|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Buddhism
RESPONDENT: Also, if minus infinity (as small as it can get) is just a mathematical proposition without factual existence and there is indeed a limit to ‘how small’ matter in the microscopic world can be, then the conclusion is that, ultimately (as it is with time – ‘this moment’ has no duration), there is a ‘no space’ (immateriality) where there are ‘no events’ taking place (as there is no matter) and thus ‘no time’ (to measure with). RICHARD: As more than a little of that sentence is a conflation of terms I will pass without further comment. RESPONDENT: I know, it sounds like Mr. Buddha’s dwellin’ place but I want to be sure that Richard ain’t his neighbour. [Mr. Buddha]: ‘There is that sphere where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither the sphere of the infinitude of space (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Ha ... the only Mr. Buddha in this neighbourhood is in the form of innumerable stone statues (which are popping up in gardens hereabouts like mushrooms after rain) as the otherwise intelligent peoples of the west uncritically swallow the no-time/ no-space/ no-form fantasies of the east hook, line, and sinker, and thus advertise their gullibility to the world at large ... a credulity albeit reinforced by the theoretical fantasising which more and more passes for science these days. RESPONDENT: Is there a soul that lives on after death of body? RICHARD: No ... physical death is the end, finish. Kaput. (...) RESPONDENT: Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end ... RICHARD: No soul, whether individual or universal, exists in actuality, period ... I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: ... [Maybe an individual soul doesn’t actually exist in the end] but while this dream world continues in this world and the next, the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such ... RICHARD: As there is no [quote] ‘the next’ [endquote] world – there is nothing other than this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe – the awareness you say believes it is an individual soul will *not* continue to to experience itself as such after physical death. RESPONDENT: ... [the awareness that believes it is an individual soul will continue to experience itself as such] and no amount of actual head knowledge about no-self will stop a person experiencing this dream as a individual in this world or the next. RICHARD: As the term [quote] ‘no-self’ [endquote] is a spiritual term then what it refers to – an egoless state of being (supposedly) immune to death – has no existence in actuality. Incidentally, to preach buddhistic homilies on this mailing list is to but fritter away a vital opportunity. RESPONDENT: There is no death in this world ... RICHARD: Au contraire: physical death is the end, finish ... kaput. RESPONDENT: ... [There is no death in this world] only transformation just as the body dies but still remains and exists in a different form so too the awareness is transformed but still remains in this dream. RICHARD: As the word awareness refers to a flesh and blood body being aware (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) then when the body dies its ability to be aware ceases. RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘For thousands of years, human beings …’. [endquote]. [quote] ‘Now, for the first time ...’. [endquote]. Hmmm ... Did a minute read and let’s see ... [quote] ‘Actual Freedom has nothing to do with the traditional spiritual path of transcendence and avoidance ...’. [endquote]. Basic Buddhist mindfulness meditation stresses involvement with life. RICHARD: Well now ... that is what comes of only doing [quote] ‘a minute read’ [endquote], eh? Here is the full text from which you quoted (with the snippets your minute read enabled you to draw such an invalid comparison from highlighted for convenience):
First of all, the buddhistic mindfulness meditation does not ... (a) stress genuine freedom, peace and happiness ... and (b) does not eliminate the genetically-encoded instinctual passions of fear, aggression, nurture and desire (the root cause of human bondage, malice and sorrow) ... and (c) does promise a mythical ‘freedom’ in an imaginary life-after-death (‘Parinirvana’) ... and (d) is not a new, non-spiritual method ... and (e) does not produce an actual freedom from the instinctual animal passions, here and now, on earth, in this lifetime ... and (f) does not offer a step by step, down-to-earth, practical progression to becoming actually free of the human condition of malice and sorrow ... to be both happy and harmless. More to your point, however, Mr. Buddha’s mindfulness meditation is primarily about detachment/dissociation from life – all existence is Dukkha (unsatisfactory) due to Anicca (impermanence) and suffering comes from Tanha (craving) for Samsara (phenomenal existence) – and any meditation technique which stresses involvement with such is anything but what Mr. Buddha taught. RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘Enhancement of ‘good’ emotion ... denial of ‘bad’ emotion via sublimation’. [endquote]. Again, basic Buddhist mindfulness meditation embraces all good and bad emotion. RICHARD: By way of example I need only point to the four Apramanas (aka ‘infinite feelings’) of Buddhism:
RESPONDENT: [quote] ‘Pure consciousness experience ....’. [endquote]. Read Nisargadatta ... better description. RICHARD: I read what he has to report – very carefully – quite a few years ago and nowhere is a description of a pure consciousness experience to be found anywhere (let alone a better one than on The Actual Freedom Trust web site). RESPONDENT: Look dude, it’s good that you achieved ‘Appreciative Awareness’ or whatever ... RICHARD: The term, as you would know had you done more than a minute read before reaching for the keyboard, is ‘apperceptive awareness’ (unmediated perception). RESPONDENT: ... but what is the point of sounding like a fourth rate salesman who doesn’t read? RICHARD: Hmm ... have you ever heard of the expression ‘hoist by his own petard RESPONDENT: Tsk, tsk, Aussies. RICHARD: As [quote] ‘tsk, tsk’ [endquote] represents a sound expressing commiseration, disapproval, or irritation, according to the Oxford Dictionary, it would appear that you are indeed embracing both good and bad emotions in your (non-buddhistic) mindfully mediative involvement with life. Incidentally, just because some peoples are currently residing on a land mass called Australia it does not necessarily mean they are what the colloquialism ‘Aussies’ refers to. RESPONDENT: Should I just observe all of the above like the buddha said? RICHARD: Mr. Buddha’s advice was to dissociate from all of the above ... vis.:
In other words: a total withdrawal from the physical world and the physical body ... a dissociation based upon Mr. Buddha’s vision that all existence is suffering/unsatisfactory (‘dukkha’) because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence in the first place. He clearly indicates that life as this flesh and blood body, on this verdant and azure planet, in this immeasurably vast universe, is the pits ... the only cure for which is to be ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from it all and scarper off to the place where the sun don’t shine (‘amatta-dhamma’). Vis.:
In short, it is a realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system); ‘neither the infinitude of space’ (no universe). Yet all the while there is an unimaginable and inconceivable purity and perfection right here at this place in infinite space just now at this moment in eternal time – the actual is magnificent beyond anyone’s wildest dreams and schemes – and this moment and this place is an ever-present ‘jumping-in’ point, as it were. Then one finds oneself walking through this actual world of veritable delight – the sensate world – where this ambrosial paradise called planet earth, with its sensuous quality of magical perfection and purity, is flourishing in a truly wondrous way. Every thing and every body has a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, scintillating vitality that makes it all vivid and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath one’s feet. The rocks, the concrete buildings, a piece of paper ... literally everything is as if it were alive (a rock is not, of course, alive as humans are, or as animals are, or as trees are). This ‘aliveness’ is the very actuality of all existence ... the ‘actualness’ of every thing and every body. The whole point of asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is to find out what is preventing this already always existing peace-on-earth from being apparent ... and, going by what you have written so far, I would hazard a guess that for you, at this stage, it is none other than Mr. Buddha’s anti-life teachings. ‘Tis only a guess, though. RESPONDENT: Douglass Harding, Byron Katie, Maximillian Sandor, bunches of folks in the ex-scientology camp (put ‘freezone’ into your search engine) are all, in their various ways, about using INSIGHT to deconstruct to iron grip of ego-self without getting caught up in the big SELF spiritualist experience of Ramana Maharshi, Bernadette Roberts, et al. RICHARD: The following quotes may very well throw some light upon the matter: (snip quotes from Mr. Douglas Harding [Finding The Self], Ms. Byron Katie [God With God], Mr. Maximilian Sandor [Alienation/Integration Of The Being], and Free Zone [The Beingness-By-Itself] for reasons of space). RESPONDENT: You’re a bit of a researcher ... so good on ya! RICHARD: All I did was provide some referenced quotes which, for anyone with access to an internet search engine and ten minutes or so to spare, can easily be found ... for example:
If doing the above, and similar for the other three quotes, constitutes being ‘a bit of a researcher’ in your eyes – and somehow deserving of a ‘good on ya!’ commendation – then all I can say is that the Dean of Students at ‘The New Mexico Institute for Buddhist Studies’, an American institution of religious learning to provide an accessible means of providing a foundation in Pure Land Buddhism, is all-too-easily pleased ... seeing that you are using his e-mail address perhaps you could draw his attention to the following? Vis.:
I, for one, can easily see the words ‘their Higher Self’ and ‘who they really are’ and ‘eternal life’ in amongst that lot (add another 59.00 seconds). RESPONDENT: I like your commitment to investigation, empiricism, pragmatism, ACTUAL FACTS. RICHARD: It is one thing to like another’s commitment to ‘investigation, empiricism, pragmatism, ACTUAL FACTS’ ... and another thing entirely to emulate same. In other words the commitment made by the identity parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, a total dedication to global peace and harmony, took just under 12 years to bring about an actual freedom from the human condition ... and what do you have to show after 30+ years? Vis.:
It would appear that deconstructionism has not delivered/does not deliver the goods in this lifetime ... but, then again, Amida Buddhism has it that enlightenment is much more accessible in the Pure Land – the ‘Amida Heaven’ as it were – provided one gets there after physical death, that is, and does not become side-tracked into contemplating the distinct possibility of living the pristine perfection of the peerless purity of such a mundane thing as peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, and thus court descent into one of the many Buddhist hells. Golly ... with the fate of one’s eternal life (aka eternal soul) at stake one will probably
construct a wide range of facile RESPONDENT: So ... I’m with you. RICHARD: If only you were ... for example:
I, for one, can easily see the words ‘our true self’ in amongst that lot (add another 71.00 seconds). RESPONDENT: We can toss ALL these folks on the ancient spiritualist bone pile and keep moving on. RICHARD: If only you would ... it is so easy to say ‘ALL those folks’ whilst simultaneously excluding one’s own spiritual guide, eh? RICHARD: If doing the above [providing a referenced quote which, for anyone with access to an internet search engine and two or three minutes to spare, can easily be found], and similar for the other three quotes, constitutes being ‘a bit of a researcher’ in your eyes – and somehow deserving of a ‘good on ya!’ commendation – then all I can say is that the Dean of Students at ‘The New Mexico Institute for Buddhist Studies’, an American institution of religious learning to provide an accessible means of providing a foundation in Pure Land Buddhism, is all-too-easily pleased ... seeing that you are using his e-mail address perhaps you could draw his attention to the following? Vis.: (snip quote from the New Mexico Institute for Buddhist Studies containing the words ‘their Higher Self’ and ‘who they really are’ and ‘eternal life’). RESPONDENT: You might have missed my introductory salutation to the group. RICHARD: No, not at all ... I read it as soon as it came into my mail-box, and again after having copy-pasted it into a long document in my word processor, where it sits in its sequence with all the other posts you have written so as to be able to read what you write next in context, prior to responding, when I refresh my memory by re-reading what you previously had to say. Just as I have done with this e-mail. RESPONDENT: So here it is again: [quote] ‘I’d like to introduce myself to this list. I’m intrigued by what I am reading on the AF site. Without going into a lot of boring details, I’ve been on the path for 30+ years. It has led into and out of several variants of what I am coming to see is a common ‘spiritualism’, whether eastern or western. Suffice it to say that it has not produced the results of being either happy or harmless in my own life ... not just yet, at any rate. I am open to the idea that perhaps Richard has uncovered an entirely new way of looking at things and doing things in this so-called ‘Third Alternative’. Naturally, I do have some questions I’d like to ask about it’. [endquote]. Now I don’t mind the least little bit that you have taken the time and the bother to do a write up on Pure Land Buddhism ... RICHARD: Oh, it was no bother at all – and it hardly took any time as, having some familiarity with it already, no research was required – because I enjoy discussing the many and varied ways my fellow human beings have attempted to make sense of what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are. Thus it never occurred to me that you would not mind thinking that you had caused me to do what you thought I did (having ‘taken the time and the bother to do a write up on Pure Land Buddhism’ that is) ... let alone the least little bit of minding. RESPONDENT: ... which has been the admittedly spiritualist path that I have settled into. I have made no bones about saying that this had been the best I was able to come up with so far ... RICHARD: Sure ... I read that the first time you said it: the whole point of doing a brief resumé of Pure Land Buddhism was to have it established in plain words that (a) it was the particular variant of Buddhism you were speaking of ... and (b) that it too was nothing other than the same-old same-old tried and failed spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind ... and (c) its teachings being the context for where an adherent of its tenets is coming from, currently at, and (supposedly) going to. In short: I was addressing the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of your questions, as invited, whilst simultaneously situating it in its contextual background for clarity. * RESPONDENT: [Here’s the text of my note to him]: ‘I have been spending a good deal of time lately musing on the past 30+ years of my life. In particular, I have been challenged to take inventory of myself and my path because of the writings of some folks who speak of a ‘Third Alternative’, different than either the mundane realism of those who don’t know and don’t care, and the various forms of Spiritualism, eastern, western and ‘new age’ that I have looked into in search of answers to the fundamental questions of life itself. At this point I am wondering if all I have done, and taught others as well (including my own children) is a well meaning mistake. As I look around, it seems to me that clearly our spiritualist directions haven’t fulfilled the mandate of bringing a state of being happy nor harmless to self or to others. That’s not a moral judgment, but rather a clinical one. Here’s an excerpt of some of the material I’ve been reading and digesting. I’m not sure where I am going with this ... but I am open to what is being said. At the same time, I don’t want to disturb any of my other friends, in case this is a blind alley or a cul-de-sac. I can give you a call some time to discuss, if you’d like. My intent isn’t to convince you (or anyone else) of anything, but merely to share with you, as a friend, what is rumbling around inside my skull right now. Best as ever ... [endquote]. So we can, in good faith for the purposes of this exploration, throw Amida Buddhism (Pure Land Buddhism) on the bone pile with Ram Tzu, et al. No need to get distracted by deconstructing this further ... though of course you are free to do whatever you please. RICHARD: Where do you gain the notion that I ‘get distracted’ ... or that I am into ‘deconstructing’ spiritualism for that matter? I did not go about ‘deconstructing’ spiritualism ... I lived it, night and day for eleven years, and *experientially* found it wanting. Be that as it may ... seeing that deconstructionism is your modus operandi (you have used the word ‘deconstruct’ in one form or another 33 times in your e-mails thus far and are advising others to do the same) it may be pertinent to point out that this is the second time you have sought to deflect somebody else from applying your method. Vis.:
And now:
All I did was to address the [quote] ‘heartwood’ [endquote] of your questions as invited ... you claimed that Mr. Douglas Harding, Ms. Byron Katie, Mr. Maximilian Sandor, and bunches of folks in the ex-scientology camp (The Free Zone) were some places to look to see where an actual freedom from the human condition was already happening because Richard had not yet made an exhaustive investigation of all the other places it might have been happening up until now. In other words I provided four quotes in my first response, and two more in my second, which make it patently clear that your claims of where what I have discovered is already happening are, quite simply, nothing other than more of the same-old same-old tried and failed spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind ... yet now you protest that you have said right from the beginning (quoting part of your initial e-mail and now a private e-mail to the head of the organisation you are affiliated with) that you have suspended both belief and disbelief and have an open mind. Where is the evidence of this in your actions (actions such as having others go on a wild goose chase through spiritualist writings)? RESPONDENT: I have already conceded (from the moment I arrived here) that in the context of actualist taxonomy, every path I have ever trodden personally would be described as a spiritualist one ... including Amidism. RICHARD: Why do you add the qualifier ‘in the context of actualist taxonomy’ when it is well-known, for example, that Buddhism is spiritual and that Buddhists are spiritualists? I neither invented the words spiritual/spiritualist nor placed Buddhism/Buddhists, for example, in those classifications as they already existed/were classified long before I was born ... but, apart from that, whilst you may now say that you have already conceded, from the moment you arrived here on this mailing list, that every path you have ever trodden personally would be described as a spiritual one your very first words were that those paths were what you are ‘coming to see’ as being spiritual paths. Vis.:
How is doing a rewrite of history going to aid understanding? RICHARD: The liberation or salvation of enlightenment, being anti-life, does not include, and cannot enable, peace-on-earth (as expressed so explicitly in Mr. Buddha’s description of the place where the sun don’t shine as being ‘there, I say ... is the end of dukkha’). RESPONDENT: Why is it anti-life? RICHARD: Is it not obvious? A total withdrawal from the physical world and the physical body ... a dissociation based upon Mr. Buddha’s insight that all existence is unsatisfactory (‘dukkha’) because it is but transitory existence born out of craving (‘tanha’) for physical existence in the first place. Vis.:
Apart from being ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from ‘form’ and ‘feeling’ and ‘perception’ and ‘[mental] fabrications’ and ‘consciousness’ (aka ‘I am not the body; the world is not real’) he is also ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from ‘birth’ and ‘aging’ and ‘death’ (aka ‘unborn and undying’ aka ‘immortal’). Lastly he clearly indicates that life as this flesh and blood body, on this verdant and azure planet, in this immeasurably vast universe, is ‘stress’ and is ‘defilement’ ... the only cure of which is to be ‘freed, dissociated, and released’ from it all and scarper off to the place where the sun don’t shine. The word ‘defilement’ is particularly telling ... it is a cutting indictment of the body, the planet and the universe. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if Mr. Buddha’s insight is pointing that all existence is unsatisfactory (‘dukkha’) or that all existence ‘as self’ is unsatisfactory. Did he point anything on earthly existence without self or did he consider any kind of life, human or no human, as defilement and abject? RICHARD: Any kind of life at all (all existence is ‘dukkha’): Mr. Buddha expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59 ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (‘The Discourse On The Not-self Characteristic). <Snip> This ‘disenchantment’, then, is brought about by ‘right discernment’: an examination of the ‘Satipatthana Sutta’ (The Four Frames Of Reference), shows ‘right discernment’ to be a pronounced and deliberate withdrawal from the world of the senses and this flesh and blood body itself through reflecting upon its transitory nature. Vis.:
There is much, much more in this vein in the entire ‘Satipatthana Sutta’ ... and in the ‘Mahasatipatthana Sutta’ (The Great Frames of Reference). (http://world.std.com/~metta/canon/digha/dn22.html). RESPONDENT: Also, the statement [‘unrestricted’ awareness] is curious because if mind is not freed, dissociated, and released from form, feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness, birth, aging, death, stress, and defilement how can awareness be ‘unrestricted’? Deep sleep seems to be also without feeling, perception, fabrications, consciousness, birth, aging, death, stress, and defilement, but at sunrise body wakes up and goes on living its earthly life. I am not sure what state of mind is Mr Buddha trying to convey with the words ‘unrestricted awareness’. RICHARD: As I have said before: a consciousness-less state known as ‘jhana’ in Pali (Sanskrit ‘dhyana’). * RESPONDENT: What would be anti-life and cannot enable peace-on-earth in Mr. Buddha’s supposed enlightenment and ending of sorrow? RICHARD: The end of ‘dukkha’ he says, is to be found neither on this verdant and azure planet nor anywhere in this immeasurably vast universe. Vis.: [Mr. Buddha]: ‘There is that sphere where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; neither the sphere of the infinitude of space ... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Nibana Sutta; Udana VIII.1). The whole point of enlightenment is release from re-birth ... peace-on-earth is not even on their agenda. RESPONDENT: Mr Buddha’s words are enigmatic indeed, but I think that you consider his teachings as focused to getting freedom from a supposed re-birth and afterlife, despising earthly life. Yes? RICHARD: Yes. Dissociation (‘vippayutta’ It is a total disassociation of self (by whatever name) from the world of people, things and events. RESPONDENT: The term enlightenment as used in Buddhism is not really that. RICHARD: Of course not ... but as I never said it was then all you are doing here is setting up a straw-man so that you can proceed to knock it down (presumably whilst being under the impression you are having a meaningful dialogue with your co-respondent). RESPONDENT: Dogen taught for example that ‘to study the self is to lose the self. To lose the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to lose even a trace of enlightenment and that ‘no trace’ continues endlessly’. This is a way of speaking of a state that is without separation. It is not ‘me’ as an objectless subject. It is an attention that is without self-reflection. RICHARD: As the little I know of what Mr. Kigen Dogen had to say begins and ends with the words he uttered upon full enlightenment (while studying under Mr. Ju-Ching in China) I will reproduce them here: ‘Mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body!’ (Dogen Zenji 1200 – 1253). RESPONDENT: Only what is false can drop away. Body drops away has a peculiar meaning. RICHARD: If, as you say, ‘body drops away’ has a peculiar meaning it could very well be in the translation from thirteenth century Japanese into twenty first century English ... for example, the quote you provided (further above) has at least a dozen variations. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: One who is unaware of what is referred to will misinterpret it as something false, i.e. – metaphysics, invention of thought; a grand delusion. RICHARD: One who is unaware that spiritual enlightenment is a delusion born out of an illusion will, of course, not even begin to comprehend the degree of self-deception involved in saying ‘mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body!’ ... they would rather say, for example, that the phrase has a ... um ... a peculiar meaning. In other words: anything other than what the phrase says. RESPONDENT: Unalike misunderstands unalike, no? RICHARD: If the various translations (above) are anything to go by it would appear so. RESPONDENT: I have realised that any reliance on something lasting is to set one up for a fall. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: statistically speaking the average life-span (in the west anyway) is approximately 75 years and the universe was here long before you were born and will be here long after you are dead ... yet you will not place any reliance upon it lasting because to do so is to set yourself up for a fall. Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies. RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh? RESPONDENT: As I have made this mistake many times and ended up in a lot of pain, I do not wish to repeat it (I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you not ever noticed it is never not this moment? RESPONDENT: Therefore, the actual freedom I believed is a possibility (before encountering your site) would be thus: 1) There are no permanent things (including I/Me, identity, self, states etc). 2) Consequently there is no basis for suffering to arise. Which is why I was attracted to your site. RICHARD: Ah, but have you read what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site with both eyes open? RESPONDENT: It’s not that it was a new concept, it’s more that I agreed with it. RICHARD: As it is your concept you are reading into what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site it is no wonder (a) it is not new ... and (b) you agreed with it. RESPONDENT: I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: I am none too sure what it is to be ‘fully understood’ by you but it certainly is not what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site RESPONDENT: I guess I realise at some level that the crux of the issue is the above (as in points 1 and 2) and that if I had to pick out the two most important things in a ‘teaching’ it would have to be those. As your teaching ... RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not have a ‘teaching’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings. For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day teacher (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’. What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ then it is fruitless to continue going again and again around the same old mulberry bush in e-mail after e-mail. What I would suggest, at this stage, is to look once more at what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site ... paying particular attention to the very first words on The Actual Freedom Trust home page (immediately below the logo) before doing so. It would save a lot of needless repetition. RESPONDENT: ... I am unsatisfied with your claims of being historically unique in being actually free from the human condition. RICHARD: First and foremost: somebody has to be the first to discover something new in any field of human endeavour ... is there any particular reason you prefer it to be somebody other than the person you are currently conversing with (and, perhaps, of some other gender, race, age, or era) that was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth and thus make apparent the actual meaning of life? RESPONDENT: I have nothing against to you being the discoverer. I just believe that it’s unlikely. It’s rare but not totally unique. RICHARD: I read through your response three times ... this is what stands out as the main stumbling block:
‘Tis no wonder this is such an issue for you ... you were under the impression that Mr. Buddha
was the first to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth RESPONDENT: I am a student of the prasangika madhyamika school of Buddhism (the middle way consequence school of the Dalai Lama) and also a student of all religions, as I have always been very interested in religion and the wisdom contained in its allegory. I do not believe in a primal cause, so to speak, and am therefore an atheist. RICHARD: Welcome to The Actual Freedom Trust mailing list, ... being a declared atheist of a certain buddhistic persuasion your contribution to the topic is not only of considerable interest but timely into the bargain RESPONDENT: I am have also spent many years interested in the teaching of J. Krishnamurti (NOT UG ugh – yuk) whose approach is very similar to this school of Buddhism and am Gurdjieff trained, to the nth, as he would have put it. All of this about the ‘I’ as an entity is refuted by all of these teachings, and in Buddhism, we are specifically trained to understand this. RICHARD: You would be referring to the Anatta (‘Non-Self’) teaching of Mr. Buddha, I presume? RESPONDENT: It IS very natural to experience this sense of self ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The topic being discussed is the feeling of ‘being’ (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) – and not a ‘sense’ of self – which affective ‘presence’ is the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire), genetically endowed by blind nature, in action. Put succinctly, ‘I’ am the affective feeling of fear and the affective feeling of fear is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of aggression and the affective feeling of aggression is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of nurture and the affective feeling of nurture is ‘me’; ‘I’ am the affective feeling of desire and the affective feeling of desire is ‘me’ (and so on). Neither Mr. Buddha nor Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (let alone Mr. Georges Gurdjieff and Mr. Tenzin Gyatso) come even anywhere near comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded as a rough and ready survival package. RESPONDENT: ... [It IS very natural to experience this sense of self] as existing on its own side, as a non-material entity, so to speak, but just because it is natural does not mean it is correct. In Buddhism, this sense of ‘I’ as an independent entity, sort of like a king of the body ( which is its subject), as existing in its own non-material realm is considered to be wrong view or ignorant. It is responsible for all the disorder and suffering in the world, as life is then seen, as existing on its own side, and this so called ‘I’ which is a function of dualistic perception around which a psychological (physical-emotional-thought) complex forms, tries to cling to it. RICHARD: And the Buddhist solution to this ‘dualistic perception’ is what ... the non-dualistic state of being known as nirvana? RESPONDENT: I found the website by chance and joined this group because it seems that the philosophy of Actual Freedom may be the same as my own. RICHARD: First and foremost, an actual freedom from the human condition (which is what ‘Actual
Freedom’ is short for) is not a philosophy Last, but by no means least, an actual freedom from the human condition is not the same as what you speak of (further above) as it is, as is clearly stated on The Actual Freedom Trust web site, beyond awakening/enlightenment (by whatever name) ... it is a new and non-spiritual down-to-earth freedom. RESPONDENT: If so, I would like to do anything I can to assist this organization in its endeavours to help people understand that ‘I’ can be used merely as a reference point to the physical body ... RICHARD: The use of scare-quotes around the first person pronoun – as in ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul – is used to refer to the psychological and psychic ‘self’ (the ‘thinker’ and the ‘feeler’) parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body per favour blind nature ... the use of the first person pronoun sans scare-quotes refers to the flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: ... but this sense of a separate entity, and the perpetuation of it into culture, is responsible for almost all of the misery and suffering in this world. RICHARD: As Mr. Budda’s solution to all the misery and suffering was to scarper off to the
place where the sun don’t shine RESPONDENT: I hope this contribution will be of value to someone or other on here. RICHARD: Your verification that a person of a certain buddhistic persuasion classifies themselves as an atheist is certainly of value. * RESPONDENT: A feelings itself CANNOT be genetically encoded, as it is a result of an interaction between a creature and his environment. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to put it in Buddhist terms: as it is the tanha (literally ‘thirst’ but often translated as craving/desire) for physical existence which is the cause of birth/rebirth – without which aging/death, and thus dukkha (unsatisfactoriness/sorrow/suffering), cannot exist – that particular feeling, for an example, exists prior to a creature being born/reborn ... else there would be no such creature to interact with its environment (aka ‘samsara’). As the whole point of Buddhism is to extinguish tanha (nirvana literally means the extinguishing of
a fire) so that there will be no further rebirth it is preposterous It is this ignorance – the ignorance of the cause of birth/rebirth – that Mr. Buddha came to dispel. RESPONDENT: By the way can you go slightly deeper into actualist attention and Buddhist mindfulness in detail please. It would be of great assistance to me. RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to this:
The focus of the buddhistic ‘sati’ – a Pali word referring to mindfulness,
self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention Which is why it is another ball-game entirely. * RESPONDENT: Is this the main departure point between what you report and what spiritualists (Ramana, Nisargadatta and others) report? Namely Consciousness. RICHARD: What I report is the absence of the entire affective faculty/identity in toto ... whereas consciousness (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is nothing other than a flesh and blood body being conscious. RESPONDENT: You say it’s a result of brain’s neuronal activity, something that the individual flesh and body possesses and it will extirpate upon one’s death. They say it’s primary and everything including universe arises out of that capital Consciousness. Consciousness is infinite and timeless to them and for you it’s the physical universe that is infinite and eternal. Richard, can you slightly in detail regarding this consciousness. How it operates in you, and how and why does it appear to some as infinite and timeless and primary. How does one avoid the trap of that delusion. RICHARD: I posted the following, which perhaps summarises the nub of the issues you mention most succinctly, only last month:
To say that consciousness remains forever after physical death is as blatantly ludicrous as proposing that the warmness of the body (the state or condition of a body being warm) continues to subsist evermore even though it be as cold as ice (as in a morgue). RESPONDENT: [quote]: ‘In 1985 I had the first of many experiences of going beyond spiritual enlightenment (as described in ‘A Brief Personal History’ on my part of The Actual Freedom Trust web site) and it had the character of the ‘Great Beyond’ – which I deliberately put in capitals because that is how it was experienced at the time – and it was of the nature of being ‘That’ which is attained to at physical death when an Enlightened One ‘quits the body’ ... which attainment is known as ‘Mahasamadhi’ (Hinduism) or ‘Parinirvana’ (Buddhism). Thus I knew even before becoming actually free that this condition was entirely new to human experience while still alive ...’. [endquote]. It is your ‘thus’ which I do not grasp. RICHARD: It is my [quote] ‘while still alive’ [endquote] words which are the key ... I will draw your attention to the following:
For example:
For another example (from Mr. Satya Goenka’a accredited master):
Or, in Mr. Buddha’s own words, even:
Do you see the end of suffering was indeed previously considered to be only possible after physical death ... in a realm that had nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system); ‘neither the infinitude of space’ (no universe); ‘nor the infinitude of consciousness’ (no body)? RESPONDENT: I see that you are saying that ‘the end of suffering was previously considered to be only possible after physical death’. RICHARD: So that you do not have to take my word for it I provided three quotes ...
therefore, do you also see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University
of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article Furthermore, do you also see that Mr. Sayagyi Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’a accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death? Moreover, do you also see that Mr. Buddha himself is saying that the end of suffering [dukkha] is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever? RESPONDENT: The Buddhism you quote is, I think, one strand of one strand of mysticism. Many other Buddhist interpreters would, as far as I know, claim that liberation is possible before death. RICHARD: Of course (mystical) liberation is possible before physical death ... the subject in question, however, is the end of suffering: do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article, is saying that the awakened one enters ‘the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’ after physical death? Furthermore do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Sayagyi Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’a accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death? Moreover do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Buddha himself is saying that the end of suffering [dukkha] is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever? RESPONDENT: But I don’t know that much about Buddhism. RICHARD: As you have written elsewhere that, at the age of 20 you embarked upon 10 years of spirituality/mysticism, and that you even created and published a mystic magazine called ‘The Laughing Monkey’, into which you poured considerable time, energy and money, there is no need to all-of-a-sudden become coy. RESPONDENT: I do know that many other teachers claim that enlightenment is fully possible in this lifetime. RICHARD: Of course (mystical) enlightenment is fully possible in this lifetime ... the subject in question, however, is the end of suffering: do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Frank Reynolds (Professor of Buddhist Studies and History of Religions, University of Chicago), in his Encyclopaedia Britannica article, is saying that the awakened one enters ‘the nirvana that is not burdened by any karmic residue at all’ after physical death? Furthermore do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Sayagyi Thray Sithu U Ba Khin (Mr. Satya Goenka’a accredited master) is saying that the awakened one reaches ‘the end of suffering’ after physical death? Moreover do you, or do you not, see that Mr. Buddha himself is saying that the end of suffering [dukkha] is in a realm [sphere] that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever? RESPONDENT: I read this last night and thought to post it here as it might sound vaguely familiar: [quote] ‘It is the immediate experience of seeing essential nature [the actual universe, the universe as it actually is] right now: it is the time when you let go of your self and give up compulsion’. [endquote]. I understand self, in this context, as any notion of an entity (or identity). Since it is a ‘notion’ and has no ‘actual’ (public or shared) existence, as one ceases to believe it has ‘actual’ existence and sees it, as it is, as a notion, the notion either dissipates like a fog in the morning sun or remains like an empty ghost that cannot interfere with life. This is letting go of your self. RICHARD: It is not at all familiar – not even vaguely so – as the immediate experience of seeing the actual universe, the universe as it actually is, is not the time when [quote] ‘you let go of your self and give up compulsion’ [endquote] but, rather, can only occur where identity in toto is either in abeyance, as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE), or extinct (as in an actual freedom from the human condition). RESPONDENT: I offered my understanding of the phrase, ‘letting go of your self’ as ceasing to believe in ‘self’, which I defined as ‘any notion of an entity (or identity)’. RICHARD: Aye, and you also offered your understanding of the buddhistic term ‘essential nature’ as well – albeit as an insertion in squared brackets – in the quote you thought might sound vaguely familiar ... here are some (edited for convenience) highlights of the passage where that sentence came from: [quote] ‘You should simply see your essential nature to attain Buddhahood. (...) you realize your own essential nature by means of your own mind and understand your own life by means of your own insight. If right mindfulness is not continuous and concentration is not pure and single minded, your efforts will be in vain. This right mindfulness means not having any thoughts; concentration means not conceiving any mental images. (...) you see the original state as it was before space and time. ‘Before space and time’ does not mean something remote in space and time; don’t think of it as something ancient. It is the immediate experience of seeing essential nature right now: it is the time when you let go of your self and give up compulsion’. [endquote]. As your essential nature (aka the original state) is not in space and time there is no way it can be equated to the actual universe/ the universe as it actually is. Incidentally, you are not the first to try to marry actualism and spiritualism ... and you will probably not be the last. RESPONDENT: Yes, as I noted, I (‘actually’) read those pages the other evening. RICHARD: In which case you would have read the author saying that when you see your essential nature/ the original state you see it as it was before space and time (and that ‘before space and time’ does not mean something remote in space and time/ something ancient). RESPONDENT: I am not trying ‘to marry actualism and spiritualism’, as I do not consider myself a spiritualist and do not believe in a soul (an eternal, independent entity). RICHARD: My observation about trying to marry actualism and spiritualism has nothing to do with what you do or do not consider yourself to be and what you do or do not believe in ... I was simply going by the words you wrote in the squared brackets in the quote above. Howsoever, and for the sake of honesty in communication, I will draw your attention to the following extract from your third post to this mailing list:
RESPONDENT: The meaning you presented of ‘essential nature (aka the original state)’ may well be the generally accepted Buddhist meaning ... RICHARD: All I did was copy-paste the words ‘your essential nature’ and ‘the original state’ from the quoted text above ... and make the observation that, as it is not in space and time, there is no way it can be equated to the actual universe/ the universe as it actually is. RESPONDENT: ...but it is not mine and I presented mine to you. RICHARD: And what you presented was that the spiritualists’ term ‘essential nature’ (aka ‘original state’) equated to the actualists’ term ‘actual universe’ (aka ‘universe as it actually is’) ... yet as your essential nature/ the original state is not in space and time there is no way it can be equated to the actual universe/ the universe as it actually is. I will rephrase my previous observation accordingly: you are not the first to try to equate actualism to spiritualism ... and you will probably not be the last. RESPONDENT: Yes, I wrote the following: ‘And I see the world as divine and sacred. Not because it’s perfect and pure, which it ultimately is, but because it exists, it must be divine, it must be sacred. And it doesn’t matter whether what appears to exist is ultimately real or not, it is not apart from the divine and sacred’. The world, the ‘actual’ world, is perfect and pure and because it’s perfect and pure I call it ‘divine and sacred’. RICHARD: As you equate [quote] ‘the ‘actual’ world’ [endquote] with the buddhistic essential nature (aka the original state) which is not in space and time it is no wonder that you call it divine and sacred. Moreover, I see you wrote the following only recently:
Yet this is what you unequivocally stated in your previous e-mail to me (from further above):
Be all that as it may ... I am only too happy to rephrase my observation: you are not the first to try to marry actualism and non-dualism and you will probably not be the last. * RESPONDENT: I read these words tonight: [quote] ‘Whatever you are doing, concentrate wholeheartedly on questioning the inner master that perceives, cognizes, and emotes’ [endquote] and thought the practice sounded vaguely familiar: With pure intent: ‘The question to ask yourself, each moment again, is ‘How am I experiencing this moment of being alive?’ RICHARD: It is not at all familiar ... not even vaguely so. RESPONDENT: I also thought to share this – A friend suggested that when one reads an ancient text, one should not impart a silly or superficial meaning, but one should see the profoundest meaning. I suggest we do that with all writings, modern and contemporary. Richard’s. Yours. Even this. RICHARD: It makes no difference whether or not you see the profoundest meaning in a spiritualist’s text – be it ancient, modern or contemporary – as there is no way that actualism can be equated to spiritualism. * RESPONDENT: I read these words and thought the practice sounded vaguely familiar: [quote] ‘If you want to quickly attain mastery of all truths and be independent in all events, there is nothing better than concentration in activity. That is why it is said that students of mysticism working on the Way should sit in the midst of the material world.’ – from ‘An Elementary Talk on Zen’ page 86 in Minding Mind, translated by Thomas Cleary. RICHARD: It is not at all familiar – not even vaguely so – as there is no way that actualism can be equated to spiritualism.
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 1997-2001 |
