|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List With Correspondent No. 10
Continued from Mailing List ‘B’: No. 40 SETH: Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels. In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specialisations of body any longer (again in your terms), but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creature-hood. Such a task meant that man must break out of the self-regulating, precise, safe and yet limiting aspects of instinct. The birth of a conscious mind, as think of it, meant that the species took upon itself free will. Built-in procedures that had beautifully sufficed could now be superseded. They became suggestions instead of rules. Compassion ‘rose’ from the biological structure up to emotional reality. The ‘new’ consciousness accepted its emerging triumph – freedom – and was faced with responsibility for action of a conscious level, and with the birth of guilt. A cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is not evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels both animals understand. The consciousness of the mouse, under the innate knowledge of impending pain, leaves its body. The cat uses the warm flesh. The mouse itself has been hunter as well as prey, and both understand the terms in ways that are very difficult to explain. (As Seth-Jane delivered this material, my mind flashed back many years to a summer day when I was about eleven years old. With my two brothers 1 sat in the back yard of the house in which we grew up, in a small town not far from Elmira. Our next-door neighbour’s cat, Mitzi, had caught a field mouse. She played with it in the grass; with conflicting feelings I watched Mitzi, of whom I was very fond, block off each attempt of the terrified mouse to escape – until finally, having had her sport, she ate it. At certain levels both cat and mouse understand the nature of the life energy they share, and are not – in those terms – jealous for their own individuality’. RESPONDENT: To me the above is far closer to Richard’s natural amoral stance. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: Richard does not have a ‘natural amoral stance’ at all.
The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Did the wisdom of a bodiless spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom upon Ms. Jane Roberts as amorality indubitably is? And further: how has anyone benefited from a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’ by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’ as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’? This inhumane ‘suggestion’ (condoning and/or advocating the inducing of terror in another) and gruesome ‘‘new’ consciousness’ (condoning and/or advocating homicide as it is the body and not the consciousness which is killed) is identical to that divine wisdom found in the Bhagavad-Gita where Mr. Krishna (‘God’ by whatever name) assures Mr. Arjuna that it is quite okay to kill his relatives in war because (a) it is his duty by virtue of the caste he was born into ... and (b) he would not be killing the person anyway but only the body. May I ask? How do you see this as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates?
SETH: Animals have a sense of justice that you do not understand, and built-in to that innocent sense of integrity there is a biological compassion, understood at the deepest cellular levels. In your terms man is an animal, rising out of himself, from himself evolving certain animal capacities to their utmost; not forming new physical specialisations of body any longer (again in your terms), but creating from his needs, desires and blessed natural aggressiveness inner structures having to do with values, space and time. To varying degrees this same impetus resides throughout all creature-hood. Such a task meant that man must break out of the self-regulating, precise, safe and yet limiting aspects of instinct. The birth of a conscious mind, as think of it, meant that the species took upon itself free will. Built-in procedures that had beautifully sufficed could now be superseded. They became suggestions instead of rules. Compassion ‘rose’ from the biological structure up to emotional reality. The ‘new’ consciousness accepted its emerging triumph – freedom – and was faced with responsibility for action of a conscious level, and with the birth of guilt. A cat playfully killing a mouse and eating it is not evil. It suffers no guilt. On biological levels both animals understand. The consciousness of the mouse, under the innate knowledge of impending pain, leaves its body. The cat uses the warm flesh. The mouse itself has been hunter as well as prey, and both understand the terms in ways that are very difficult to explain. (As Seth-Jane delivered this material, my mind flashed back many years to a summer day when I was about eleven years old. With my two brothers 1 sat in the back yard of the house in which we grew up, in a small town not far from Elmira. Our next-door neighbour’s cat, Mitzi, had caught a field mouse. She played with it in the grass; with conflicting feelings I watched Mitzi, of whom I was very fond, block off each attempt of the terrified mouse to escape – until finally, having had her sport, she ate it. At certain levels both cat and mouse understand the nature of the life energy they share, and are not – in those terms – jealous for their own individuality’. RESPONDENT: To me the above is far closer to Richard’s natural amoral stance. RICHARD: Just so that there is no misunderstanding: Richard does not have a ‘natural amoral stance’ at all.
The $64,000 question then appears to be this: Did the wisdom of a bodiless spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) bestow such a remarkable freedom upon Ms. Jane Roberts as amorality indubitably is? And further: how has anyone benefited from a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’ by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’ as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’? This inhumane ‘suggestion’ (condoning and/or advocating the inducing of terror in another) and gruesome ‘‘new’ consciousness’ (condoning and/or advocating homicide as it is the body and not the consciousness which is killed) is identical to that divine wisdom found in the Bhagavad-Gita where Mr. Krishna (‘God’ by whatever name) assures Mr. Arjuna that it is quite okay to kill his relatives in war because (a) it is his duty by virtue of the caste he was born into ... and (b) he would not be killing the person anyway but only the body. May I ask? How do you see this as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates? RESPONDENT: Greetings, Richard, welcome back. But no greetings for this unruly one I see. Oh boo hoo (just playing). I hope you do not mind being disagreed with? RICHARD: I do not mind at all ... it is your life you are living. I can only suggest ... what you do with these suggestions is entirely up to you. RESPONDENT: We have slightly different semantic interpretations ... RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps you may be inclined to explain to me how the following points are but ‘slightly different’ meanings or connotations applied to words (‘semantic interpretations’): 1. Richard speaks from his direct moment-to-moment experience (he lives what he writes); Ms. Jane Roberts spoke from a disembodied spirit (she did not live what she wrote). Ergo, Ms. Jane Roberts has a ‘stance’; Richard lives an actuality.
2. Richard did something very, very unnatural ... resulting in peace-on-earth becoming apparent; Ms. Jane Roberts did something supernatural ... resulting in further addling the minds of otherwise intelligent peoples so that peace on earth is nowhere to be found.
3. Richard is easily amoral in that he 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 because he has eliminated the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) that form the animal self which is the root cause of all the misery and mayhem; Ms. Jane Roberts channelled a wisdom that promotes a ‘blessed natural aggressiveness’, by equating what a cat does with a mouse as being ‘playfully killing’ and thus ‘that innocent sense of integrity’ and ‘sense of justice’ wherein there is a ‘biological compassion’ because (and this is the central argument) the ‘consciousness of the mouse’ (and a ‘terrified mouse’ at that) ‘leaves its body’ via an ‘innate knowledge of impending pain’, as being a ‘‘new’ consciousness’ by virtue of the ‘emerging triumph’ known as ‘free will’ whereupon all these instinctual impulses are somehow ‘superseded’ by an ‘emotional reality’ induced by ‘the birth of guilt’ wherein committing all the aforementioned mayhem and misery is now felt as being a ‘suggestion’ to live by rather than a ‘rule’ ... and gratuitously called ‘freedom’.
4. No. 10 says that what Ms. Jane Roberts published (above) is ‘closer to Richard’s natural amoral stance’ than what Peter wrote; Richard says ‘How do you see this [Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit] as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates?’ ... to which detailed reply No. 10 says: ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’. Yet the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) clearly says [quote]: ‘if your definition of that word (‘spirit’) implies the idea of a personality without a physical body, then I would have to agree that the description fits me’ [endquote]. (page 4; ‘Seth Speaks’; © 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY).
RESPONDENT: ... but nothing that can’t be clarified in the fullness of time and by reading each others posts sensibly. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... I have, as always, read your post sensibly. As for ‘the fullness of time’: being free of the human condition I have all the time in the universe ... and that is eternal time. May I ask? How much time do you have? RESPONDENT: By the way, while you were away No. 33 (on Mailing List ‘B’) sent in a post to the list (for you) on July 11; No. 00741; entitled ‘Why Malice And Sorrow?’, just in case you missed it and might want to respond. RICHARD: Thank you ... I have located it and copied it to my hard drive. I am in the process of addressing past correspondence and will begin posting them soon (if I post them as I write them I will receive some replies before I get the back-log cleared and maybe never catch up). RESPONDENT: Trusting everything is running smoothly again. RICHARD: Yes .... quite smoothly indeed. ‘Twas a good move to upgrade (even though there were many hiccups in the process) and when it all settles down – and I gain even a smidgeon of an idea how it all works – it will be better than ever. I also had new network cards, cable and a hub installed and the data moves through the network at a blistering speed ... where I used to mosey away and make a cup of coffee or do something else whilst the data was arriving it now arrives almost before I leave my chair!
RESPONDENT: Richard, this is my reply to your original post entitled: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit ... RICHARD: Ahh ... good. Because in my original post I asked one very simple question (‘how do you see this as being even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates?’) and this one very simple question only ... which you did not address at all in your response (which is why I asked it again in my last post). RESPONDENT: ... which I then retitled: The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit, after explaining why ... RICHARD: Well ... no, you did not explain why at all in your post entitled ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ (message No. 1210 in the archives). The main thrust of that post was that my description of how Richard experiences life, as contrasted to your description of how Richard experiences life, was but a matter of ‘slightly different semantic interpretations’. Nowhere, but nowhere, in the your post entitled ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ did you explain why you know better, than what the spirit called ‘Seth’ knows, as in regards the issue of the spirit called ‘Seth’ being bodiless or ‘not so bodiless’ ... even though the spirit called ‘Seth’ clearly says [quote]: ‘if your definition of that word (‘spirit’) implies the idea of a personality without a physical body, then I would have to agree that the description fits me’ [endquote]. (page 4; ‘Seth Speaks’; © 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY). RESPONDENT: ... but you dismissed that explanation and returned the title to your original: The Wisdom Of A Bodiless Spirit. LOL. Quite a body of Merry-Go-Rounds. RICHARD: Even if there were an explanation to dismiss (which there was not) it was the verbatim, transcribed, and officially notated words of the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name) that dismisses your notion that the spirit called ‘Seth’ is ‘not so bodiless’ ... I simply copied and pasted it from page 4 of ‘Seth Speaks’. (© 1972 by Jane Roberts; published by Bantam Books NY, NY). Would it help to get past this impasse if I were to post some more of the verbatim, transcribed, and officially notated words of the spirit called ‘Seth’ (an aspect of ‘God’ by whatever name)? Vis.:
Speaking personally, I find the word ‘non-physical’ to be quite unambiguous ... let alone all the other references. I only had to go as far as page nineteen to gain these unequivocal statements ... and there are 486 pages all told. * RESPONDENT: Greetings, Richard, welcome back. But no greetings for this unruly one I see. Oh boo hoo (just playing). I hope you do not mind being disagreed with? RICHARD: I do not mind at all ... it is your life you are living. I can only suggest ... what you do with these suggestions is entirely up to you. RESPONDENT: So, am I to gather that actual freedom absolves one of the simple curtesy of greeting your list members? RICHARD: Oh? Were you not ‘just playing’ after all? RESPONDENT: And yes, it is up to me, and what a delicious life it is too. RICHARD: Good. * RESPONDENT: We have slightly different semantic interpretations ... RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps you may be inclined to explain to me how the following points are but ‘slightly different’ meanings or connotations applied to words (‘semantic interpretations’). RESPONDENT: Patience Richard patience. I reiterate, ‘but nothing that can’t be clarified in the fullness of time and by reading each others posts sensibly’. RICHARD: I did, as always, read your post sensibly. As a consequence I sensibly address the following sensible points in sensible detail and would be most sensibly interested to read your sensible response to having read them sensibly:
If you could see your way clear to give your considered response then maybe we can go more deeply into why you considered the wisdom of a bodiless entity to be even remotely close to what Richard experiences and thus promulgates. * RICHARD: As for ‘the fullness of time’: being free of the human condition I have all the time in the universe ... and that is eternal time. May I ask? How much time do you have? RESPONDENT: Why do you ask again? RICHARD: I typed the word <time> into the search function of my computer and sent it through all my correspondence with you ... and I see that I have never asked any question about time – let alone this question – of you before. RESPONDENT: If you have sensibly read my posts then you are well aware that my internet time is limited and that I enjoy spending most of my time creatively earning my living and that my typing skills are not exactly conducive to elaborate semantic clarifications. RICHARD: Ahh ... it is still a matter waiting clarification as to whether it is indeed a matter of ‘elaborate semantic clarifications’ or not. Unlike a mantra, it is to no avail to keep repeating this ‘semantics’ phrase over and over again in lieu of addressing the question ... it will never become true, if it be not a fact in the first place, no matter how many times you repeat it. RESPONDENT: You also know that I cannot gloat about having ‘all the time in the universe’ not being free of the human condition, something this body most certainly will be free of someday regardless of my efforts. RICHARD: But why would you want to ‘gloat’ when that happens, anyway? Would you not rather share your outstanding discovery with your fellow human beings so as to enable the ingress of a global peace-on-earth as soon as possible? Which means: would one not be spending one’s time speaking frankly and not dissimulating? I have never made a secret of what is involved in conducting an honest investigation into the human psyche ... it is a situation which calls for a rigorous and vigorous appraisal of the Human Condition. Only a robust discussion will winkle out that which is causing all the animosity and anguish that characterises the human species as being in a parlous state. That 160,000,000 sane peoples were killed by their sane fellow human beings in the last century in wars alone (plus an estimated 40,000,000 killed themselves) points to the fact that we cannot afford to pussy-foot around in our best parlour manner of polite interest into what motivates the other. Human beings are noted for the horrific suffering that they are capable of inflicting upon one another ... about every conceivable atrocity imaginable has been tried at some place in the world and at some time in history. And yet you see the above exchange as a ‘gloat’? Are you vitally interested in eliminating malice and sorrow and – becoming thus happy and harmless – living in peace and harmony for the remainder of your life? If so, then we may have a genuine discussion. RESPONDENT: But I am enormously appreciative of what mortal time I do have, and I am all the more grateful not to be one of those Concorde passengers or their sad relatives. RICHARD: I am having some difficulty in following your train of thought here: what has this got to do with your absence of a reply to a very simple question? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: In that respect, laborious semantic merry-go-rounds, pale in significance. RICHARD: I will say this much: when you get a theme running – no matter how erroneous that theme may be – you certainly stick to it, eh? RESPONDENT: No, I am not weaselling out of it ... RICHARD: I never said you were ... although if you keep on prevaricating it will start to look like you are. RESPONDENT: ... simply lacking time and looking forward to your responses to many earlier questions which may solve these misunderstandings as well – if you are so inclined. RICHARD: If I may ask? What ‘many earlier questions’ are you referring to? The last post you wrote to me before I went off-line contained this paragraph:
Maybe I have missed these questions whilst being off-line ... or maybe one of your other personalities was supposed to send them and did not (bearing in mind that you have four internet aliases). If so, being a multidimensional personality does seem to have some disadvantages ... in this post alone you are under the impression that (a) this post is an answer to my original post when in fact it does not answer the one and only question in that original post ... and (b) you are under the impression that you had explained why you entitled your previous post ‘The Wisdom Of A Not So Bodiless Spirit’ (message No. 1210 in the archives) when you had not explained why at all ... and (c) you are under the impression that I had asked you before how much time you had when I had not ever asked that question of you before at all ... and (d) you are under the impression that you have asked me ‘many earlier questions’ when it would appear that you have not ... as far as my records show you were ‘preparing’ to ask questions. Incidentally, I read the ‘Over Soul Seven’ trilogy back in 1987 and, as far as I can recollect, the main character of the story (‘Cyprus’) kept on forgetting who she/he was or where she/he was or when she/he was or what she/he was going to do – or when or how or why – and what she/he had done ... or when or how or why. Whereas it is so simple being this flesh and blood body only ... and salubrious.
RICHARD: It is so simple being this flesh and blood body only ... and salubrious. RESPONDENT: Well I have wasted too much time here and all with some one who can’t even get past first base with a simple greeting or thank you. So forget it. You can’t even make peace on a mailing list Richard let alone offer it to your fellow man. Bye. RICHARD: I wonder if it has occurred to you yet that the umbrage evident in the last post of yours – and this dramatic departure – is all because I asked a very simple question:. Vis.:
So far you have passed-up three opportunities to address the one and only point I am making ... you have chosen to discuss all manner of things rather than attend to this ‘Ancient Wisdom’. And, of course, you may respond to this E-Mail in any way you see fit – or not answer at all – but the one thing, and one thing only that this thread is about, is the central reason as to why there is no peace on earth after 3,000 to 5,000 years of enlightened wisdom. To wit: The ‘Ancient Wisdom’ licence says: it is okay to kill the body as you are not killing the person. Continued on in Mailing List ‘B’: No. 40 Continued on Mailing List ‘D’: No. 5
RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST 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 |
