-will, kindliness and merriment ... and thinking wistfully and hopefully of an imagined peace on earth. Around this time last year, and the year before that, and the years before that, some members of the local populace gathered communally on the village green, as evening fell, to sing together some evocative songs celebrating the arrival of their god-on-earth. It was a pretty sight; hundreds of flickering candles held by each person illuminated the scene as the resonance of many throats rose into the mellow air. The atmosphere was charged with an intensity of purpose that was rather sweet to witness ... the swelling voices harmonising, as in one accord they sung of peace on earth and good-will to all. And they seemed to mean it too, their passion of purpose was marred only by their lack of remembrance of the factual nature of all of the religious wars that have beset this fair planet for century upon century. Yet in the newspaper the following day it was remarked what a success the event had been, as the citizenry had gathered together in the eventide song to celebrate the ideal of peace. Little did the writer realise the utter irony of these words, for an ideal is not a fact. It is one thing to celebrate a visionary dream ... and another to demonstrate its actuality. No one, it seems, asks themselves how come, after 3,000 to 5,000 years of a recorded history, of many and varied saints and sages and seers preaching their ‘Sacred Solution’ to all and sundry, there is still as much misery and mayhem as back then. Because when one sincerely questions the ‘Teachers’, the ‘Teachings’ and the ‘Source’ of the ‘Teachings’ one will indubitably unearth this salient point: Despite all their rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not actually on their agenda.
CORRESPONDENT No. 42 (Part Two) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
