|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 52
RICHARD: The free-flow of information – instantly – is what the internet is all about. RESPONDENT: One of the important ways the Net has evolved to allow free-flow of information, is to separate forums into levels so that more experienced users can hold discussions unimpeded by the disruptions caused by lower-level discussants. So, if you have a list devoted to various themes relating to calculus, for example, you may exclude those who haven’t yet mastered algebra. RICHARD: Or, conversely, the very complexity of the ‘various themes relating to calculus’ would, of itself, automatically exclude those who have not yet mastered algebra. Thus there is no need for an artificial exclusion ... or an artificial excluder. RESPONDENT: This hierarchical structure helps to keep information free-flowing on the Net, unencumbered by frustrating overloads of frequently asked questions. RICHARD: Hmm ... hierarchy interests me not at all as it restricts the egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought which has made the internet famous. Speaking personally, I never, ever get frustrated by responding to ‘frequently asked questions’ (I am yet to have a question asked of me on these mailing lists which I have not heard before) for they are not to know that it is not a new question for me ... it is a new question for them. I am only too happy to respond ... I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. It is only when the same person asks the same question (usually re-arranged so as to make it look new) for the umpteenth time will I point out that we have gone over this territory before (and I am well-advanced into copy-pasting by this stage anyway). This sharing of information – this communication – is such fun.
RESPONDENT: One of the important ways the Net has evolved to allow free-flow of information, is to separate forums into levels so that more experienced users can hold discussions unimpeded by the disruptions caused by lower-level discussants. So, if you have a list devoted to various themes relating to calculus, for example, you may exclude those who haven’t yet mastered algebra. RICHARD: Or, conversely, the very complexity of the ‘various themes relating to calculus’ would, of itself, automatically exclude those who have not yet mastered algebra. Thus there is no need for an artificial exclusion ... or an artificial excluder. RESPONDENT: The complexity of the ‘various themes relating to calculus’ too often attracts participants who want to understand such complexity without first going through the prerequisite courses. This results in newbies asking questions which have already been determined by participants of the list. RICHARD: Yes ... and you, of course, enjoy sharing this information which has ‘already been determined by participants of the list’ with these ‘newbies’ (your fellow human beings)? RESPONDENT: This argues compellingly for using tools, both artificial and automated, as well as completely human and natural, to filter, moderate, and if necessary exclude some encroachments in order to preserve the signal-to-noise level of lists. RICHARD: Please advise me if I am understanding you correctly: are you saying that the attraction to learning, by your fellow human beings, the very eagerness to comprehend that which has ‘already been determined by participants of the list’ is experienced by you as being a ‘signal-to-noise’ effect or ‘encroachment’ into your level (into your territory) that is to be filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded? * RESPONDENT: This hierarchical structure helps to keep information free-flowing on the Net, unencumbered by frustrating overloads of frequently asked questions. RICHARD: Hmm ... hierarchy interests me not at all as it restricts the egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought which has made the internet famous. RESPONDENT: Regardless of what has made the Net famous, moderated lists make it beneficial and useful. RICHARD: May I ask? The moderated lists makes the internet ‘beneficial and useful’ for who? For those who do get filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded? Or for those who do not get filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded? Perhaps if I were to say it again: what made the internet famous is the egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – allows for an uninhibited expression and questioning. And thus advances human knowledge. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never, ever get frustrated by responding to ‘frequently asked questions’ (I am yet to have a question asked of me on these mailing lists which I have not heard before) for they are not to know that it is not a new question for me ... it is a new question for them. I am only too happy to respond ... I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: It boils down to a matter of personal preference (‘speaking personally’). RICHARD: Not so. It boils down to the absolute inability to ever become frustrated ... period. * RESPONDENT: So those who prefer moderated lists will gravitate to them ... RICHARD: Okay ... there are those peoples, of course, who enjoy being filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded just as there are those who enjoy filtering, moderating and, if necessary, excluding. Such a symbiotic relationship, in other words, is mutually satisfying and thus none seek to question its basic premise (and those that do question it will be filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded anyway). RESPONDENT: ... and those who find un-moderated lists more entertaining will participate there. RICHARD: Uh huh ... I find un-moderated lists, not only ‘entertaining’, but also rewarding in regards to an egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – allows for an uninhibited expression and questioning in that discussion cannot be filtered, moderated and, if necessary, excluded. And thus advances human knowledge. RESPONDENT: I like both kinds of lists, and participate in both. The lists I find most rewarding and practical are those which employ a certain amount of moderation. RICHARD: Yes ... I am gaining this impression from what you are saying. * RICHARD: It is only when the same person asks the same question (usually re-arranged so as to make it look new) for the umpteenth time will I point out that we have gone over this territory before (and I am well-advanced into copy-pasting by this stage anyway). This sharing of information – this communication – is such fun. RESPONDENT: Yes, I also enjoy it, and am well-advanced into using auto-delete files and filtering techniques so that I needn’t clog my hard drive with extraneous clutter. RICHARD: Oh? I never use ‘auto-delete files’ (whatever they are) and ‘filtering techniques’ as I welcome all contributions. I simply buy bigger hard-drives, double them up into pairs ... and back everything up onto multiple CD-Rom. Thus I have a wealth of input from my fellow human beings to refer anyone at all interested in what is being discussed to peruse at their leisure. If I had used ‘auto-delete files’ (whatever they are) and ‘filtering techniques’ these ‘newbies’ would have to start from scratch asking the same ‘frequently asked questions’ over and again. RESPONDENT: Some of the best, most productive, and successful lists on the Net are those which not only use automated moderating, but also require registration by users, thereby insuring security and high-quality posting. RICHARD: It all depends, of course, upon what criterion ‘best’, ‘most productive’, ‘successful’ and ‘high-quality’ is determined by ... and whomsoever it is that determines that criterion. Presumably those who do all the filtering, moderating and, if necessary, excluding are the ones who do this determining? If so, are you indicating that some sort of exclusive club is needed in order to enable peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Anyway, I like this ‘Listening-L’ list, and am happy to interact with you. RICHARD: Likewise ... as I said, I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: If everyone were as mature and responsible as you, filtering and moderation would fall into disuse. RICHARD: Ahh ... and this will come about via a process of filtering, moderating and, if necessary, excluding, eh? RESPONDENT: 10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness. RICHARD: I doubt it ... the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, wished me eternal damnation.
RESPONDENT: This hierarchical structure helps to keep information free-flowing on the Net unencumbered by frustrating overloads of frequently asked questions. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I never, ever get frustrated by responding to ‘frequently asked questions’ (I am yet to have a question asked of me on these mailing lists which I have not heard before) for they are not to know that it is not a new question for me ... it is a new question for them. I am only too happy to respond ... I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: It boils down to a matter of personal preference (‘speaking personally’). RICHARD: Not so. It boils down to the absolute inability to ever become frustrated ... period. RESPONDENT: ... those who prefer to imagine that they can never become frustrated haven’t been around much, in my opinion ... period. RICHARD: You may, of course, have whatever opinion you wish ... but it has nothing to do with what is actually happening. I never said that I ‘prefer to imagine’ that I never get frustrated: I clearly said that I never, ever get frustrated. I even accentuated this by saying that it ‘boils down’ to the absolute inability to ever become frustrated ... period. Which is why a ‘hierarchical structure’ set-up to obviate ‘frustrating overloads’ interests me not at all ... plus it restricts the egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought which has made the internet famous. And un-moderated sharing advances human knowledge. * RESPONDENT: I like this ‘Listening-L’ list, and am happy to interact with you. RICHARD: Likewise ... as I said, I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them. RESPONDENT: If everyone were as mature and responsible as you, filtering and moderation would fall into disuse. RICHARD: Ahh ... and this will come about via a process of filtering, moderating and, if necessary, excluding, eh? RESPONDENT: Yes, I think you’re catching on. RICHARD: What I am ‘catching on’ to is next you will be proposing that the way to peace is through war. * RESPONDENT: 10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness. RICHARD: I doubt it ... the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, wished me eternal damnation. RESPONDENT: It makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you. Perhaps you picked some false masters, or perhaps you deserved it. RICHARD: Oh ... so the true masters, in conjunction with blessing me with eternal kindness, will also wish me eternal damnation if I deserve it, eh? The question now is this: what evokes the deserving of eternal kindness and what incurs the deserving of eternal damnation? Second, what happens to the blessing of eternal kindness whilst this wishing of eternal damnation is happening (can the two co-exist)? Third, what part of their much publicised love-that-has-never-known-hate and compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes them wish eternal damnation upon me? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non?
RICHARD: 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: Look into the mind of a sleeping saint, and you’ll find the dreams of a criminal. Saints, sages, and seers are all bogus. There are only two kinds of people: The enlightened, and the unenlightened. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase what I wrote so as to meet with the requirements of your specific wording: ‘the enlightened’, 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 enlightened’? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non?
RESPONDENT No. 12: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ RESPONDENT: Good one, Richard. Here’s another: ‘Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.’ – RUMI- RICHARD: You are, of course, aware that Mr. Jalal Rumi was a mystical poet? Thus by ‘a field’ he does not mean a literal field (a physical field in time and space) – he is referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’ – whereas I am living in this actual world: the world of this body and that body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on ad infinitum. In regards to the total absence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world which I was writing about (further above) ... I need only refer to the following to find Mr. Jalal Rumi’s experience:
So, although Mr. Jalal Rumi had the nous to suss out that ‘ideas of wrong doing and right doing’ were merely that – ideas – he was clearly of the school that was into transforming ‘evil’ into ‘good’. This is because there is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ 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. The ending of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time as this body. Then the question is: how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non?
RESPONDENT: 10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness. RICHARD: I doubt it ... the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, wished me eternal damnation. RESPONDENT: It makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you. Perhaps you picked some false masters, or perhaps you deserved it. RICHARD: Oh ... so the true masters, in conjunction with blessing me with eternal kindness, will also wish me eternal damnation if I deserve it, eh? The question now is this: what evokes the deserving of eternal kindness and what incurs the deserving of eternal damnation? RESPONDENT: There is no ‘eternal damnation’ so just drop all these childish notions. RICHARD: Fair enough ... and you will be dropping the ‘childish notion’ of ‘eternal kindness’ too I presume? If not, perhaps you may see your way clear to explain what happens to the ‘childish notion’ of 10,000 enlightened masters busily blessing the exclusive club with eternal kindness whilst this ‘childish notion’ of the wishing of eternal damnation on the excluded many is happening (can the two ‘childish notions’ co-exist)? Also, what part of their much publicised ‘childish notion’ of a love-that-has-never-known-hate and ‘childish notion’ of a compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes them wish this ‘childish notion’ of eternal damnation? ‘Tis an intriguing – if albeit a ‘childish’ – question, non?
RESPONDENT No. 12: Take care. RICHARD: All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here. RESPONDENT: Good one, Richard. Here’s another: ‘Out beyond ideas of wrong doing and right doing there is a field. I’ll meet you there.’ – RUMI- RICHARD: You are, of course, aware that Mr. Jalal Rumi was a mystical poet? Thus by ‘a field’ he does not mean a literal field (a physical field in time and space) – he is referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’ – whereas I am living in this actual world: the world of this body and that body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: With some practice, you too could become a ‘mystical poet’ I suppose. RICHARD: No chance whatsoever ... there is nary a trace of mysticism in me (nor religiosity, spirituality or metaphysicality). May I ask? Is this your way of saying ‘yes I am aware that Mr. Jalal Rumi was a mystical poet’? And is this your way of saying ‘yes I am aware that by ‘a field’ he does not mean a literal field (a physical field in time and space)’? Also, is this your way of saying ‘yes I am aware he is referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’’? Just curious. * RICHARD: In regards to the total absence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world which I was writing about (further above) ... I need only refer to the following to find Mr. Jalal Rumi’s experience: [Mr. Jalal Rumi]: ‘Save those who return to truth and do righteous deeds. God will change their evil into good’. (Discourse 32: Fihi Ma Fihi ‘It Is What It Is’ Translation by A. J. Arberry; published 1961 as ‘Discourses of Rumi’). So, although Mr. Jalal Rumi had the nous to suss out that ‘ideas of wrong doing and right doing’ were merely that – ideas – he was clearly of the school that was into transforming ‘evil’ into ‘good’. This is because there is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ 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. The ending of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time as this body. Then the question is: how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non? RESPONDENT: Why would anyone ‘nurse malice and sorrow in one’s bosom’?? RICHARD: Probably because 10,000 enlightened masters have set such a sterling example to follow ... but there are 6.0 billion peoples on this planet holding their cherished feelings firmly to their breast that you could ask. They may all have some slightly different answer to mine ... so maybe you could sincerely ask yourself why you get frustrated, for example. With the requisite sincerity RESPONDENT: That sounds sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly. RICHARD: Aye ... all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on bear mute testimony to this ancient wisdom being very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’. There are not many who notice this fact, however.
RESPONDENT: 10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness. RICHARD: I doubt it ... the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, wished me eternal damnation. RESPONDENT: It makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you. Perhaps you picked some false masters, or perhaps you deserved it. RICHARD: Oh ... so the true masters, in conjunction with blessing me with eternal kindness, will also wish me eternal damnation if I deserve it, eh? The question now is this: what evokes the deserving of eternal kindness and what incurs the deserving of eternal damnation? RESPONDENT: There is no ‘eternal damnation’ so just drop all these childish notions. RICHARD: Fair enough ... and you will be dropping the ‘childish notion’ of ‘eternal kindness’ too I presume? RESPONDENT: What makes you think of kindness as a childish notion? RICHARD: Might I point out that the discussion is about the ‘eternal kindness’ that your 10,000 enlightened masters are busily blessing all those people who do not deserve eternal damnation with? Is it not pertinent to remember that it was you who found it quite normal(??) or natural(??) or commonplace(??) or easy(??) to say ‘it makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you ... perhaps you deserved it’ and not me? Indeed, your comment reads as if it were something that you instinctively know to be true despite all your latter protestations because, despite all their rhetoric to the contrary, their blessed ‘eternal kindness’ does not arise ex nihilo. In fact this is the very issue you wanted to set me right about in another thread (‘Re: A Radical Position’). Viz.:
Perhaps it may become clear if what you wrote to me was to be rearranged this way:
Which is why I asked what happens to the blessing of eternal kindness whilst this wishing of eternal damnation is happening (can the two co-exist)? And which is why I also asked what part of their much publicised love-that-has-never-known-hate and compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes them wish eternal damnation upon me? * RESPONDENT: ‘Eternal damnation’ is not only childish, it’s also stupid, ugly, wrong, and irresponsible. RICHARD: Yea verily ... ‘sick’ is the word that immediately sprang to mind because the human condition is indeed a sickness. RESPONDENT: Why? Because it lacks kindness. RICHARD: Aye ... this is their sublimated ‘dark side’ emerging (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and/or ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). The question I asked all those years ago was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the enlightened masters? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non?
RICHARD: As for it being ‘great fun’ communicating via the internet ... it is simply marvellous that I can sit here in my lounge-room in a seaside village and have my words be available, and potentially accessible by all 6.0 billion peoples on this planet (‘potentially’ meaning, of course, being given access to computers – such as in internet cafes – and the ability to read and comprehend English), totally free of charge ... and with nary a tree being chopped down in order to do so. RESPONDENT: Don’t forget to also read all 6.0 billion e-mail messages that they send to you. RICHARD: Yet I will never get 6.0 billion E-Mail messages because I have always considered that un-moderated mailing lists are second to none in regards to an egalitarian sharing of a breadth of experience and thought. The ‘free for all’ approach – reminiscent of parliamentary privilege – has allowed for an uninhibited expression and questioning and I thus have a wealth of input from my fellow human beings that anyone at all interested in what is being offered can peruse at their leisure. Of course, if I had used auto-delete files (whatever they are) and filtering techniques any one of all the 6.0 billion peoples on this planet would have to start from scratch by sending me an E-Mail asking me the same frequently asked questions over and again.
RICHARD: There are not many who notice this fact, however. RESPONDENT: Just because you don’t notice, doesn’t mean there are not many who do notice. RICHARD: Let me see if I can follow your train of thought ... I had written that, as there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world, all is carefree. You provided a quote from the mystical poet Mr. Jalal Rumi referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’. I pointed out that I am living in this actual world of time and space and form and that, in regards to the total absence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ I need only refer to the following to find Mr. Jalal Rumi’s experience in that respect:
I commented that, although Mr. Jalal Rumi had the nous to suss out that ‘ideas of wrong doing and right doing’ were merely that – ideas – he was clearly of the school that was into transforming ‘evil’ into ‘good’. I observed that this is because there is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in everyone – that all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’ – and that the ending of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ involves getting one’s head out of the clouds and beyond and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. The question, then, I noted, is how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? You asked why anyone would ‘nurse malice and sorrow in one’s bosom’ and I replied that it was probably because 10,000 enlightened masters have set such a sterling example to follow ... but that there are 6.0 billion peoples on this planet holding their cherished feelings firmly to their breast that you could ask. Either that or you could ask yourself why you get frustrated, for example, and that with sufficient sincerity the entire Pandora’s Box of feelings would open up for examination. You also observed that nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom sounded sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly and I agreed, saying that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on bear mute testimony to this ancient wisdom being very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’ ... I did add that there are not many who notice this fact, however. And now you are saying that ‘just because you don’t notice, doesn’t mean there are not many who do notice’. Two questions immediately spring to mind:
I would be very interested to hear about such people ... to compare notes, as it were.
RESPONDENT: There is no ‘eternal damnation’ so just drop all these childish notions. RICHARD: Fair enough ... and you will be dropping the ‘childish notion’ of ‘eternal kindness’ too I presume? RESPONDENT: What makes you think of kindness as a childish notion? RICHARD: Might I point out that the discussion is about the ‘eternal kindness’ that your 10,000 enlightened masters are busily blessing all those people who do not deserve eternal damnation with? Is it not pertinent to remember that it was you who found it quite normal(??) or natural(??) or commonplace(??) or easy(??) to say ‘it makes me sad to learn how enlightened masters have treated you ... perhaps you deserved it’ and not me? Indeed, your comment reads as if it were something that you instinctively know to be true despite all your latter protestations because, despite all their rhetoric to the contrary, their blessed ‘eternal kindness’ does not arise ex nihilo. In fact this is the very issue you wanted to set me right about in another thread (‘Re: A Radical Position’). Viz.: [Richard]: ‘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]: ‘Look into the mind of a sleeping saint, and you’ll find the dreams of a criminal. Saints, sages, and seers are all bogus. There are only two kinds of people: The enlightened, and the unenlightened. [Richard]: ‘I am only too happy to re-phrase what I wrote so as to meet with the requirements of your specific wording: ‘the enlightened’, 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 enlightened’? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non? Perhaps it may become clear if what you wrote to me was to be rearranged this way: ‘Look into the mind of a sleeping enlightened master, and you’ll find the dreams of a criminal. The supposed innocence of the 10,000 enlightened masters is all bogus. There are only two kinds of people thus far in human history: the normally sick, and the abnormally sick’. Which is why I asked what happens to the blessing of eternal kindness whilst this wishing of eternal damnation is happening (can the two co-exist)? And which is why I also asked what part of their much publicised love-that-has-never-known-hate and compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes them wish eternal damnation upon me? RESPONDENT: ‘Eternal damnation’ is not only childish, it’s also stupid, ugly, wrong, and irresponsible. RICHARD: Yea verily ... ‘sick’ is the word that immediately sprang to mind because the human condition is indeed a sickness. RESPONDENT: Why? Because it lacks kindness. RICHARD: Aye ... this is their sublimated ‘dark side’ emerging (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and/or ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). The question I asked all those years ago was: Just what is it that is going on in regards the supposed innocence of the enlightened masters? RESPONDENT: Enlightenment is what is happening in enlightened masters. To find out what enlightenment is, become enlightened. RICHARD: This does seem to be a sound approach, and, as you are on record as saying ‘look into the mind of a sleeping saint, and you’ll find the dreams of a criminal’ I can only presume that you became a saint yourself ... only to discover that you were thus a criminal? Similarly, as you are on record as also saying ‘saints, sages, and seers are all bogus’ I can also assume that you not only became a saint yourself but also a sage and then a seer ... and thus discovered that you were bogus as well as being a criminal, eh? However, the situation is not so clear-cut from the information you have provided so far where you say that ‘there are only two kinds of people: the enlightened, and the unenlightened’ ... maybe you did ‘become enlightened’ or maybe you have remained one of ‘the unenlightened’? I am unable to ascertain either way other than going by your latest (possibly sound) advice ‘enlightenment is what is happening in enlightened masters ... to find out what enlightenment is, become enlightened’ because I am sure that you would not be giving me untested and therefore speculative advice. Therefore it may well be reasonable to assume that you have indeed ‘become enlightened’ ... and to find a rational basis for making such a reasonable assumption I need only look to what else you have been saying. Viz.
As one of the hallmarks of the enlightened state is a denial of one’s roots (‘good’ has its roots in ‘evil’) I see that you too are in denial of these sublimated opposites (‘10,000 enlightened masters bless you with eternal kindness’ vis-à-vis ‘there is no ‘eternal damnation’ so just drop all these childish notions’). Which is why I asked what happens to the blessing of eternal kindness whilst this wishing of eternal damnation is happening (can the two co-exist)? And this (possibly) enlightened state of yours is why I can now ask you personally: what part of your much publicised love-that-has-never-known-hate and compassion-that-sorrow-has-never-touched is it that makes you endorse the wishing of eternal damnation upon me (‘... perhaps you deserved it’)? ‘Tis an intriguing question, non?
RICHARD: There are not many who notice this fact, however. RESPONDENT: Just because you don’t notice, doesn’t mean there are not many who do notice. RICHARD: Let me see if I can follow your train of thought ... I had written that, as there is no ‘good’ or ‘evil’ here in this actual world, all is carefree. You provided a quote from the mystical poet Mr. Jalal Rumi referring to that timeless and spaceless and formless ‘field’ which is located ‘out beyond ideas of right and wrong’. I pointed out that I am living in this actual world of time and space and form and that, in regards to the total absence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ I need only refer to the following to find Mr. Jalal Rumi’s experience in that respect: [Mr. Jalal Rumi]: ‘Save those who return to truth and do righteous deeds. God will change their evil into good’. I commented that, although Mr. Jalal Rumi had the nous to suss out that ‘ideas of wrong doing and right doing’ were merely that – ideas – he was clearly of the school that was into transforming ‘evil’ into ‘good’. I observed that this is because there is ‘good’ and ‘evil’ in everyone – that all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’ – and that the ending of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ involves getting one’s head out of the clouds and beyond and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. The question, then, I noted, is how on earth can one live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst one nurses malice and sorrow in one’s bosom? RESPONDENT: Obviously one ought not to nurse malice and sorrow in one’s bosom. RICHARD: If I might make a suggestion? One is well-advised to not fall into that oh-so-conditioned trap of ‘ought not’s and ‘should not’s and so on ... it smacks of rules and regulations replete with the promised rewards and dire punishments so prevalent in both the normal world (the materialist world) and the supranormal world (the spiritualist world). These promises of rewards and threats of punishment have been tried and tried again and again for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history and have failed and failed again and again for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history ... there is as much misery and mayhem now as there was then. Put simply: peace-on-earth will not be enabled through ‘ought not’s and ‘should not’s and other forms
of suppression or repression. It takes the sincerity of naively * RICHARD: You asked why anyone would ‘nurse malice and sorrow in one’s bosom’ and I replied that it was probably because 10,000 enlightened masters have set such a sterling example to follow ... but that there are 6.0 billion peoples on this planet holding their cherished feelings firmly to their breast that you could ask. Either that or you could ask yourself why you get frustrated, for example, and that with sufficient sincerity the entire Pandora’s Box of feelings would open up for examination. You also observed that nursing malice and sorrow to one’s bosom sounded sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly and I agreed, saying that all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on bear mute testimony to this ancient wisdom being very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’ ... I did add that there are not many who notice this fact, however. And now you are saying that ‘just because you don’t notice, doesn’t mean there are not many who do notice’. Two questions immediately spring to mind: (a) What is it I do not notice according to you? RESPONDENT: What you do not notice is not according to me ... RICHARD: If I may point out? It is indeed according to you ... here is the sequence of the exchange:
If you can follow this sequence you will see for yourself that I had already noticed that the sterling example of the ancient wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’ ... so that where you are now saying ‘what you do not notice is not according to me’ is, in fact, indeed according to you after all. Therefore my question still stands as being both accurate and relevant: What is it I do not notice according to you? RESPONDENT: ... it is according to your intent not to notice. RICHARD: Okay, let us do it this way: what is it ‘according to [Richard’s] intent not to notice’ that I am not noticing? I am not a mind-reader: if you want me to know, what it is that I do not notice because of my intent not to notice, you do see the need to type out on your keyboard what it is and then click ‘send’, do you not? It would save much to-ing and fro-ing of E-Mails. * RICHARD: [Two questions immediately spring to mind]: (b) Where are these many who have noticed that the sterling example of the ancient wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? RESPONDENT: ‘sterling example’?? Your sarcasm will prevent your understanding. RICHARD: I am somewhat nonplussed that you would feel that there is ‘sarcasm’
... perhaps the intent of what I am thus clearly conveying will be obvious via substitution of the word ‘sterling’ with the words ‘standard degree of fineness’? Viz.:
Now that this ‘sarcasm’, which you mistakenly felt to be inherent in my words, is thus set aside you may find your way clear to respond to the very valid query: where are all these people who have noticed this? Because I would be pleased to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: You’ll find an example of timeless (not ‘ancient’) wisdom when you ready yourself for it. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase what I wrote so as to meet with the requirements of your specific wording. Viz.:
As I have been ‘ready for it’ for many, many years now I would be very interested to hear about such people ... I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. Thus I would be delighted to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were.
RICHARD: Where are these many who have noticed that the ‘standard degree of fineness’ of the ancient wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? RESPONDENT: You’ll find an example of timeless (not ‘ancient’) wisdom when you ready yourself for it. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-phrase what I wrote so as to meet with the requirements of your specific wording. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘Where are these many who have noticed that the standard degree of fineness of the ‘timeless wisdom’ set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? As I have been ‘ready for it’ for many, many years now I would be very interested to hear about such people ... I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. Thus I would be delighted to hear about such people ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: I don‘t think you’ll find enlightened masters much interested in comparing notes, as you put it. RICHARD: Yet I am not asking where I will find ‘enlightened masters’ who are interested in comparing notes ... I am asking you where are these people of whom you say there are ‘many who do notice’ that the standard degree of fineness of the timeless wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? Are you having some difficulty backing your words with substance? RESPONDENT: You only need one enlightened master to get the idea. RICHARD: I very much doubt that any enlightened master would be interested in noticing that that the standard degree of fineness of the timeless wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’. As I have already remarked, the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, spoken of perdition rather than comparing notes: there was one ‘Spiritual Teacher’ who reportedly made me the subject of his nightly discourse whereupon he declared me insane ... and gravely warned his ‘students’ against Richard’s example. Perhaps it is concerns about job security that makes them unable to listen? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti was an enlightened master. RICHARD: What I appreciated about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was his ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’ advice. Viz.:
Might I ask whether you ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’? RESPONDENT: You don’t need to search farther than that. RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti noticed that that the standard degree of fineness of the timeless wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? If so, where did he say it? I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes; I have discussed these matters before with ‘K-readers’ both face-to-face and via the written word ... and nowhere have I found him to be even the slightest bit aware of this. I would be very interested to hear of your sources. RESPONDENT: You can become enlightened right now. Just stop thinking while remaining wide awake. RICHARD: Why? All is carefree in this actual world ... there is no ‘good’ nor ‘evil’ here.
RESPONDENT No. 20: Richard’s selection from K upon which he bases his interpretation is: [quote]: ‘Is the observer different at all? Or is he essentially the same as the observed? If he is the same, then there is no conflict, is there? Then intelligence operates and not conflict. ... Only when intelligence operates will there be peace, the intelligence that comes when one understands there is no division between the observer and the observed. The insight into that very fact, that very truth, brings this intelligence. This is a very serious thing ... there is no outside authority, nor inward authority. The only authority then is intelligence’. [endquote]. (‘Total Freedom’ (p-262) from talks in Saanen 1974. © 1996 Krishnamurti Foundation of America and Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.; All rights reserved; Published by HarperSanFrancisco). <SNIP>. RESPONDENT: He’s talking about self-observation. RICHARD: Where? He is speaking first of ‘insight’ then ‘intelligence’ and its ‘authority’ (as evidenced by his words ‘the insight into that very fact, that very truth [that the observer is the observed], brings this intelligence’) ... and ‘the only authority then is intelligence’. It is this very ‘insight’ that ‘brings this intelligence’ – not ‘self-observation’ – and this, he says, is ‘a very serious thing’. He says: ‘only when intelligence operates will there be peace’. Or, to put it another way, as there is ‘no division between the observer and the observed’ (despite thought having created a thought-division as ‘observer’ and ‘observed’) there never has been an ‘observer’ and ‘observed’ all along. The insight into ‘that very fact, that very truth’ brings ‘the only authority’ because there is no ‘outside authority’ nor ‘inward authority’. The tilling of the soil stages such as ‘self-observation’ are preliminary stages only.
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 |
