|
Richard’s Correspondence On Mailing List ‘C’ with Respondent No. 2
RICHARD: A person is amoral only when they can totally and reliably be capable of spontaneously interacting in the world of people, things and events, in a way that is neither personally insalubrious nor socially reprehensible, at all times and under any circumstance without exception. The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is? RESPONDENT: If there is just living there cannot be good and bad. RICHARD: Does your phrase ‘just living’ represent amorality for you (neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’)?
If so, what are the qualities that epitomise ‘just living’? <SNIP> Where you say ‘a child just lives’ you are clearly
stating that a child meets your criterion for ‘just living’ ... and that this is because what a child does is not ‘evil’. As
the definition of innocence RESPONDENT: Are you saying that a child is NOT born Innocent? Are you saying a child has evilness built in? I maintain that a child is born innocent. Please explain what you mean here. RICHARD: The hoary belief that all children are born innocent (the ‘Tabula Rasa’ theory) is dying a lingering death
... but dying it is. The genetic mapping project and brain imaging studies of recent times have conclusively shown empirically that instinctual
passions (the survival instincts) are physically encoded in the DNA and/or RNA of every foetus at conception. These genetically-inherited passions
include fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... and all sentient beings, to some degree or another, come biologically equipped with this
rudimentary ‘software package’ of basic animal passions per favour blind nature as a rough and ready start to life. And the potential for
malice RESPONDENT: So this shows that children have the POTENTIAL to be evil. RICHARD: Yes ... and more: it shows the source of both ‘good’ and ‘evil’ (fear and aggression are ‘savage’ passions and nurture and desire are ‘tender’ passions). RESPONDENT: Well – that does not take away from their innocence. I am not saying that children do not have the potential, they clearly do. I am merely saying that they do not have any ‘evil’ intentions when they are born. RICHARD: Yet it is intrinsic to the human condition ... this is the genesis, as it were, of malice. RESPONDENT: In other words they do not harbour hatred or ideas of revenge. They simply act in a way they deem appropriate to get what they need. There is nothing ‘evil’ in this. Their selfishness is necessary for their survival. There is nothing ‘evil’ in their selfishness. They have no concept of ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’. RICHARD: Do you not find this to be a trifle pedantic? No new-born baby has any ideas or concepts of anything at all ... let alone a ‘concept of ‘Right’ or ‘Wrong’. I am not talking of ideas or concepts ... but the inchoate wordless feelings, the embryonic affective reality, the primal passionate ‘being’ of being human. RESPONDENT: They act from their basic survival instincts. I still maintain they are born innocent. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? The basic survival instincts (the instinctual passions) are the source of ‘good feelings’ and ‘evil feelings’. * RICHARD: Where you correctly observe that the child ‘doesn’t care’, it shows that a child is inherently inconsiderate towards others ... which means that the (supposed) innocence of the child has inconsiderateness as one of its qualities. RESPONDENT: You miss the point here. The point is that the child is not aware of the qualities called ‘considerate’ or ‘inconsiderate’. RICHARD: Indeed not ... yet the child is inconsiderate (what you call ‘selfish’). RESPONDENT: Yes, but not intentionally so, the child simply acts from needs – he does not stop to consider others because he has no concept of ‘consideration’. This is different from Someone who deliberately and knowingly is inconsiderate – and chooses to hurt others. RICHARD: Yet that very ‘simply acting from needs’ has the full force of the rudimentary instinctual passions (as is evidenced in an infant’s ‘temper tantrums’, for example) for their demanding emotional power or for their insistent affective energy. * RESPONDENT: The child is selfish – but there is nothing wrong with that – because the child is not yet aware that there are others to consider. So the child’s quality of ‘being selfish’ is not ‘evil’ or ‘bad’. It is innocent. There is no evil intent. RICHARD: I am not talking of the legal definition for culpability here (wherein the offender has to know that they are doing wrong in order to be guilty). This is not a court of law ... this is biology. RESPONDENT: I am talking about intent. Intent is what matters. If I ACCIDENTALLY kill someone in my car – that is not ‘evil’. If I do it on PURPOSE it would be considered ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’. The INTENT is what matters. RICHARD: Are you really saying that any parent protecting their helpless progeny from a predator with all their might
and main is ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’ simply because of their ‘intent’ to kill. And does the same apply to the military
... who protect you and your kin from invaders? The police ... who protect you and your kin from banditry? Are they ‘evil’ or ‘wrong’
simply because of their ‘intent’ to kill? Do you propose nihilistic anarchism? Pacifism RESPONDENT: Actually LEGALLY it is different because the law says ‘ignorance of the law is no excuse’. RICHARD: Aye ... but if you have ever been a parent yourself you will know by direct experience that society requires
that you instil values and principles in your children * RESPONDENT: So ‘Inconsiderateness’ is NOT a quality of the child. The child is beyond all concepts of ‘considerate or inconsiderate’. RICHARD: Of course, no child has the slightest notion of any concepts at all ... let alone ‘concepts of considerate or inconsiderate’. It is their instinctively driven action (behaviour) that I am referring to as ‘inconsiderateness’. Apart from many, many painstaking studies done by biologists in this area, I have personally seen children less than 12 months old spitefully pinching their sibling, for example. I am not suggesting for a moment that this child knows that they are being spiteful, yet spite (which is malice in action) is what is driving them at that moment ... and impelling them into anti-social behaviour (which behaviour, of course, they do not know is socially reprehensible). RESPONDENT: The point here is that INTENTION is what matters. And the example of children pinching is probably learned behaviour. How can one be called ‘inconsiderate’ when they don’t know the standards that define the word? This is the same problem we have when dealing across cultures. What one culture considers ‘rude’ another considers quite acceptable. For example in India people generally ‘slurp’ their tea – it is quite normal. In English society that is considered rude. In parts of India giving bribes is a normal part of doing business – especially with government officials. The same behaviour in English society will get the person arrested. My point is that INTENTION is what matters. Does the person doing the act INTEND to hurt or harm the other person. This is what I am referring to. neither legal definitions nor biological instincts. This is what I mean by innocence. RICHARD: The studies by biologists and sociologists (and what I have personally seen) clearly indicates the intent to hurt and/or harm. The first time I witnessed it (25 years ago) was with my then 11 month old daughter who, whilst playing with dolls with her 22 month old sister who took one of her dolls from her, pinched her hard enough (with malicious intent) for her to cry. Conversely, when they would be playing blissfully together she would hug her (with affectionate intent) enough for giggles to ensue. It was through observing the children interacting that prompted me to find out about the many and various studies being made in this area ... it is well-researched. It is feelings that I am talking of ... not intellectualising. * RICHARD: You observe that as the child grows older it realises the inconvenience caused to others by its unawareness of
inconsiderateness ... thus what looks like innocence in a child is actually ignorance (not knowing). This awakening of awareness of others being
the same as oneself is what is called ‘theory of mind’ RESPONDENT: Yes – the child is innocent – but the innocence is from ignorance. This does not take the innocence away – it simply means it is a different type of innocence. The child is still innocent. RICHARD: I notice that you used the word ‘innocent/ innocence’ five times in this short response ... just repeating a hoary belief again and again like a mantra does not miraculously turn it into a fact. The fabled ‘innocence’ of child-hood (the ‘Tabula Rasa’ theory) turns out to be nothing more than a lack of knowledge, regarding the function that the instinctual passions play, on the part of those who invented that theory. Modern empirical scientific research has shone more than a little light on factors that the ancients simply did not yet know (satellite photographs and astronaut’s/ cosmonaut’s reports, for example, finally set the ‘flat earth’ theory conclusively to rest once and for all). A child is instinctively driven just as adults are ... only on a more rudimentary scale. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to overwhelm you with the magical chanting of the word ‘innocent’. Although come to think of it – that might not be a bad idea. So here goes ... innocent ... innocent ... innocent ... INNOCENT ... INNOCENT ... INNOCENT ... INNOCENT ... There. We are using the word ‘innocent’ in different ways. I am saying that innocence depends on ‘intention’. This is why we have disagreement on this point. RICHARD: I am describing the instinctual workings of the affective faculty (primary in an infant) ... not the mental workings of the cognitive faculty (secondary in an infant). * RICHARD: Where you state ‘we live in a society – not in isolation’ the ‘theory of mind’ undeniably signifies that, because one lives among one’s fellow human beings, one is as considerate towards others as one is towards oneself. And where you say ‘reactions are the central issue ... reactions happen from hurt feelings’ I am in full agreement with your observations (which are essentially about the affective feelings): when a person’s precious feelings get hurt (either justified or not) the faecal matter hits the rapidly turning blades and sensibility is nowhere to be found. Nations (which are nothing more and nothing less than peoples collectively) have feelings just the same ... hurt is inevitable to anyone nursing feelings to their bosom. However, unlike individual emotional hurts (resulting in fisticuffs or whatever), nations these days hurl million dollar missiles at each other ... a nation’s ‘fisticuffs’ do far more damage and cause far more destruction. Yet it is precipitated by the self-same affective feelings that each and every person holds so dear. RESPONDENT: The central issue here is ‘how are feelings hurt?’ Who has the power to hurt my feelings? If someone makes a statement that hurts my feelings – that is to do with me – not the other person. The other person was simply the trigger to cause a reaction inside me. If there was not a latent issue already there – there would be no reaction. For example – suppose some says to me ‘You are a television’ – I will just laugh at the idea. Of course I am not a television. However, if the statement is, ‘You are an IDIOT’, and the person then presents some evidence that shows that his statement may be valid – then I may feel hurt. That is because at some level I recognise that the statement has some truth – perhaps I am an idiot. So in reality the only person who can hurt me is me – others are simply triggers. People often say ‘The truth hurts’. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? Can you personally guarantee 100% to never, ever react to hurt feelings? Because even the ‘Enlightened Beings’ cannot ... there are more than a few recorded incidences of ‘Enlightened Beings’ displaying both anguish and anger, which clearly indicates that the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) does not bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is. The ‘Tried and True’ system is the ‘tried and failed’ system ... a system which has failed again and again for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history. RESPONDENT: OKAY – here goes. FULL ENLIGHTENMENT means KNOWING that there is ONLY ME HERE. It is SEEING beyond the illusion of many. Once you EXPERIENCE this – there is no more blame. RICHARD: As I have experienced this (that there is only ‘Me’) I intimately know what you speak of ... it is a sickness. RESPONDENT: It is not that blame is suppressed – it just doesn’t arise. It is cut at the roots. This is what enabled Jesus to say ‘Father forgive them for they know not what they do’ when he was being crucified. Now – did Jesus react? You tell me – do you call that a reaction? RICHARD: Surely you must realise that he would hardly react negatively in what was his finest hour? And he knew perfectly well why they were doing that anyway: he was to live-out what the scriptures ordained (to die, to spend three days in the underworld, to rise again) thus demonstrating that he was ‘God On Earth’ by being exempt from death ... so why would he blame them for being ‘God’s Instrument’? Yet when it comes to out-of-season fig trees not bearing fruit and money-changers at a temple going about their officially-sanctioned business ... he reacts, he gets angry, he blames. RESPONDENT: There are other examples. The fifth Sikh guru, Guru Arjan Dev suffered death too – and totally accepted it. One of his disciples said ‘I have the power to totally destroy this city – if you just give the word’. The Guru said he was happy in the will of the lord. RICHARD: Hmm ... someone who (as a matter of ethics) expressly forbids his followers to pay a fine which was imposed on him for refusing (as a matter of principle) to alter his scriptures, and was thus painfully tortured for his stance, is hardly a shining example for you to quote to prove your case that ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestows such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is (it is to no avail to quote scriptures to prove your case). RESPONDENT: Again what I am talking about is there are many cases of ‘no reaction’. Of course there are also examples of reactions – but were those beings enlightened? Bearing in mind there is ‘awakening’ and then there is total enlightenment. RICHARD: It would appear then, that according to your definition, there have only been ‘awakenings’ during 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history ... and no cases of ‘total enlightenment’. * RICHARD: Where you hypothesis that in ‘an enlightened person – or an enlightened society – ideally there will be no reactions’ you have to be referring to either (a) feelings not getting hurt (a coping method), or (b) no feelings to get hurt (the elimination of feelings). RESPONDENT: I am talking about taking responsibility for our own feelings – not blaming others. Which effectively means that I allow them to be themselves – to say what they choose. And even deeper than that – total acceptance of what happens. Recognising that things happen – that there is not necessarily an evil intent. Of course this leaves the matter of when there clearly appears to be an evil intent (e.g. when someone is instigating violence ... or stealing etc.). If we accept a higher purpose here – even then there will be no reaction (like when Jesus was taken before Pilate – he did not even protest his innocence ... but simply said to Pilate ‘You have no power unless it has been given to you by my father’ This is clearly the view of an enlightened being – who sees his father (God) as the doer. RICHARD: Hmm ... someone who gets angry, at out-of-season fig trees for not bearing fruit and at money-changers in a temple going about their officially-sanctioned business, is hardly a shining example for you to quote to prove your case. Anyone who quotes scriptures to prove their case is on a hiding to nowhere as they are shot-full of inconsistencies and blatant hypocrisies ... to say nothing of wrath and vengeance and jealousy and bloodshed and so on. Modern scholarly research has thoroughly scotched the ‘wisdom’ myth of the revered fables and legends of yore. RESPONDENT: You are making an assumption here that is not true. So he cursed the fig tree – what is that? RICHARD: In this case I am going by that saying ‘if it looks like a duck; if it waddles like a duck; if it quacks like a duck: it is a duck’. Therefore, it looks like ... um ... anger to me. RESPONDENT: Crime of the century? RICHARD: Yes ... for a (supposed) amoral embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name, it is indeed. RESPONDENT: Maybe you have been reading too much of Rajneesh – who talks of that example. RICHARD: Nope ... I can recall asking that question (and others) when I was six-seven years old. RESPONDENT: A church or temple is a place of worship. What are money-changers doing there? Did they run out of market stalls? RICHARD: No, they were doing ‘God’s Business’: changing the temple-goer’s Roman money (the hated conqueror’s
filthy lucre was the official currency by edict) into an acceptable coinage for the temple-goer’s temple donation (their religion required
tithing in an appropriate currency) ... and the merchants were appropriately situated in the temple fore-court, as per sanctity requirements, and
not the temple proper. A fresco by Mr. Giotto di Bondone (born 1267 CE, Vespignano, died 1337 CE, Firenze) shows that the event as occurring in
front of the temple was understood at least as early as 1304-06 CE, for example: As I remarked: the money-changers were going about their officially-sanctioned business. RESPONDENT: I mean – give the guy a break. RICHARD: Why? So that you can get ‘a break’ too, perchance? This (and many, many other examples) is why there is still wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like unto the present day. RESPONDENT: Maybe what he did was pretty justified. I don’t know – but maybe. RICHARD: Are you saying that anger is ‘good’ if it is justified? Like ... um ... righteous anger, perhaps? RESPONDENT: The second point here is – maybe he was just at the beginning of his awakening at the time. RICHARD: This was five days before his crucifixion (it is to no avail to quote scriptures to prove your case). RESPONDENT: The actions of someone who is awakened are very different from someone who is fully enlightened. RICHARD: May I ask? Why are you so ready to exonerate anyone, and anything that does not support your case, with lame-duck excuses? RESPONDENT: By the way, inconsistencies and apparent hypocrisy are the hallmark of awakening and enlightenment. RICHARD: I am well aware of the ‘inconsistencies’ ... any irrational ‘from the heart’ system must needs be inconsistent (which is why the ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘tried and failed’). And there is nothing ‘apparent’ about the hypocrisies ... they are indisputable hypocrisies. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It cannot be any other way. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it can. The genuine article (peace-on-earth) is entirely consistent and contains no hypocrisies whatsoever. RESPONDENT: An awakened person is in fact a walking contradiction. RICHARD: Indeed ... does this fact not make you just the teensiest bit suss? RESPONDENT: Of course you will not be able to make sense of him. RICHARD: Yet I can ... I know this delusion intimately. RESPONDENT: If you could – then you could understand enlightenment. RICHARD: Oh, I understand it very, very well ... experientially, from the inside. I was gullible enough to fall victim of that massive delusion for eleven narcissistic years. RESPONDENT: I am not saying there is no danger here – there clearly is – because anyone can pretend to be enlightened and misuse the trust they are given. RICHARD: Yet only the gullible trust ... and only a fool accepts someone’s trust. RESPONDENT: However this does take away from the fact that an enlightened person will be beyond your comprehension. RICHARD: Maybe it would be best to only speak for yourself ... an ‘enlightened person’ is not beyond my comprehension. RESPONDENT: In order to teach, the awakened one has to do whatever is necessary to show you the truth about yourself. RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you give a fellow human being such incredible power over you? * RICHARD: You then propose that ‘another will be inadvertently hurt ... that person does not react but just accepts it’ which indicates you have opted for option (a) by proposing either: (1) fatalism, or (2) tolerance ... by your advice to ‘just accept it’. RESPONDENT: I am indicating the way an enlightened person would behave. If you accept that ‘God’ is the doer (which Jesus accepted in the example above) – then there is nothing to react to. Reactions are cut at the root. Jesus said on the cross ‘Father – forgive them – for they know not what they do’. He is saying this about the very people who are nailing him to the cross. There is no reaction – he is not condemning them. Was Jesus a fatalist? Did he just tolerate being crucified? I don’t think he was either. I am not proposing either of those ... I am talking about ‘accepting what is’. RICHARD: Yet amongst ‘what is’ is wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and the such-like ... and your god wants you to ‘just accept’ all this mayhem and misery? RESPONDENT: Not My God – the God – if you want to use that word. RICHARD: No, I do not ‘want to use that word’ ... there is no ‘the’ god; there is only ‘your’ god or ‘his’ god or ‘her’ god and so on. Putting the word ‘the’ in front of a fantasy is a sneaky way of making it seem to be real (‘real’ as in existing independent of the emotion-backed feverish imagination that concocts it out of awe and dread). It is the same symptom as holds sway with Christians who try to tell me that I am in league with ‘The Devil’ (which is ‘their’ devil and has no existence outside of a Christian’s fear). RESPONDENT: God is just a way of explaining it. RICHARD: I understand ... it is ‘divinity’ by any other name. I also comprehend what Mr. Paul Tillich calls ‘the ground of being’ (not a god of the temples, the churches, the synagogues, the mosques and so on). RESPONDENT: OKAY – so if we don’t accept it, what else do you propose? Can you put a stop to it? Tell me how. RICHARD: For starters: one needs to fully acknowledge the biological imperative (the instinctual passions) which are
the root cause of all the ills of humankind. The genetically inherited passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) give rise to
malice Which means: 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: God is the doer – he acts through me and through you. RICHARD: Your god may very well act through you ... but I can assure you that no god acts through me: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. There is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I am an actualist ... not a spiritualist. RESPONDENT: So you don’t like the idea of a ‘God’. Well we can call it ‘your higher self’. It doesn’t matter what word you use. RICHARD: Shall I provide a list of what does not act through me so as to save time? Viz.: The Truth, The Absolute, The Supreme, The Mind, The Source, The Intelligence Behind Everything, The Underlying Cause, The Ground Of Being, Existence, The Self, The Higher Self, The True Self, The Real Self, The Greater Reality, The Spirit, The Soul, The Over-Soul, The Divine Presence, The Greatest, The Sublime, The Essence, The Tao, The Breath Of Life, The Core Of One’s Being, The Most High, The Highest Good, Thatness, Suchness, Isness, Mother Nature, Life Itself, Cosmic Consciousness, Nirvana, Satori, Samadhi, Sunyata ... and so on and so on. RESPONDENT: The point is – there is some force that created the universe. RICHARD: This infinite and eternal physical universe, being boundless and limitless, beginningless and endless, unborn and undying, has always been and always will be. As there is no creation there is no ‘force that created the universe’. RESPONDENT: That force directs your life. RICHARD: That ‘force’ may very well direct your life ... but I can assure you that no ‘force’ directs me: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. There is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever. I am an actualist ... not a spiritualist. RESPONDENT: You think you have free will? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: What determines your actions? RICHARD: The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: Your thoughts – right? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... mostly ‘automatic pilot’ operates via habituation. Something new to experience requires thought ... reflecting, comparing, evaluating, considering and then implementing. Altogether a rather delightful episodic event. RESPONDENT: Do you control your thoughts? RICHARD: This brain thinks thoughts perfectly without any ‘I’ or ‘me’ in there stuffing things up. RESPONDENT: Where do they come from? RICHARD: Are not thoughts neuronal activity betwixt the synapses? An electro-chemical process? As such they come from the calorific energy of foodstuffs plus oxygen from the air breathed. RESPONDENT: Can you CREATE thoughts? RICHARD: This brain thinks thoughts all of its own accord ... easily, simply and fluently. It is altogether a marvellous occurrence. RESPONDENT: If so – HOW do you create them? Spontaneously? Or by choice? If spontaneously, then you are saying they just come – so you are not creating them. If by choice – then that means you must DECIDE to think of a thought. If that is the case, then you must have a thought which says – ‘let me think of ... ‘. This is you deciding to create a thought. But where does THAT thought come from? You need another thought to create that one.. and so on. So you need an INFINITE number of thoughts in order to create ONE thought. This is clearly impossible. That means you cannot think thoughts into existence. So you do not create thoughts – you just appear to because you identify with the thoughts as if you had created them, saying: this is MY thought. So if you are not creating your thoughts – who is? RICHARD: Not ‘who’ is ... what is: this brain is what is generating thoughts (as required by the circumstances). * RESPONDENT: There are many ways of explaining this – this is just one way. It means I am no longer the doer – so I am no longer caught up in life – instead life happens to me. And I let it happen – I can still act – it does not mean fatalism. I am able to act as I am moved to act – but I do not mind what the result is. Another way of explaining this is what Krishnamurti said ‘This is my secret – I don’t mind what happens’. RICHARD: And so all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and
loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and such-like go on forever and a day simply because some God-Man said ‘I don’t mind what
happens’ ... and gullible acolytes cease thinking for themselves and continue to nurse malice RESPONDENT: No – the suffering does not happen BECAUSE of the God-man making a statement. RICHARD: If I may point out? I did not say that at all. I said that ‘and so ... [the suffering] ... goes on forever and a day’ (instead of stopping as the God-Men so readily promise). The suffering is already happening (every single sentient being is born this way per favour of blind nature’s survival package, known as the instinctual passions, which of survival necessity forms a rudimentary animal ‘self’ in the womb). RESPONDENT: I didn’t say cease thinking for yourself. I would say: think deeply, figure out what life is really about. Help others – create peace on earth. RICHARD: Yet peace-on-earth is already always here – it always has been and always will be – thus nobody needs to ‘create’ it. It is just that as an identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ are standing in the way of it being apparent. RESPONDENT: I am not against any of that. The only question is HOW. RICHARD: Via psychological and psychic ‘self’-immolation ... an altruistic ‘self’-sacrifice for the well-being of this body and that body and every body. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent for this flesh and blood body. When there are 6.0 billion ‘self’-sacrifices there is global peace-on-earth. But do not hold your breath waiting for global peace-on-earth ... it may very well be a long time coming. * RICHARD: You then propose a religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical or some form of metaphysical explanation (a ‘higher purpose’) for all the ills of humankind ... to the point of putting forward the notion (quoting an ‘Enlightened Being’s dictum that ‘God is the Doer’), that the Sikh’s God really did the killing of the 160,000,000 people ordinarily thought of as being killed by their fellow human beings in wars in the last 100 years. Likewise this ‘higher purpose’ accounts for 40,000,000 people ordinarily thought of as having killed themselves in the depths of despair in the same 100 year period (what mere mortals call suicide). RESPONDENT: Not the Sikh’s God. You are surmising there is more than one God. RICHARD: I am not surmising at all ... the last time I looked-up the subject there were nigh on 1200 gods (living and dead) and that is not counting all the Hindu demi-gods. RESPONDENT: There is ONLY ONE GOD. He (or it) does not belong to Sikhs, or Hindus or Muslims or Christians. Each religion gives him different names. But they are all agreed there is one God. RICHARD: Yea verily ... each religion does say that there is only one god: their god (all the other 1199 gods are either false gods or lesser gods). Ecumenicalism tends to be somewhat like political correctness in the ‘real world’ ... skin deep. RESPONDENT: In Hinduism there is also ONLY ONE God. The others are lesser beings given certain powers. Like the Goddess of wealth, Lakshmi. There is still only ONE God – the Hindus call him Brahm or Paramatma. If there was more than one God they might fight among themselves and then we’d really be in trouble. RICHARD: Yet the fables and legends are full of the gods fighting among themselves ... which clearly explicates why their much-promised metaphysical ‘Peace On Earth’ does not eventuate. RESPONDENT: The point of enlightenment is recognising the UNITY in creation. RICHARD: The point of enlightenment is self-aggrandisement ... and self-perpetuation via a spurious immortality in a specious after-life. RESPONDENT: Seeing the ONE manifested as many. Recognising that the ONE is the reality – the MANY (creation) – is a projection of the ONE. We now come to the apparent contradiction. Because GOD DOES NOTHING. He cannot do anything – because there is nothing to do. There is no time and space. There are no beings – no forms. Nothing happens. There is just pure existence. Yet God is also SIMULTANEOUSLY Doing everything. I go back to the example of the person lying on a bed and dreaming. It is true to say that he is doing nothing because really he is asleep on the bed. It is also true to say that he is CREATING the dream, and that he is the real DOER in the dream, because the dream characters are all his creation. Yet ironically even that is not true because the dream just happens – the characters appear to act of their own accord. The person having the dream does not know what will happen and does not consciously direct it. Do you see all the contradictions? RICHARD: Indeed I do ... all religiosity, spirituality, mysticality and metaphysicality is made up of nothing but contradictions. It comes from the heart, you see, which makes for a feverish imagination. RESPONDENT: Enlightenment also contains all these contradictions. I could equally say that YOU are the DOER because your REAL nature is the ONE-NESS. Whatever position you take – it can be contradicted. In the end you just remain silent – because everything you say can be shown to be a lie. RICHARD: I do not take ‘positions’ ... I am only ever interested in facts and actuality. For example: this flesh and blood body called Richard is going to die sometime in the next thirty years or so ... certainly before it is 200 years old. As I am this body I will decompose if buried or disperse as smoke and ash if burned. There could not be a more complete ending to me than this ... this cannot be ‘contradicted’. For this to be ‘shown to be a lie’ you will have to produce a human being in excess of (a certified) 200 years living. RESPONDENT: It just depends on how you view it. That is all we are doing in this e-mail. Showing that our view is right. But the truth is – both are right – it depends on your viewpoint. Your points also have equal validity. RICHARD: Once again ... I am talking facts and actuality: this glass and plastic object that these typed words appear on is a computer monitor ... there is no other view-point possible without being silly. Now, a fact may be misunderstood for a while, yet it always remains a fact irregardless of how it is viewed as a ‘truth’ (the moon used to be viewed as a goddess, for example, but all the while it was rock). * RESPONDENT: Krishna, in the Gita shows Arjuna that He (Krishna) is the creator, sustainer and destroyer of all. RICHARD: Aye ... and Islam has it that their god is the one and only god (it is to no avail to appeal to scriptures to prove your case). RESPONDENT: God is the creator, sustainer and destroyer. So the answer to your question is yes – God did it. But then WHO is God? GOD is who YOU really are. There is only ONE being alive – that is God. What we see here is illusion or maya. Maya is defined as that which appears to be real – but is not – like a dream. A dream appears to be real while it is happening – but it is not. When you awaken you say it was just a dream – it was not real. So we first have to get at the heart of the matter – what is real? That which changes – does not last – is not real. That which remains is real. RICHARD: This infinite and eternal physical universe certainly lasts ... which fits your criterion for being ‘not a dream’. Therefore, 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 and such-like are actually happening. RESPONDENT: Not it doesn’t. It may last a long time but it changes – it is within time and space. EVERYTHING within time and space changes and eventually decays. RICHARD: You are referring to the objects of the universe only as being the universe (which arrange and rearrange themselves endlessly) whilst the universe is the objects and the space they occupy and move around in and the time they take to move. The universe is time and space and form ... and being beginningless and endless, it lasts. RESPONDENT: I agree that they are all happening. Just like a dream is happening while you are dreaming. You are not real – you will not last. You will die. Even though you are alive right now. In the ultimate sense you are not real – but you exist at present. One day you will cease to exist. Only that is real – which NEVER ceases to exist. That is God – that is your own true nature. RICHARD: A useful working definition of ‘actual’ is: that which remains when one stops believing in it. RESPONDENT: When you recognise that as your true nature – that is awakening. Then you see others as the same – because that ONE-NESS is all there is. You then see unity in creation – and you have true love for all. RICHARD: As love is an affective feeling (arising out of the ‘tender’ instinctual passions) any ‘true love’
(and any ‘true compassion’ for that matter) is sourced in the rudimentary animal ‘self’ that forms of survival necessity in the womb. To
become free of the human condition one must dig deep into one’s affective feelings, deep down past the superficial emotions into the depths of
one’s being and see that malice Because if one does not, one may find oneself as malice and sorrow sublimating oneself into Love and Compassion – one will cease having one’s feelings happen to oneself as ego and instead become those sublimated feelings as soul in an on-going transcendent State Of Being – one will be Love Agapé and Divine Compassion as a ‘Supreme Being’. In other words: an infinitely expanded identity that is ‘Timeless’ and ‘Spaceless’ and ‘Formless’. To become free of the human condition requires the elimination of the instinctual passions ... not merely a transcendence of malice and sorrow. It does mean the end of ‘me’, however, as an identity in ‘my’ totality (‘being’ itself) and not just ‘I’ as ego surrendering and/or dissolving. * RESPONDENT: Guru Nanak describes God as ‘that which was, is, and always will be’. God is beyond time and space. On that level – which is the only truth – this is just a dream. Does it matter what happens in a dream? To a truly enlightened being – it makes no difference what happens here. Jesus appears to be such a person. There are others too. You see, there are two levels of reality – and from this level the other one is not easy to understand. From this level we are too concerned with what happens here. RICHARD: May I suggest? Peoples are not concerned enough ‘with what happens here’ ... peace-on-earth becomes apparent only to the one who is totally concerned. RESPONDENT: Can you create peace on earth if you have not found peace within yourself? Or will you just add to the conflict? RICHARD: There is no need to ‘create peace on earth’ as peace-on-earth is already always just here at this place in infinite space right now at this moment in eternal time ... it already has been and always will be. There is no ‘peace’ to be found ‘within yourself’ ... there is only heart and lungs and liver and kidney and the suchlike within this flesh and blood body. * RICHARD: Then you introduce your ‘True Morality’ which says that ‘we do not consciously harm another’ as one of its qualities ... which is the same-same as virtually any society’s morality (which prompts me to half-facetiously ask whether if one does ‘consciously harm another’ then is this act called a ‘True Immorality’!). Next, ‘respect for the freedom of others’ is another one of the qualities of ‘just living’ ... also just the same as virtually any society’s morality. So as to distinguish ‘True Morality’ from virtually any society’s morality you insist upon ‘living from the heart’ as being the criterion that promises success. I sincerely question the advisability of placing absolute reliability on an affective feeling (or feelings) as being the ultimate guide/authority on how to interact in the world of people, things and events as feelings are notoriously fickle. Maybe this is why ‘living from the heart’ has to be backed-up with a ‘True Morality’ ... presumably backed-up by God’s Authority? RESPONDENT: I am not talking about a ‘fixed set of rules’ like a society may create. Such rules become the cause of the problem. Whenever someone breaks one of the rules, we brand them ‘bad’ or ‘evil’ or ‘criminal’. That is what we want to get away from, because it creates double standards. When I do something wrong, I justify it – but when others do the same thing I condemn them. Where is the forgiveness? Or even the tolerance? We end up with a society where lots of us are doing things wrong – but we don’t get caught. Those who get caught are condemned. Jesus said ‘let him who is without sin cast the first stone’. That means we are not to judge – because we ourselves are not perfect. I am just giving some bible quotes to illustrate that what I am talking about is not different from what major religions are really teaching. It is just that we cannot live up to what Jesus taught because we are not awakened. He is talking from an awakened viewpoint. We did not even tolerate him – we crucified him. Fixed rules do not work for this reason. Especially the rule that ‘ignorance of the law is not excuse’. How can one be guilty of a crime that one is not even aware that he has committed? Our society laws are so ridiculous. When I am talking about living from the heart; I am talking about being truly human – caring, loving. The opposite of how we tend to live in our society. No more blame, no struggle – just acceptance of life as it happens. The problem here is that I am trying to put into words something I find hard to describe – it is just a way of living. You have to experience it to know what I am talking about. RICHARD: I have experienced it – for eleven years – thus I do ‘know what [you are] talking about’ ... and it sucks. RESPONDENT: How did you experience it? Did you experience awakening? Or did you follow some ‘enlightened teacher’? And why do you say it sucks? RICHARD: In 1980 I had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) that lasted for four hours. In that four hours I lived the peace-on-earth that is already always here now ... and I saw that ‘I’ (an emotional-mental construct) was standing in the way of this actual freedom being apparent twenty four hours of the day. In that peak experience I saw ‘myself’ for the social identity that ‘I’ was. ‘I’ was the end product of society and nothing more. ‘I’ was a passionate construct of all of the beliefs, values, morals, ethics, mores, customs, traditions, doctrines, ideologies and so on. ‘I’ was nothing but an fabrication in the psyche ... a social identity which is its conscience. Once I had seen this, I then saw that ‘I’ was a lost, lonely, frightened (and a very, very cunning) psychological entity ... what I later came to know as ‘ego’. Just as those Christians who are said to be possessed by an evil entity and need to be exorcised, I saw that every human being had been endowed with an identity as ego ... and it was called being normal. When ‘I’ saw that this was all ‘I’ was ... I was no longer that. I was me ... this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. To say that I was amazed rather fails to adequately describe the feeling of relief that after all there was a solution to the human situation here on earth. I was ecstatic. Incidentally, that ecstasy proved to be my undoing – as far as actual freedom is concerned. Ecstasy led to euphoria and euphoria led to bliss. In the blissful state I manifested and became Love Agapé which led to an emanation of Divine Compassion for all living beings who were suffering and in sorrow by virtue of the fact that they were ignorant of the ‘Divine Order’ ... for ‘The Absolute’ had been revealed to me in that Love and Compassion – it was that Love Agapé and Divine Compassion – and I had been chosen to bring this self-same Love and Compassion to earth. I was to go through a process, when I returned to normal, that would result in my being well-prepared to usher in this new age of peace and prosperity to all humankind. As this revelation continued, I saw a new ‘me’ coming into existence ... a grand ‘Me’, a glorious ‘Me’ and a spiritually fulfilling ‘Me’. I was the ‘Saviour Of Humankind’ (as all this was happening, a passing thought occurred which was briefly contemplated ... then banished: What was it that was observing these two other ‘me’s – the ego ‘me’ and the grand ‘Me’? This trifling question was to be of immense benefit years later when I realised that I was living in a massive and institutionalised delusion and that there was an actual freedom lying beyond ... but that is another story). Three nights later I had a similar experience and what I had witnessed on the first revelation was confirmed. Then nothing untoward happened for the next five months – this had been in late July 1980 – until on the first day of January in 1981 when I began a ‘process’ that was to last for nine months, culminating in my ‘Divine Awakening’ on an auspicious September morn. The ‘process’ was both prosaic and extraordinary: on the one hand I began undoing all the social conditioning which I had been subject to since birth and on the other hand I generated love for all and sundry. I examined all the social traditions and customs etc., one by one, and released myself from their iron grip. I diminished hate and anger and sadness and loneliness by surrendering to and living in love and compassion and oneness ... which is the best that a normal human could do by virtue of the socialisation process. I moved in and out of sacred states of heavenly bliss and Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and immersed myself in the entire ‘process’ with dedication and resolution. I adopted the principle of pacifism (‘turn the other cheek’) and developed Goodness of the highest order. I cleansed and purified myself of all impure thoughts and deeds and worked both hard and industriously in my daily work. I practised honesty and humility in all my interactions with other people and pondered the significance and ramifications of the Divine Order. I totally believed in and had supreme faith in The Absolute and its ability to bring about the metaphysical ‘Peace On Earth’ so long promised. That I was to play the central role in this Divine Plan no longer came as a surprise to me, as I began to realise that I had long yearned to be part of the Salvation Process. I understood that I had to die and be reborn and, consequently, went into a catatonic state that resulted in my being carted off to hospital and kept under intensive care for four hours until I came out of it. I was never to be the same again, as Divinity had been working on me whilst I was catatonic and from that date forward I was permanently in a state of human bliss and love ... I could do no wrong. About six weeks prior to the sixth September 1981 I had a revelation that I was going to really die this time, not become catatonic again, and that I was to prepare myself for it. I mustered all of my faith and resolution, renewed all of my trust and dedication, and awaited the day. The night before I could hardly maintain myself as a thinking, functioning human being as a blistering hot and cold burning sensation crept up the back of my spine and entered into the base of my neck just under the brain itself. I went to bed in desperation and frustration at my apparent inability to be good enough to carry this ‘process’ through to its supreme conclusion. The next morning I awoke and all was calm and quiet. Expressing relief at the cessation of the intensifying ‘process’ that had reached an unbearable level the night before, I lay back on my pillows to watch the rising sun (my bedroom faced east) through the large bedroom windows. All of a sudden I was gripped with the realisation that this was the moment! I was going to die! An intense fear raced throughout my body, rising in crescendo until I could scarcely take any more. As it reached a peak of stark terror, I realised that I had nothing to worry about and that I was to go with the ‘process’. In an instant all fear left me and I travelled deep into the depths of my very being. All of a sudden I was sitting bolt upright, laughing, as I realised that this that was IT! was such a simple thing ... all I had to do was die ... and that was the easiest thing in the world to do. Then the thought of leaving my family and friends overwhelmed me and I was thrust back on the bed sobbing. Then I was bolt upright once more laughing my head off ... then I was back on the pillows sobbing my heart out ... upright, laughing ... pillows sobbing ... upright laughing ... pillows sobbing. At the fifth or sixth time something turned over in the base of my brain – in the top of the brain-stem. I likened it to turning over a L.P. record in order to play the other side ... with the vital exception that it would never, ever turn back again. It was over. I had arrived. I had become Awakened to the Greater Reality. I was Love Agapé and Divine Compassion ... there was no separation between me and ‘The Absolute’. I had a Divine ‘Sense of Mission’ to spread ‘The Word’ and I embarked on fulfilling my Sacred Duty, gathering some disciples on the way ... until 1984. Then I started to question just what I was doing and just what had happened to me. Something seemed to be wrong ... this had all been done before by other Masters and Messiahs, Saints and Sages, Avatars and Saviours, Gurus And God-Men to no avail. In fact, instead of bringing Love and Peace, they had left in their wake much bloodshed and hatred ... and I was one of them! Accordingly I travelled to India to find out for myself exactly what was amiss with this whole ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ business by meeting some of these hallowed Gurus and God-Men and imbibing the centuries of Eastern spiritual tradition for myself ... instead of merely reading about it in books. It was to take me eleven years to get out of this massive institutionalised delusion I was living in and go beyond it to arrive at where I am today. It was eleven years of coming to terms with the understanding that what I was living was a massive delusion of narcissistic grandeur ... and that it was what every human being believed in, in some way, shape or form ... but that is yet a further story. Today, I am no longer an ‘Enlightened Master’ living in an exalted ‘State of Being’ ... I am me as-this-body only, a fellow human being who has no malic or sorrow whatsoever to sublimate and transcend; hence I am both happy and harmless. I am what I was on that fateful night in 1980 when I asked the question: ‘what was it that was observing these two ‘me’s – the ego ‘me’ and the grand ‘Me’?’ I am these sense organs in operation: this seeing is me, this hearing is me, this tasting is me, this touching is me, this smelling is me, and this thinking is me. Whereas ‘I’, the identity, am inside the body: looking out through ‘my’ eyes as if looking out through a window, listening through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting through ‘my’ tongue, touching through ‘my’ skin, smelling through ‘my’ nose, and thinking through ‘my’ brain. Of course ‘I’ must feel isolated, alienated, alone and lonely, for ‘I’ am cut off from the magnificence of the actual world ... the world as-it-is ... by ‘my’ very presence. Thus there are three I’s altogether, but only one is actual. And only the actual is amoral.
RICHARD: What I was curious about was whether your phrase ‘just living’ represented amorality for you (neither ‘good’ nor ‘bad’) and that, if so, what the qualities were that epitomised ‘just living’? What I gathered, from your response, is that ‘just living’ is not amorality at all ... and is, in fact, predicated on a ‘True Morality’ that is based on (so far unnamed) heart-felt feelings and at least two clearly stated dictums regarding how other people are treated (with no stated qualities on how you treat yourself). Is this a fair appraisal? RESPONDENT: No – totally unfair – just living epitomises being amoral. Beyond all morals. It is just I like talking about morality too. RICHARD: Perhaps you have missed the point that amoral means neither moral nor immoral? Because you talk of a ‘True Morality’ in your ‘just living’ and at least two clearly stated qualities regarding how other people are treated: (1) ‘we do not consciously harm another’ and (2) ‘respect for the freedom of others’ which are the same as virtually any society’s morals ... yet here you say ‘just living epitomises being amoral ... beyond all morals’. Can you satisfactorily explain these conflicting statements ... without recourse to that mystical nonsense about paradox? RESPONDENT: (1) not consciously harming another. I am not talking about morality here. I am talking about living in a way that recognises that we are all one. So one sign of this is that I would not consciously harm another. RICHARD: Yet when one does consciously harm another (when push comes to shove the animal instincts come to the fore) is this then called ‘True Immorality’ (virtually any society’s immorality writ large)? Because even the ‘Enlightened Beings’ demonstrate ‘True Immorality’ ... there are more than a few recorded incidences of ‘Enlightened Beings’ displaying both anguish and anger, which clearly indicates that the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) does not bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is. RESPONDENT: (2) Respect for the freedom of others – again I would allow others the freedom to find their own truth – so I respect their freedom. RICHARD: Yet when one does not ‘respect for the freedom of others’ (when ‘feelings get hurt and reactions happen from hurt feelings’ whilst busily ‘just living’) ... then what happens? Where is the amorality then? RESPONDENT: A society’s morals are different – they are a fixed set of rules, laws. RICHARD: Am I to take it that (1) ‘we do not consciously harm another’ and (2) ‘respect for the freedom of others’ are not ‘a fixed set of rules, laws’ then? This means, therefore, that an ‘Enlightened Being’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) can indeed ‘consciously harm another’ and ‘disrespect the freedom of others’ ... provided they are ‘being truly human – caring, loving’? Which means they can lovingly kill a fellow human being? RESPONDENT: People who break them are called criminals and they are ‘bad’. This creates the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ category – which is the root cause of conflict. The ‘bad’ are condemned so it is okay to ‘punish them’ – or in the case of countries to wage war against them. So the morals serve to create further conflict. In the ‘amoral’ case I do not enforce my way of living on others – I never call anyone ‘bad’. There is no more condemning. RICHARD: Put it this way (about that ‘no more condemning’ principle of yours) do you personally:
Do you see what I mean about ‘unliveable edicts handed down by bodiless entities’? It is simply a fact that one makes appraisals of situations and circumstances each moment again in one’s daily life ... this is called making a decision. And all those wannabe ‘Enlightened Beings’ castigate anyone who thinks for themselves ... whilst secretly doing the very self-same thing (judging others). * RESPONDENT: Awakening is the beginning ... the goal of total enlightenment only happens (I believe) when we lose all desires. RICHARD: Okay ... but does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is? Is the ‘loss of all desires’ (including the desire for peace-on-earth) the factor that precludes amorality from happening in ‘total enlightenment’? RESPONDENT: You talk about amorality as being a remarkable freedom. Yet you appear to want peace on earth. RICHARD: Morality is only ever needed as an antidote to immorality; where there is no immorality, there is no morality.
Whilst one is busy being moral (desperately covering-up one’s immorality) peace-on-earth is nowhere to be seen. For example, when one ceases to
nurse malice RESPONDENT: I agree with you – no more malice and sorrow. When we all live that way then yes – we have peace. You can do that yourself – remove malice and sorrow – but how do you get others to do the same? RICHARD: By example and not just precept. Which means: putting one’s money where one’s mouth is (practice what one preaches). No more inconsistencies; no more contradictions; no more hypocrisies; no more justifications; no more lame-duck excuses ... and so on. * RESPONDENT: You talk about solipsism later – as if this is evil or bad. Yet being beyond all desires means that one will not care about peace on earth – that one will not get involved with the suffering or happiness of anyone – knowing there is a higher purpose. I would say that true and final enlightenment is beyond all desires and includes amorality. RICHARD: But I did not indicate that solipsism was ‘evil or bad’ ... I noted that your paragraph displayed ‘a very, very sick attitude towards the pain and suffering of 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 and the such-like’ (particularly the ‘no desire for world peace’ observation and the ‘who cares if is was a nightmare ... it was not real’ head-in-the-sand statement that cavalierly dismisses all pain and suffering). As you have repeated it above (‘one will not care about peace on earth’) it was obviously not an hastily-written or casual statement ... but a central part of your philosophy of life. Look well at what you say further below (‘none of this is really happening – it is the dream – and there is nothing to do here’) ... try telling that to someone who has just been raped; try telling that to someone who is in a trench on the front-line; try telling that to someone being tortured; try telling that to the person on the receiving end of domestic violence; try telling that to the recipient of child abuse; try telling that to someone sliding down the slippery-slope of sadness to loneliness to melancholy to depression and then suicide. More specifically, try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Hindu soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by zealous Christians; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Buddhist/Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion. If your wife and/or daughter and/or mother and/or grandmother and/or sister was being brutally raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘None of this is really happening – it is the dream – and there is nothing to do here’? RESPONDENT: What you are seeking is impossible in a dualistic world. You want ‘good’ without ‘bad’. RICHARD: Not so ... when both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ disappear (which is the end of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety) peace-on-earth becomes apparent. There is no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in actuality; and because there is no ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in the actual world of sensuous delight – where one lives as this flesh and blood body – one then lives freely in the magical paradise that this verdant earth floating in the infinitude of the universe actually is. Being here at this moment in eternal time and this place in infinite space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending. RESPONDENT: You want just ‘day’ and no ‘night’. This is the nature of this world of form. There will always be both sides. RICHARD: This is sloppy analogising. Both ‘day’ and ‘night’ are physical events which exist independent of human thought and feeling ... whereas ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are emotionally-backed mental constructs based on extinguishable instinctual passions. That is, ‘day’ and ‘night’ endure for as long as the planet earth revolves and the sun glows hot ... whereas ‘good’ and ‘bad’ exist only whilst one nurses malice and sorrow to one’s bosom so as to antidotally generate the compensatory love and compassion. RESPONDENT: When there is world peace someone will come along and demand more – and create war. RICHARD: Not so ... what part of the phrase ‘world peace’ do you not understand? There will be global peace-on-earth only when there are 6.0 billion outbreaks of individual peace-on-earth ... hence no one to ‘come along and demand more’. RESPONDENT: How can you stop them? While there is ‘wanting’ and selfishness – there will be conflict. RICHARD: Indeed ... only unilateral action will do the trick (do not hold your breath waiting for global peace-on-earth). RESPONDENT: The origin is the ego – the ‘I’ – from that comes ‘mine’ and wanting more. This necessarily creates conflict. RICHARD: You may have gathered by now that the ‘origin’ lies deeper than ‘I’ as ego with all its petty demands. RESPONDENT: The ‘have nots’ rebel because they want more. Life is impossible without pain and suffering. First there is bodily suffering – illness. Then there is mental suffering. You cannot avoid it. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it is helpful to draw a distinction betwixt physical pain and emotional/mental pain. Physical pain is essential, else one could be sitting on a hot-plate and not know that one’s bum was on fire until one saw the smoke rising. Emotional and mental pain (which is what I indicate by using ‘animosity’ and ‘anguish’) are totally unnecessary. The only pain I ever experience is physical pain ... 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 and the such-like do not mentally or emotionally pain me at all. As there is no ‘being’ in this body there are no precious feelings – no affective faculty whatsoever – and no ones’ animosity or anguish touches me at all (there is no ‘being’ to be touched). RESPONDENT: Nothing is permanent here – in the end you will die anyway. RICHARD: Aye ... physical death is essential: if it were not for death one could not be happy and harmless. RESPONDENT: Many times awakening happens through suffering – as one realises that there is no peace here. The only true peace is in knowing who you are. All other peace is temporary and false. RICHARD: The genuine article (the already always existing peace-on-earth) is not ‘temporary and false’ ... it never goes away for it has never been away. It was only that ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul was standing in the way. RESPONDENT: Will you enforce world peace? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: How? RICHARD: Nothing lasting is ever gained through coercion. RESPONDENT: It is impossible. Suppose a government puts up taxes. Some citizens refuse to pay. They are locked up. Family members become upset – and break them out of prison. In the process other innocent people are hurt. I could go on and on. How will you possibly get peace here? RICHARD: Through example and not just precept. Which means: putting one’s money where one’s mouth is (practice what one preaches). No more inconsistencies; no more contradictions; no more hypocrisies; no more justifications; no more lame-duck excuses ... and so on. RESPONDENT: I am all for peace on earth. RICHARD: Excellent ... the desire for peace-on-earth – to the point that others will call obsessional – is the factor that will bring about ‘my’ demise. RESPONDENT: I would love for that to happen. Just tell me how. I will be happy to help to implement it. RICHARD: Are these E-Mails throwing some light upon the root cause of all the mayhem and misery? Because knowing the root cause is the essential first step. The next step then becomes obvious each moment again in one’s daily life. Through application and diligence borne upon the pure intent for peace-on-earth for all, one can voluntarily forsake the social identity and go into exile, into ‘self’-retirement as it were, whilst remaining in the market place. One does this by examining all of one’s feelings that are supporting one’s beliefs – masquerading as ‘truths’ – each moment again and watching them vanish as if they had never existed. One can observe oneself in action in one’s moment-to-moment activities as one goes about daily life. Gradually one notices that ‘I’ have grown rather thin, as if withering away, until ‘I’ become merely a shadow of ‘my’ former self ... causing very little trouble and then only occasionally. This condition will continue to subsist until the inevitable happens and ‘I’ cease to exist in ‘my’ totality of ‘being’. As only this moment is ever-actual, one puts this exploration into effect by asking oneself, each moment again: ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ * RESPONDENT: In Enlightenment there can be no more desires, no more teaching, no desire for world peace – just nothing. Ultimate Enlightenment is realising that none of this is happening. It is all a dream. You and I do not exist. We are just a lower form of reality – like a dream. It doesn’t matter what happens in a dream – in the end the dream is over and none of it matters. Who cares if is was a nightmare? It was not real. Even though it seemed to be real at the time. You see there is a DILEMMA within awakening. AWAKENING, for me, is knowing that this is a dream – My Dream, God’s Dream. He (or what I REALLY am) is the DOER. Just like in a dream the dreamer (asleep on the bed) is the real doer. There is only one dreamer (doer) but there may be many people in the dream. The dream people are not real. It is the same here. You do not exist even though you appear to. It is all a game – the game of maya – the play of God. God playing his own game with himself. Only he cannot play the game unless he becomes many – creation is God becoming many. God is SIMULTANEOUSLY separate from the creation and playing the game. BOTH are true. The Dreamer is really asleep on the bed but he is also engaged in the dream. Now morality and amorality takes on a new light. The question of morality only exists in duality – where there is more than one. But in REALITY there is ONLY ONE ... there is ONLY GOD, there is ONLY YOU. So, the question of morality disappears. There are no other being alive – they are just a dream. In an existence where there is ONLY ONE PERSON – no morality exists. Further, nothing happens – there is no time or space. Now ULTIMATE ENLIGHTENMENT is KNOWING this. So then, when you teach – WHO ARE YOU TRYING TO AWAKEN? There is ONLY YOU. It is all different forms of YOU. Once YOU are awake it is over ... no more teaching, no more desires, just nothingness or everythingness. RICHARD: Hmm ... this is solipsism (and displays a very, very sick attitude towards the pain and suffering of 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 and the such-like). RESPONDENT: Again – we have the same dilemma. In awakening the awakened one will care deeply and will selflessly offer help – he cares deeply. However in the ultimate enlightenment it changes – one becomes ‘god-like’ and detached. RICHARD: I realise that being ‘detached’ is highly prized in some disciplines ... but it amounts to nothing more and nothing less than dissociation. Peoples everywhere are already detached – that is the very problem – and anyone who consciously practices ‘detachment’ is twice-removed from actuality. RESPONDENT: I agree. I do not advocate detachment. RICHARD: If I may point out? You just did (above). Viz.: ‘one becomes ‘god-like’ and detached’. RESPONDENT: Instead we should truly care. RICHARD: How about actually caring ... rather than feeling-caring? RESPONDENT: The detachment I refer to is different. You don’t do it. You care deeply. The detachment is simply knowing the ultimate reality. I do not advocate consciously trying to be detached. All that creates is a sick sense of ‘not-caring’ and selfishness – the opposite of what is required. RICHARD: Hmm ... I remained unconvinced that you comprehend what is being discussed here regarding detachment. What you are doing is positing a ‘True Detachment’ as if that means ‘Truly Caring’. Anybody who is dissociated from all the misery and mayhem is sick – dissociation is a psychiatric term – and a person so dissociated as to say that this body and that body and the mountains and the streams and the stars and the planets and so on are only a dream is perhaps beyond psychiatric help. * RESPONDENT: No more desires as one comes to the profound realisation that none of this is really happening – it is the dream – and there is nothing to do here. I the awakening one wants to help others – he may become a teacher. In the final stages of enlightenment he has nothing more to say – he has no desire even to awaken others – as he recognises that it is all happening perfectly from the elevated viewpoint. RICHARD: As I have asked before: if your wife and/or daughter and/or mother and/or grandmother and/or sister was being brutally raped, would you really stand by saying to her: ‘this is all happening perfectly from the elevated viewpoint’? RESPONDENT: Gandhi stood by while he himself and others were beaten and worse. I take your point though. What do you suggest? If you fight back – you add to the conflict. Gandhi’s idea was to protest peacefully – without violence. RICHARD: You will have gathered by now that it is malice
Which means: clean up your act on the ‘inside’ and the ‘outer’ actions are free to be appropriate to the circumstances (there is no ‘inner’ and ‘outer’ in actuality). This applies to all anti-social behaviour ... not just a minor thing like sex outside of marriage. Things like all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, to give but a small yet very representative example. If someone were to bop me on the nose I am free to bop them back ... or not. * RESPONDENT: Something just occurred to me. Maybe, just maybe, the ultimate enlightenment cannot happen until everyone awakens; maybe that is why the awakened ones try to awaken others. Because I have heard it said that it is an on-going journey ... maybe it ends when everyone becomes enlightened. Just a thought. RICHARD: Are you saying that peace-on-earth is not possible until every single man, woman and child becomes enlightened? RESPONDENT: Yeah – maybe that is it. If everyone became enlightened – then we would have peace on earth. So – get busy and enlighten everyone. RICHARD: Uh huh ... surely you must have gathered by now that I am no fan of ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’? RESPONDENT: SO what do you advocate? How will you create peace on earth – if it does not start from individual transformation. RICHARD: There can only be individual extinction ... not ‘individual transformation’. For who is there of any worth ‘within’ to ‘transform’? ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul are rotten to the core ... and ‘me’ at ‘my’ core is ‘being’ itself. An actual freedom from the human condition is when ‘being’ itself ends ... as in ‘come to an end’. Finish, kaput, cease to exist, extinct. As dead as the dodo ... but with no skeletal remains. There is no phoenix here to arise from the ashes. * RESPONDENT: Well now, I guess I have opened a can of worms ... anyone care to examine them? RICHARD: I am always happy to explore all issues relating to life, the universe, and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are ... but at this point I only want to keep asking the $64,000 question until I get an answer: Does the altered state of consciousness known as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ (an embodiment of ‘The Truth’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom that amorality indubitably is? RESPONDENT: The answer to your question is yes. RICHARD: You have yet to demonstrate that what the ‘Enlightened Beings’ are living-out in their daily life is, in fact, amorality. RESPONDENT: But I do not know if you really regard amorality as a freedom or a nightmare. RICHARD: Amorality is freedom ... a remarkable freedom from the human condition. To put it succinctly and specifically: peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body, living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. RESPONDENT: How will it come about? Do you have a method? The idea is admirable and commendable. RICHARD: Good ... yes I do have a method: altruism. Who you think and feel and instinctively ‘know’ yourself to be has a job to do: When ‘I’ willingly ‘self’-immolate – psychologically and psychically – then ‘I’ am making the most noble sacrifice that ‘I’ can make for this body and every body ... for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is ‘my’ moment of glory. It is ‘my’ crowning achievement ... it makes ‘my’ petty life all worth while. It is not an event to be missed ... to physically die without having experienced what it is like to become dead is such a waste of a life. There is an intrinsic trait common to all sentient beings: self-sacrifice. This trait can be observed in almost all animals – it is especially easy to see in the ‘higher-order’ animals – mainly with the parental defending of the young to the point of fatal injury leading to death. Defending the group against another group is also simple to observe ... it manifests in humans in the way that one will passionately defend oneself and one’s group to the death if it is deemed necessary. Speaking personally, as a callow youth this self-sacrificing trait impelled me to go to war for ‘my’ country ... to ‘willingly lay down my life for kith and kin’. It is a very powerful passion indeed ... Christianity, to give just one example, values it very highly: ‘No greater love hath he that lay down his life for another’. However, all of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – come to the fore when psychologically and psychically threatened, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, confounding ‘my’ survival and the body’s survival. Nevertheless, ‘my’ survival being paramount could not be further from the truth, for ‘I’ need play no part any more in perpetuating physical existence (which is the primal purpose of the instinctual animal ‘self’). ‘I’ am no longer necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am nowadays a hindrance. With all of ‘my’ beliefs, values, creeds, ethics and other doctrinaire disabilities, ‘I’ am a menace to the body. ‘I’ am ready to die (to allow the body to be killed) for a cause and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a ‘Noble Ideal’ ... and reap ‘my’ post-mortem reward: immortality. This trait is called altruism ... albeit misplaced. Thus it is ‘I’ who is responsible for an action that results in ‘my’ own demise ... without really doing the expunging itself (and I am not being tricky here). It is ‘I’ who is the cause of bringing about this ‘self’-sacrifice in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise (‘I’ do not really end ‘myself’ in that ‘I’ do not do the deed itself for an ‘I’ cannot end itself). What ‘I’ do, voluntarily and willingly, is to press the button which precipitates an oft-times alarming but always thrilling momentum that will result in ‘my’ inevitable ‘self’-immolation. What one does is that one dedicates oneself to the challenge of being here as the universe’s experience of itself ... now. And peace-on-earth is the inevitable result because it is already here ... it is always now. ‘I’ and/or ‘me’ was merely standing in the way of this already always existing peace-on-earth from becoming apparent. The act of initiating this ‘process’ is altruism, pure and simple. * RESPONDENT: The question is ‘Does God care’? RICHARD: Before one can ask ‘does god care’ it must be first ascertained if any god can exist without calenture; whether any god exists outside of a person’s emotion-backed feverish imagination ... otherwise it is a question based on a false premise. RESPONDENT: Okay – let’s take God out of the equation. Who are YOU then? RICHARD: Not ‘who’ ... what: what I am is this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. RESPONDENT: Do you exist beyond your physical death? RICHARD: No ... death is the end, finish. Extinction. RESPONDENT: What is life all about? RICHARD: I am this infinite and eternal universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being: as me this universe is intelligent. This on-going experiencing of infinitude is what life is all about. RESPONDENT: Why achieve anything here – if after death it is all over. RICHARD: If one does not find out whilst one is alive, one never will. RESPONDENT: Why even seek peace on earth? RICHARD: Are you for real? To bring an end, once and for all, to 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 and such-like that beset this other-wise fair planet we all live on ... just for starters. But primarily so that one experientially knows, each moment again, what life is all about ... one attains one’s destiny. * RESPONDENT: Why does God allow all the evil and the killings to happen? RICHARD: Do you see how you race away with further questions without first establishing the bona fides of your god? RESPONDENT: The answer is – He doesn’t get involved – because he cannot. RICHARD: May I suggest? Maybe – just maybe – a god (any god or goddess) does not get involved because no god (or goddess) has any existence outside of a person’s emotion-backed feverish imagination? Have you never noticed that all gods were immortal ... yet when peoples stop believing in them they cease to exist? RESPONDENT: Not sure what you mean here – they cease to exist. Please explain. RICHARD: All gods and goddesses exist only in the human psyche ... when there is no one alive believing them into existence they cannot exist. Period. * RESPONDENT: Because God is not a person – only god into expression is a person – an awakened person. RICHARD: May I ask? Has it ever occurred to you that someone – anyone – who solemnly proclaims themselves to be ‘God On Earth’ is seriously deluded? And further, other than such people’s utterances (scriptures), there is no evidence that any god or goddess exists? RESPONDENT: Maybe – but you cannot deny that such persons do manage to live remarkable lives. RICHARD: Yea verily ... so too do the most notorious dictators live ‘remarkable lives’. Unless a person’s ‘remarkable life’ includes peace-on-earth then it is just more of the same-old same-old. RESPONDENT: Like Jesus saying ‘father forgive them’ when he is being crucified. Pretty amazing feat of non-violence. RICHARD: Not really ... he believed himself to be immune from death; all gods are (supposedly) immortal. RESPONDENT: There is some pretty strong evidence of ‘strange’ occurrences that you would find hard to explain in normal terms. RICHARD: I have no difficulty in explaining them in psychotic terms. * RESPONDENT: That awakened person can get involved. RICHARD: Yet there have been many, many ‘awakened persons’ getting involved for 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history. And these many and varied ‘Enlightened Beings’ have been claiming to have discovered that which will right the wrongs of the human condition ... and for 3,000 to 5,000 years they have been abjectly failing to live up to their own standards (let alone bringing about their promised Peace On Earth). How on earth is one going to obtain peace-on-earth by following their failed example? RESPONDENT: Well most of them did not preach peace on earth. Jesus said – ‘my kingdom is not of this world’. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and therein lies the nub of the issue: is one desiring peace-on-earth or is one longing for the metaphysical ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ that is only accessible after physical death (the Christian ‘R. I. P’ is matched by the Hindu ‘Mahasamadhi’ and the Buddhist ‘Parinirvana’ and so on). This is a very selfish and self-centred approach to life on earth ... something that all metaphysical peoples are guilty of. The quest to secure one’s immortality is unambiguously selfish ... peace-on-earth is readily sacrificed for the supposed continuation of the imagined soul or spirit or whatever after physical death. So much for their humanitarian ideals of peace, goodness, altruism, philanthropy and humaneness. All religious and spiritual and mystical quests amount to nothing more than a self-centred urge to perpetuate oneself for ever and a day. All religious and spiritual and mystical leaders fall foul of this existential dilemma. They pay lip-service to the notion of self-sacrifice – weeping crocodile tears at noble martyrdom – whilst selfishly pursuing the ‘Eternal After-Life’. The root cause of all the ills of humankind can be sheeted home to this single, basic fact: the overriding importance of the survival of ‘self’. All religious and spiritual thought – being mystical in origin – is nothing but an extremely complex and complicated metaphysics that does nothing to eliminate the ‘self’ – the ego and soul – in its entirety. In fact, when one applies these ancestor-derived religious and spiritual systems, one’s primal self is endorsed, enhanced, glorified and rewarded for staying in existence. And this is a monumental blunder. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed religiosity or spirituality attests to this. 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 anyone with the eyes to see. Culpability for the continuation of animosity and anguish lies squarely at the feet of the Masters and the Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Gurus and the God-Men. And their feet – upon close inspection – are feet of clay. They lacked the necessary intestinal fortitude to go all the way ... they stopped at the ‘Unknown’ by surrendering to the ‘Unmanifest Power’ that lies lurking behind the throne instead of proceeding into the ‘Unknowable’. To stop at ‘dissolving the ego’ and becoming enlightened is to stop half-way. One needs to end the soul as well, then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. To be as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. To vanish without a trace ... there will be no phoenix to rise from the ashes. Finished. Kaput. Then there is peace-on-earth.
RETURN TO MAILING LIST ‘C’ 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 |
