|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 22): One can thank the lucky stars for having had a glimpse of (an
insight into) the condition of not ‘me’, and get on with the business of unravelling one’s ‘self’ by applying
matter-of-fact thought to the challenge of not ‘being’. For one has a definite goal, born out of one’s own experiential
seeing of it, to aim for. It is not a theoretical goal; it is not something one has read about in a book; it is not something
someone else has told one about. It is the goal of one’s own insight. The insight is a benefaction. RESPONDENT: Yes, to study the self is to forget the self. RICHARD: This is a trifle cryptic but I take it to mean that if one reads or hears about what the self is made up of and makes the subject theoretical, then one fails to remember the primary goal ... which is the ending of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety. Is this what you mean by ‘forget the self’? If this is so, then I would like to point out that what I was writing of was that one has one’s own experiential seeing, one’s own insight, into the facticity of not ‘being’. The certainty that this engenders is the factor which brings an intensity and an actuality to one’s quest. This is entirely different from postulating an end to becoming and philosophising about living as a ‘centre-less being’ ... or whatever speculative assumption that captivates one’s fancy. That is why the insight is a benefaction. RESPONDENT: In understanding division or self-reflection, division ends. RICHARD: As you wrote ‘division or self-reflection’, may I re-arrange your sentence sequentially for clarity? If so, it then reads thus:
As you linked ‘self-reflection’ to ‘division’, so that you indicate that they mean one and the same thing to you, I am wondering if there is a fourth meaning ascribed to ‘self-reflection’ that I have not come across. I say this because the context of your sentence points toward you ascribing the third meaning to ‘division’ ... and as that is a metaphysical concept, it has nothing at all to do with fact. And an insight is seeing the fact.
RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: ‘The investigation of whether consciousness itself has some picture at its base is the biggest challenge. The end result of this challenge will be, that consciousness itself has NO image at its base. However, it is possible to perceive consciousness directly. I.e.: to become conscious of consciousness itself. If you succeed to come to this point, your complete nervous system will go through a complete transformation, allowing complete control over thought and thinking. And therefore allowing complete control over emotions as well’. The mind that investigates whether there is a picture at its base already has a picture, a motive, and a momentum. If ‘I’ am looking to see what is at the base, there is division. That is clear enough isn’t it? So a method-based investigation from the perspective of a centre is still division. The centre will never observe itself just as the eye will never see itself. Would you explain your understanding of what it means for the goose to get out of the bottle? Is this to be made into a goal or does it just happen when the false is seen as false? RESPONDENT: Richard wrote: ‘If this is indeed the same as I have gone through, the important question is not: ‘What does it mean?’ but: Do you have the courage to go completely through it? Do you have the courage to let it penetrate you completely? For the Gestalt is right by its assertion that you can bear anything you are prepared to face’. Yes, there was nothing that needed to be done at all. But such not-doing requires impeccability. Otherwise madness may result. The spinning eventually stops and when it does, the world which is you is transformed RICHARD: I do not know whether there is any other ‘Richard’ on this List or not ... but whoever wrote the above two paragraphs was not me.
RESPONDENT: (1) ‘To study the self is to forget the self’ (...) It is a famous quote of Dogan’s. The study of self I understand to refer to insight rather than analysis. (2) In understanding division or self-reflection, division ends. (3) In understanding division, division ends (...) If there is the divider, or the experiencer, the nature of psychological division is not understood. (4) In understanding self-reflection, division ends (...) If there is identification with an image or idea of self, that seems like self-reflection. Insight or seeing the fact seems the same to me as understanding self-reflection. The false is seen as false. RICHARD: The self is already an ‘image or idea’ – that is what having an insight about the self reveals. If one has ‘an image or idea of self’, as you say one can have, then that is to have an image or an idea about what is nothing but an image or idea in the first place. Then to identify with this image or idea of an image or idea, you say, seems like self-reflection. It sounds to me like the beginning of infinite regression. You then go on to say that ‘seeing the fact means the same to me as understanding self reflection’. Therefore, does the word ‘understanding’, to you, mean the same as ‘seeing the fact’? You then say: ‘the false is seen as false’, which you link in with ‘to study the self is to forget the self’ (a famous quote of Mr. Dogan) which you understand to refer to insight rather than analysis. Is not ‘understanding’ something the same thing as ‘analysing’ something? To understand something is to intellectually grasp a concept successfully. This may be the activity of ‘I’ thinking as clearly as ‘I’ can possibly think, yet it is not the same clarity as the clear seeing obtained in an insight ... and an insight is seeing the fact. When one sees the fact there is action ... and this action is the actualising of the insight so that one’s personality is changed, irrevocably. This change is the beginning of the ending of the ‘self’ one was born with. ‘I’ can not stand exposure to the bright light of awareness for too long without crumpling like a leaky balloon. ‘I’ survive only by being able to lurk around in the shadows of inattention and obfuscation. ‘I’ was born with the instinct to survive, and ‘I’ will do anything to stay in existence, for it is in ‘my’ nature to do so. Intellectually grasping a concept and calling it an insight is part ‘my’ game plan. The seeing of this fact is a direct experience of the actuality of the Human Condition. ... this is actual wisdom. And out of that wisdom there is the essential intensity for the actualisation. This actualisation is the ending of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety.
RICHARD: Konrad said: ‘It was absolutely nothing!’ This particular experience is of the
first priority ... this is an insight ... this is an understanding ... this is actualising a realisation about the nature of ‘I’.
Never mind his later theorising and philosophising and enchantment with logic ... this direct experience is what is important ...
and this ‘process’ – this ‘it’ – is still happening in him. I am finding it fascinating trying to get
him to talk about it. RESPONDENT: Yes, the direct experiencing is what matters. The process still is happening here as well. But any description or interpretation misses the mark. RICHARD: Thank you for your response ... I appreciate your recognition of that which is authentic amidst all the waffle and verbiage that is out there in the ‘real world’ ... and your openness. Do descriptions and interpretations miss the mark? Maybe they do ... yet maybe they do not have to. Perhaps it is beneficial to experiment so as to discover whether this is possible or not. We will never know unless we try. What else can one do, given the medium of language that we are communicating with, via this Mailing-List? After all, the English language has upwards of 650,000 words in it ... plenty of room for nuance of expression. And I do so enjoy the challenge of putting into words one’s personal experience in such a way that the other can understand for themselves ... it is both fun and rewarding into the bargain. For through thoughtful discussion – both with oneself (which is what thinking is) and with the other – a clarity can emerge which gives rise to a purity of being that paves the way for whatever ‘it’ is, when it is adventitious, to become apparent. For example someone wrote to me recently:
This conveys a flavour. There is a taste here of what is happening with a fellow human being ... and this is words describing something that is happening now.
RESPONDENT: There is no energy left for the old ways. The centre will not hold. But there is still the urge to some-how be ‘visible’ (and hence not alone) is there not? Isn’t that what describing is really all about? RICHARD: Speaking personally, no. All the writing I did many years ago served a four-fold purpose.
But, with reference to what you wrote: ‘to be visible and hence not alone’. I would like to ask if one is, actually, alone? As this flesh and blood body, I am most definitely on my own (unless I am a Siamese twin), but I am not alone. This physical world of animal, vegetable and mineral is the self-same stuff as this body ... indeed this body is the very stuff of this material universe. As this body, I am walking through a magical paradise of veritable similitude. But as an ‘I’ inside this body (either in the head or in the heart), ‘I’ am indeed alone ... ‘I’ am lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning. ‘I’ will do anything in order to end ‘my’ aloneness whilst staying in existence, nevertheless. ‘I’ will invent all manner of psychic adumbrations with which to seek union with and thus create an illusion of ending separation through oneness. In fact, ‘I’ will go to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate ‘my’ very ‘being’ for all eternity. ‘I’ will realise ‘my’ ‘True Self’ and thus gain a spurious immortality and some relative fame or notoriety. ‘I’ desire confirmation, endorsement, recognition and – ultimately – adulation. ‘I’ am a bit of a berk, actually. There is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – ‘unity’ vanishes. ‘Oneness’ was merely a concept created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul ... now transmogrified into a ‘Timeless Self’. It is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight.
RICHARD: I would like to ask if one is, actually, alone? As this flesh and blood body, I am most definitely on my own (unless I am a Siamese twin), but I am not alone. This physical world of animal, vegetable and mineral is the self-same stuff as this body ... indeed this body is the very stuff of this material universe. As this body, I am walking through a magical paradise of veritable similitude. But as an ‘I’ inside this body (either in the head or in the heart), ‘I’ am indeed alone ... ‘I’ am lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning. ‘I’ will do anything in order to end ‘my’ aloneness whilst staying in existence, nevertheless. ‘I’ will invent all manner of psychic adumbrations with which to seek union with and thus create an illusion of ending separation through oneness. In fact, ‘I’ will go to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate ‘my’ very ‘being’ for all eternity. ‘I’ will realise ‘my’ ‘True Self’ and thus gain a spurious immortality and some relative fame or notoriety. ‘I’ desire confirmation, endorsement, recognition and – ultimately – adulation. (‘I’ am a bit of a berk, actually.) Whereas there is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – ‘unity’ vanishes. ‘Oneness’ was merely a concept created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul ... now transmogrified into a ‘Timeless Self’. It is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight. RESPONDENT: I agree with your comments as to the desire to join with something greater as generally fear-based. At the same time, it seems that there may be an interest and passionate longing for wholeness that does not arise out of fear or ambition but comes from the depths – in Krishnamurti’s terms, from intelligence. RICHARD: Yes, indeed there is an interest ... a vital interest, in fact, and all because of that passionate longing for wholeness which you locate – accurately – as coming from the depths. And because it is a passionate longing, then the ‘depths’ indicated must be the depths of feeling, and not of deep thought. You then propose that it is coming from intelligence – and not just from what passes for intelligence in ordinary everyday reality – but the intelligence as delineated and described by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. So, now comes the potentially touchy bit ... but as I have clearly stated my position before I will remain, as ever, candid. Whenever Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is brought into a discussion, it must be born in mind as to where he was coming from. He was an enlightened man living in a state of wholeness ... a state of oneness and unity. Which means there was no longer a separation betwixt him and what he variously called ‘the other’, ‘the absolute’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’, ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on. Therefore, what did he mean by his use of the word ‘intelligence’ ? For him, intelligence is indeed affective, not cognitive:
He makes it quite clear that intelligence does not arise from thought:
He drives this point home consistently:
And he describes how to access this intelligence:
Now, as we have already agreed in our previous posts, as an ‘I’ inside this head, ‘I’ am alone ...
‘I’ am lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning. ‘I’ will do anything in order to end ‘my’ aloneness ... whilst
staying in existence, nevertheless. ‘I’ will invent all manner of psychic adumbrations with which to seek union with and thus
create an illusion of ending separation through oneness. In fact, ‘I’ will go to extraordinary lengths to perpetuate ‘my’
very ‘being’ for all eternity. The way it works is like this: first of all there the passionate instincts for survival that
‘blind nature’ endows us with as a start to life ... and a rather clumsy start at that. These express themselves as emotions
inside the heart which give rise to the feeling that there is a ‘feeler’ in there. This feeling creates the illusion that
there is a ‘thinker’ inside the brain. The ‘thinker’ then attempts the impossible: To eliminate the ‘I’ by stopping
thought, permanently. Of course, thinking recommences as it must. When practiced assiduously however, and a rare success ensues,
‘I’, as the ‘thinker’, disappear from the head. ‘I’ then identify solely as the ‘feeler’ in the heart. The
resultant oceanic It has not. ‘I’ still survive, self-satisfied. Now that ‘I’ have made a connection with the ‘other’, by whatever name, via love, ‘I’ feel that there is nothing further to be done – yet it is only that the separation has been bridged. Having made a quantum leap from the head to the heart, there is nothing to stop illusion turning into delusion. The ‘self’ now manifests itself as a humble ‘soul’ that is charged with bringing ‘Teachings’ into the world. And whence come these ‘Teachings’? From ‘that which is sacred, holy’, of course. Which is the Eastern way of saying what in the West is called: ‘I have come to bring God’s word to all mankind’. Eastern spirituality turns out to be nothing more than Western religion in another guise. Thus Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘intelligence’ is some form of divine intelligence. In the West it is described as the omniscience of God (and ‘omniscience’ means having infinite awareness, understanding and insight ... possessed of universal or complete knowledge). Remember, the notion of a fragmented mind arises from an apparently whole life existing in the heart. Any state hypothesised from a delusion can only be a further delusion ... or an illusion. One must psychologically and psychically ‘die’ to find out the actuality of what is. Then there is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity, oneness or wholeness. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – the passionately longed-for ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ and ‘wholeness’ vanishes. Unity’, ‘Oneness’ and ‘Wholeness’ were merely concepts created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul for all eternity ... a very self-centred and thus, ultimately, an extremely selfish approach to life-on-earth. No wonder that so much hatred and blood-shed follows in the wake of all Enlightened Masters’ attempts to bring a spurious peace into the world (not to mention Love and Compassion ... but that is another matter). When one sees all this ... when one is freed from all conceptual and selfish living, it is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight. RESPONDENT: With the cultural image of self, there is isolation but there is also the feeling of being part of a group consciousness and memory that is human thought. When there is no centring in thought, no ‘me’ experiencing, there is all-one-ness. In the absolute sense, there always was but it was lost in the dream of time, i.e.: ‘me’ becoming. RICHARD: Once again, ‘I’ – lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning – desire an end to separation whilst staying in existence nevertheless. What we have talked about above on the divine level, is here being played out on the secular level. A communal – or community – feeling of oneness called ‘all-one-ness’. Much has been made of the word ‘alone’ and the ability to make it say ‘all one’. But this is not just a play on words, because for those desperately lonely peoples, who have made this secular leap of trust, the feeling of ‘aloneness’ has indeed become a feeling of ‘all-one-ness’. Yet a feeling is just that: a feeling. A feeling is not a fact. It is actually so easy to see why feelings – whilst being trusted implicitly – are not to be relied upon. The sense of belonging is a dangerous illusion built upon the shifting sands of emotions and passions. Losing oneself in the crowd renders one susceptible to not only group highs but to mass hysteria ... and mob riots. Just as marital disharmony can lead to domestic violence, so too can neighbourhood disputes lead to civil unrest and communal violence. International riots are called war. So much for being part of a group ... in fact, so much for belonging! Quite rightly do you say ‘when there is no centring in thought ... there is all-one-ness’. What
people fail to comprehend – because they trust feelings implicitly as being the final arbiter of truth – is that ‘I’ am
now centred in feeling. That is: ‘I’ have transferred ‘my’ identity from the head to the heart. Floating on an oceanic However, this feeling of original ‘being’ is nothing but those original instinctual emotions and passions located in the ‘reptilian brain’ at the top of the brain-stem. It is where the rudimentary self we are all born with is situated. And all sentient beings have these exactly identical basic instincts of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... stretching back into pre-history. That is: we are all the same (instinctually) and have always been so. One needs to understand this and reach beyond this primitive source to discover just exactly what I am. Otherwise, you will have no alternative but to say, as you so aptly did: ‘in the absolute sense, there always was [an all-one-ness] but it was lost in the dream of time’ . Seeing all this is the first step towards not only ridding the head of ‘I’ as ego, but emptying the heart of ‘me’ as soul into the bargain. Both these entities originate in the instinctual rudimentary self that all creatures are born with. By reaching beyond not only the ‘egoistic’ self but also the ‘being’ self as well enables one to finally be here at this moment in time and this place in space. Then one is what one actually is: this flesh-and-blood body simply brimming with sense organs, delighting in this very sensual world of actual experience. The search for meaning amidst the debris of the much-vaunted human hopes and dreams and schemes has come to its timely end. With the end of both ‘I’ and ‘me’, the distance or separation between both ‘I’ and ‘me’ and these sense organs – and thus the external world – disappears. To be living as the senses is to live a clear awareness in operation ... which is known as apperception, a pure consciousness experience of the world as-it-is. Because there is no ‘I’ as a thinker – a little person inside one’s head, or a ‘me’ as a feeler – a little person in one’s heart – to have sensations happen to them, I am the sensations. There is nothing except the series of sensations which happen ... not happening to an ‘I’ or a ‘me’ but just happening ... moment by moment ... one after another. To live life as these sensations, as distinct from having them, engenders the most astonishing sense of freedom and release. Consequently, I am living in peace and tranquillity; a meaningful peace and tranquillity. Life is intrinsically purposeful, the reason for existence lies openly all around. Being this very air I live in, I am constantly aware of it as I breathe it in and out; I see it, I hear it, I taste it, I smell it, I touch it, all of the time. It never goes away – nor has it ever been away. ‘I’ – and ‘me’ – was standing in the way of the meaning of life being apparent. Life is not a vale of tears.
RICHARD: Thus Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘intelligence’ is some form of divine intelligence. In the West it is described as the omniscience of God (and ‘omniscience’ means having infinite awareness, understanding and insight ... possessed of universal or complete knowledge). RESPONDENT: No, this is not an accurate reading of what Krishnamurti pointed to in my opinion. He specifically rejected the notion of a divine intelligence or divine knower and mover as an omniscient divine being. RICHARD: Whilst Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, being in a state of enlightenment himself, might have felt free to condemn Gurus and Gods, he did not dismiss the source of enlightenment itself. In fact, he was in reverence of: [quote] ‘that which is sacred, holy’ [end quote]. In a biography, written by Ms. Pupal Jayakar, she relates a scene wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said that: ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ (I do not have the book so this is not a direct quote). (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986). If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place, then it is obvious that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was still in the state of reverence himself ... he was in veneration of what he named: ‘the absolute’, ‘the other’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’ (which is still divinity by whatever name). And there are many, many other instances throughout the extensive writings, by both himself and others, that clearly points to the fact that he was a spiritual and religious man. As for ‘rejecting a ‘divine mover’ as an omniscient divine being’:
Sounds like a divine mover to me ... almost a creator god, in fact. * RICHARD: Remember, the notion of a fragmented mind arises from an apparently whole life existing in the heart. RESPONDENT: Also Krishnamurti states clearly that love is not emotion, not sentiment, but a state of being that knows no separation. RICHARD: I am in total agreement that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly stated that love is not an emotion or sentiment. It is not ... it is passion. In fact he repeatedly stressed passion as being essential ... and passion is an affective state. [quote] ‘Love is compassion, passion. Passion for everything’. [end quote]. Any state of being is an affective state ... that is what a ‘state of being’ means. It is not sensate or cognitive, so that only leaves the affective ... unless you want to suggest that it was the esoteric, the psychic, the occult, as being what he was referring to. A ‘state of being that knows no separation’ is an affective state of oneness, union, wholeness ... I have discussed this before with you. * RICHARD: Any state hypothesised from a delusion can only be a further delusion ... or an illusion. One must psychologically and psychically ‘die’ to find out the actuality of what is. Then there is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity, oneness or wholeness. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – the passionately longed-for ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ and ‘wholeness’ vanishes. Unity’, ‘Oneness’ and ‘Wholeness’ were merely concepts created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul for all eternity ... a very self-centred and thus, ultimately, an extremely selfish approach to life-on-earth. No wonder that so much hatred and blood-shed follows in the wake of all Enlightened Masters’ attempts to bring a spurious peace into the world (not to mention Love and Compassion ... but that is another matter). RESPONDENT: Are you (the thinker or chooser) bringing about this psychic death? RICHARD: Yes and no ... and I am not being tricky here. Yes, in that ‘I’ bring about this ‘death’ in that ‘I’ deliberately and consciously and with knowledge aforethought set in motion a ‘process’ that will ensure ‘my’ demise. And no, 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. When ‘I’ freely and intentionally sacrifice ‘myself’ – the psychological and psychic entities residing inside this body – ‘I’ am gladly making ‘my’ most supreme donation, for ‘I’ am what ‘I’ hold most dear. It is a welcome release into actuality. I am finally here. I discover that I have always been here ... I have never been anywhere else for there is nowhere else ... except illusion and into delusion. The ‘real world’ and the ‘Greater Reality’ had their existence only in ‘my’ fertile imagination. Only this, the actual world, genuinely exists. This exquisite surprise brings with it ecstatic relief at the moment of mutation ... life is perfect after all. But, then again, has one not suspected this to be so all along? At the moment of freedom from the Human Condition there is a clear sense of ‘I have always known this’. Doubt is banished forever ... no more verification is required. All is self-evidently pure and perfect. Everything is indeed well. It is the greatest gift one can bestow upon oneself and others. RESPONDENT: Or is it the inevitable result of insight into what is, i.e.: intelligence? RICHARD: The only thing ‘what is’ is this physical universe ... the actual world of the senses. There is no ‘intelligence’ that is running this universe, that is to commit the all too common error of anthropomorphism. As a human being, the universe is able to be intelligent, but that is all. An insight into the infinite and eternal character of this universe and the implications of that in regards to one’s situation in the scheme of things can indeed set something profound in motion. Speaking personally, I have no boundaries. RESPONDENT: If there is no ‘me’ inside this body, why insist that ‘one’ must die to find out the actuality? RICHARD: It is because ‘I’ appear to be very, very real ... so real as to be true. For many years I mistakenly assumed that words carried a definitive meaning that was common to all peoples speaking the same language ... for example ‘real’ and ‘truth’. But, as different person’s told me things like: ‘That is only your truth’, or: ‘God is real’, I realised that unambiguous words are required (to a child, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy are ‘real’ and ‘true’). Correspondingly I abandoned ‘real’ and ‘true’ in favour of ‘actual’ and ‘fact’, as experience has demonstrated that no one has been able to tell me that their god is actual or that something is only my fact. Therefore this monitor screen is actual (these finger-tips feeling it substantiate this) and it is a fact that these printed letters are forming words (these eyes seeing it validate this). These things are indisputable and verifiable by any body with the requisite sense-organs. Now, to a person who believes ardently in their god, then for them their god is real ... not actual, mind you, but real. Usually they tell me that their god is more real than we humans are ... that is how real their fervency makes of their belief (it is the same as the child with the Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy example I gave above). So too, is it with regards to this wretched and pernicious ‘self’. The ‘self’, whilst not being actual, is real ... sometimes very, very real. The belief in a real ‘thinker’ and ‘feeler’ is not just another passing thought. It is emotion-backed imagination at work. ‘I’ passionately believe in ‘my’ existence ... and will defend ‘myself’ to the death if it is deemed necessary. All of ‘my’ instincts – the instinctive drive for biological survival – will come to the fore then, for ‘I’ am confused about ‘my’ presence, linking ‘my’ survival with the body’s physical continuation. Nothing could be further from the truth for ‘I’ play no part in perpetuating physical existence: ‘I’ am not necessary at all. In fact, ‘I’ am 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 for a cause ... and ‘I’ will willingly sacrifice physical existence for a Noble Ideal. That is how real ‘I’ am. That is why ‘I’ must die a real death (but not physically into the grave) to find out the actuality. What does happen physically occurs in the top of the brain-stem. RESPONDENT: It seems clear that there is a divergence between ‘what is’ and what is imagined. If that split is healed there is a wholeness of life that is not just conceptual. RICHARD: The divergence is an illusion created by ‘my’ presence. When ‘I’ vanish there is no ‘split to be healed’; no fragmentation of life to be made whole * RICHARD: When one sees all this ... when one is freed from all conceptual and selfish living, it is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight. RESPONDENT: If there is a ‘one’ that seems to be living freely in and apart from the world, that seems like duality, i.e.: – delusion. RICHARD: There is a generally accepted convention around the world that, when referring to the psychological or psychic entity within the body, small quotes are used. To wit: ‘I’, ‘me’, ‘my’. When wishing to refer to this flesh and blood body bereft of this entity, it is convenient to revert to the first person pronoun: < I >, < my >, < me > ... or even more impersonally ... < one >. Otherwise the above paragraph would wind up looking like this: ‘When this flesh and blood body sees all this ... when this flesh and blood body is freed from all conceptual and selfish living, it is delicious to live freely in this actual world of sensual delight’. * RICHARD: Quite rightly do you say ‘when there is no centring in thought ... there is all-one-ness’. What people fail to comprehend – because they trust feelings implicitly as being the final arbiter of truth – is that ‘I’ am now centred in feeling. That is: ‘I’ have transferred ‘my’ identity from the head to the heart. Floating on an oceanic feeling of oneness, ‘I’ can truly say: ‘I love everybody and everything’ ... and why? Because of the intense feeling that ‘I am everything and everything is Me’. Consequently, because feelings – emotions and passions – originate in the basic instincts that blind nature endowed humans with at birth, one has discovered one’s source of being (the Zen Masters’ ‘Original Face’). RESPONDENT: I agree but this is not my understanding nor what Krishnamurti spoke of in my opinion. RICHARD: I am pleased that you can agree, even if it is not your understanding. And it most definitely is not what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke of.
RICHARD: Whilst Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, being in a state of enlightenment himself, might have felt free to condemn Gurus and Gods, he did not dismiss the source of enlightenment itself. In fact, he was in reverence of: [quote] ‘that which is sacred, holy’ [end quote]. RESPONDENT: It seems you prefer words like beneficent and ambrosial to sacred or blissful. RICHARD: Oh yes, indeed. No way do those two words indicate some mysterious divine source, lying beyond thought, that I have surrendered to. Beneficent means doing or producing good; especially performing acts of kindness and charity; conferring benefits; conducive to personal or social well-being. And ambrosial means something extremely pleasing to taste or smell. I am autonomous and free; beholden to no one and no thing I stand on my own two feet ... instead of prostrating myself in abject humility and self-abnegation. This actual perfection is excellent and free. It is the freely available bonus of daring to be me as-I-am. Unadorned I am more free than a bird on the wing and cleaner than a sea-breeze on a sweltering summer’s day. To be me as-I-am is to be fresh, each moment again. Owing nothing to no one I am free from corruption ... perversity has vanished forever. Unpolluted as I am by any alien entity, my thoughts and my deeds are automatically graceful. Goodwill, freed of social morality, comes effortlessly to me for all internal conflict is over. I am gentle and peaceful in character. Freeing myself of the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment was the last step into actuality. * RICHARD: In a biography, written by Ms. Pupal Jayakar, she relates a scene wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said that: ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ (I do not have the book so this is not a direct quote). If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place, then it is obvious that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was still in the state of reverence himself ... he was in veneration of what he named: ‘the absolute’, ‘the other’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’ (which is still divinity by whatever name). And there are many, many other instances throughout the extensive writings, by both himself and others, that clearly points to the fact that he was a spiritual and religious man. (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986). RESPONDENT: The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers. RICHARD: Possibly the phrase ‘the universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ does appear to be the same way of expressing the same realisation ... except that I never wrote that phrase. I write: ‘I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As I compose all my posts in my word processor, before importing them into my E-Mail programme, I have all of my E-Mails to this Mailing List in a long document. Thus it is an easy matter for me to type ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ into the search function and send it looking for where I used that phrase. For the life of me I can not find it anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy so that I can make the necessary amendments to my version here on my hard disk. Words are not ‘merely pointers’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a reality – or an actuality – that exists. This dismissal of words ‘as not being the thing pointed to’ is intellectual masturbation. Words are all we have to communicate ... if you wish to dismiss them so cavalierly, then you would be well advised to stop reading and writing. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not pointing to a piece of chewing-gum when he said (not a direct quote): ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’. You know that, I know that ... and probably everyone on this List knows that. You are defending the indefensible. Why? * RICHARD: As for ‘rejecting a ‘divine mover’ as an omniscient divine being’ :
Sounds like a divine mover to me ... almost a creator god, in fact. RESPONDENT: Sometimes Krishnamurti specifically rejected the idea of God, and at other times would speak of God or the sacred as that which has no opposites, non-dualistic energy, undivided awareness, love. Why is that a problem? RICHARD: It is not a problem to me as I am not taken in by such dissimulation ... I am straight-forward and clear. I know what intelligence is ... and what it is not. The intelligence that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti refers to (which you have just acknowledged is God’s intelligence) is known in the West as the omniscience of God ... or have you forgotten what this thread is about? I will re-post the start for your consideration:
Yes, indeed there is an interest ... a vital interest, in fact, and all because of that passionate longing for wholeness which you locate – accurately – as coming from the depths. And because it is a passionate longing, then the ‘depths’ indicated must be the depths of feeling, and not of deep thought. You then propose that it is coming from intelligence – and not just from what passes for intelligence in ordinary everyday reality – but the intelligence as delineated and described by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. So, it must be born in mind as to where he was coming from. He was an enlightened man living in a state of wholeness ... a state of oneness and unity. Which means there was no longer a separation betwixt him and what he variously called ‘the other’, ‘the absolute’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’, ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on. Therefore, what did he mean by his use of the word ‘intelligence’? For him, intelligence is indeed affective, not cognitive:
He makes it quite clear that intelligence does not arise from thought:
He drives this point home consistently:
And he describes how to access this intelligence:
Now, as we have already agreed in our previous posts, as an ‘I’ inside this head ‘I’ am alone ... ‘I’ am lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning. ‘I’ will do anything in order to end ‘my’ aloneness ... whilst staying in existence, nevertheless. ‘I’ will invent all manner of psychic adumbrations with which to seek union with and thus create an illusion of ending separation through oneness. Do we understand each other now? * RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly stated that love is not an emotion or sentiment. It is not ... it is passion. In fact he repeatedly stressed passion as being essential ... and passion is an affective state. [quote] ‘Love is compassion, passion. Passion for everything’. [end quote]. Any state of being is an affective state ... that is what a ‘state of being’ means. It is not sensate or cognitive, so that only leaves the affective ... unless you want to suggest that it was the esoteric, the psychic, the occult, as being what he was referring to. RESPONDENT: It is hidden from the perspective of thought. Is that esoteric or occult? RICHARD: If it is affective, intuitive ... yes; if it is sensate, apperceptive ... no. RESPONDENT: The opening of the heart is part of it, as the affective is closer to pure being. RICHARD: It is not ‘closer to’ ... it is pure being. When the ‘I’ as ego dissolves, one’s
sense of identity makes a quantum leap from the head to the heart. This is to realise ‘pure being’ ... an oceanic RESPONDENT: This is not a new discovery. It has been found to be what is by many others. RICHARD: I could not agree more. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – the latest in a long line of saviours – was living in the metaphysical world whereas I live in the actual world. To become enlightened is to find a solution to the ills of humankind in a metaphysical dimension, and like all solutions found there, it does not work here on earth in this physical dimension. The Masters and Messiahs, the Saints and the Sages, the Avatars and the Saviours have had thousands of years to demonstrate the efficacy of their ‘Message’, their ‘Teachings’. There is still as much suffering now as there was then. The ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. Unless this fact is thoroughly grasped, you will read anything I write in the same context as spiritual enlightenment and will be seen as merely more of the same old stuff. It is not enlightenment that I am speaking of ... it is all about going beyond enlightenment into the actuality of being here on this very physical planet that is meandering about in a very actual universe. Not only must the ego dissolve (like his did) but the soul must die as well (which his did not). Then one is here in this actual world – not the real world that five point eight billion people are living in – but the actual world that is accessible only when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct. * RICHARD: Any state hypothesised from a delusion can only be a further delusion ... or an illusion. One must psychologically and psychically ‘die’ to find out the actuality of what is. Then there is no ‘me’ inside this body to be alone or to seek unity, oneness or wholeness. With ‘my’ complete demise – ‘I’ as both ego and soul – the passionately longed-for ‘unity’, ‘oneness’ and ‘wholeness’ vanishes. Unity’, ‘Oneness’ and ‘Wholeness’ were merely concepts created by ‘I’ to perpetuate ‘my’ existence as a soul for all eternity ... a very self-centred and thus, ultimately, an extremely selfish approach to life-on-earth. No wonder that so much hatred and blood-shed follows in the wake of all Enlightened Masters’ attempts to bring a spurious peace into the world (not to mention Love and Compassion ... but that is another matter). RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti said this, almost verbatim. One must psychologically die to find out the actuality. Then unity or wholeness, or oneness are not conceptual states to chase after. Psychological division is factual. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti never spoke of a psychic death and he praised Love and Compassion to the skies and beyond! The only ‘verbatim’ bit is ‘one must psychologically die’ ... and I use this terminology because I am well aware that I am writing to ‘Krishnamurtiites’. It is called ‘using the jargon’. RESPONDENT: You or Krishnamurti or other teachers point to a different state in which there is no such division. I agree that it is best to forget all doctrines and find out directly. RICHARD: Who are you agreeing with? I never said to forget all doctrines ... on the contrary. Read, read and read again. Study, study and study again. I am on record as saying:
I would not be where I am today if it were not for all those brave people who went before me ... and I am so pleased that they left a record of their ventures. Of course one has to find out directly ... but what is one to do in the meanwhile? One will never become free of the Human Condition by sitting in a deck-chair on the patio and waiting for the ‘Grace of God’ to descend.
RICHARD: Whilst Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, being in a state of enlightenment himself, might have felt free to condemn Gurus and Gods, he did not dismiss the source of enlightenment itself. In fact, he was in reverence of: [quote] ‘that which is sacred, holy’. [end quote]. In a biography, written by Pupal Jayakar, she relates a scene wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said that: ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ (I do not have the book so this is not a direct quote). If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place, then it is obvious that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was still in the state of reverence himself ... he was in veneration of what he named: ‘the absolute’, ‘the other’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’ (which is still divinity by whatever name). And there are many, many other instances throughout the extensive writings, by both himself and others, that clearly points to the fact that he was a spiritual and religious man. RESPONDENT: It seems you prefer words like beneficent and ambrosial to sacred or blissful. RICHARD: Oh yes, indeed. No way do those two words (‘beneficent’: doing or producing good; especially performing acts of kindness and charity; conferring benefits; conducive to personal or social well-being and ‘ambrosial’: something extremely pleasing to taste or smell’ ) indicate some mysterious divine source, lying beyond thought, that I have surrendered to. RESPONDENT: This is a common debate technique (seen repeatedly on this Mailing List and else where) Make an interpretation that is not what is actually pointed to, and then argue that it is wrong. What is the motive for such comparing? Krishnamurti did not posit a separate divine anything, nor did he promote the idea of a ‘me’ that must decide to surrender to something higher. RICHARD: I am not making an ‘interpretation that is not actually pointed to’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did indeed posit a separate divine ‘something else’, and did indeed ‘promote the idea of a ‘me’ that must decide to surrender to something higher’. The above paragraph delineates just this fact. If Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘did not posit a separate divine anything’, then what do the words ‘there is that which is sacred, holy’ convey to you? Chewing gum? And willingly bowing down and prostrating to ‘that which is sacred, holy’ means surrender ... and abject surrender at that. What does ‘that I bow down to; that I would prostrate to’ mean to you? Sitting in an arm-chair with your feet up on the coffee table having a quiet chat to God about football? You are defending the indefensible. Why? (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986).
RICHARD: I am autonomous and free; beholden to no one and no thing I stand on my own two feet ... instead of prostrating myself in abject humility and self-abnegation. This actual perfection is excellent and free. It is the freely available bonus of daring to be me as-I-am. Unadorned I am more free than a bird on the wing and cleaner than a sea-breeze on a sweltering summer’s day. To be me as-I-am is to be fresh, each moment again. Owing nothing to no one I am free from corruption ... perversity has vanished forever. Unpolluted as I am by any alien entity, my thoughts and my deeds are automatically graceful. Goodwill, freed of social morality, comes effortlessly to me for all internal conflict is over. I am gentle and peaceful in character. Freeing myself of the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment was the last step into actuality. RESPONDENT: ‘I’ am the thought of being somehow separate in time apart from everything else. If there seems to be someone in time free from anything, that is duality. If ‘I’ am aware that I am aware, or aware that I am ‘free’, that is division. RICHARD: So, according to you, if someone is aware that they are free ... then that is proof that they
are not free? Are you for real? This is but a variation on that pithy aphorism: ‘He who knows does not speak’
This is written by one who is aware that he is free – and says so unabashedly – and one who knows that he knows and is unrepentantly speaking. My attitude is this: if you know something, then say it ... and say it with firmness and boldness; say it with verve and vivacity; say it with daring and audacity. All this being humble business is only for the faint of heart and the weak of knee, who piously hope to earn their way into some god’s good graces by deprecating and humiliating themselves like all get-out. It is arrant selfishness to discover peace-on-earth ... and keep it to yourself!
RESPONDENT: The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers. RICHARD: Possibly the phrase ‘the universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ does appear to be the same way of expressing the same realisation ... except that I never wrote that phrase. I write things like ‘I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As I compose all my posts in my word processor, before exporting them to my E-Mail programme, I have all of my E-Mails to this Mailing List in a long document. Thus it is an easy matter for me to type ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ into the search function and send it looking for where I used that phrase. For the life of me I can not find it anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy so that I can make the necessary amendments to my version here on my hard disk. RESPONDENT: Everyone reading these posts can see what you have said. It is like Krishnamurti’s tendency to dismiss all prior teachings and expressions, only to ultimately bring the same terms back in, with a new direct understanding of them. The words alone mean nothing. They are just symbols. RICHARD: Words are not ‘just symbols’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a
reality – or an actuality – that exists. My words accurately describe a reality that the ‘I’ that used to be in this body
saw that I needed to be free from ... and my words accurately describe a ‘Reality’ that is but a mirage. Words in themselves
are not a problem, for words are a description of something ... and it is that something that is being lived which is trapping you
... not the words. I know that some people (Post-Modernists, for example) re-arrange words and definitions to suit themselves, but
the underlying reality or Reality remains the problem. Semantics Look carefully at what I write ... you will see that I am not ‘dismissing all prior teachings and expressions, only to ultimately bring the same terms back in, with a new direct understanding of them’. For example:
When I dismiss something ... it stays dismissed.
RICHARD: Words are not ‘merely pointers’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a reality – or an actuality – that exists. This dismissal of words as ‘not being the thing pointed to’ is intellectual masturbation. Words are all we have to communicate ... if you wish to dismiss them so cavalierly, then you would be well advised to stop reading and writing. RESPONDENT: The description is not the thing. Seeing does not involve the symbolic. To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing, but only images are projected. RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti repeatedly said: ‘the description is not the described’ and yet you are doing what he said not to do. To wit: ‘do not quote anyone, least of all the speaker’. Unless you are living the actuality of that phrase ‘the description is not the described’ then you are mouthing empty rhetoric. You go on to demonstrate your lack of understanding by dismissing, as ‘such nonsense’, the seminal discovery that ‘that which is sacred, holy’ is but a delusion born out of an illusion. As for ‘life is a beneficence’ being only a ‘projected image’ ... well, all I can suggest is that you continue to live in your grim and glum reality, with brief moments of a break-though into a loving and compassionate delusion as a reprieve. Meanwhile, living in the ‘projected symbol’ called the actual world of people, things and events as I do, I will, without doubt, continue to experience the ambrosial beneficence of the infinitude of this material universe with a carefree gaiety. For concomitant to the extinction of malice and sorrow is blitheness and benignity. To be rid of animosity and anguish is to be happy and harmless. This benediction (‘benediction’: something that promotes goodness or well-being) has been going on for twenty four hours a day for the last five years. Not bad going for a ‘projected symbol’ eh?
RESPONDENT: Sometimes Krishnamurti specifically rejected the idea of God, and at other times would speak of God or the sacred as that which has no opposites, non-dualistic energy, undivided awareness, love. Why is that a problem? RICHARD: It is not a problem to me as I am not taken in by such dissimulation ... I am straight-forward and clear. I know what intelligence is ... and what it is not. The intelligence that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti refers to (which you have just acknowledged is God’s intelligence) is known in the West as the omniscience of God ... or have you forgotten what this thread is about? RESPONDENT: There is just the operation of intelligence, that is not yours, or mine, or that of some higher being. The confusion arises from a belief that there is a real psychic entity that exists in time that can acquire something. Krishnamurti refers to intelligence as the liaison between the known and the unknown, the measured and the immeasurable. The undivided dimension is only given expression or ‘awakened’ with intelligence which is orderliness. RICHARD: If this intelligence is not ‘yours, or mine, or that of some higher being’ then whence does its source lie? To say that it is ‘the liaison between the known and the unknown, the measured and the immeasurable’ is being disingenuous because ‘unknown’ and ‘immeasurable’ are terms that refer to a metaphysical ‘something’. As you choose to use Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti as your authority for making this statement, then you must – I repeat must – acknowledge his authority in order for your words to carry weight. And that authority is, as I have already observed in other posts, ‘that which is sacred, holy’ (which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti would willingly ‘bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’. (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘... the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’. Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper & Row; San Francisco; 1986). The ‘orderliness’ of this omniscient intelligence is subjugation. Peace-on-earth has nothing to do with order or disorder ... order implies compliance to authority, be that authority either external or internal. Who is being ordered ... and by whom? The extinction of ‘me’ in ‘my’ entirety does away with those ‘tried and true’ methods of disciplining the wayward self. Peace-on-earth is freedom from the Human Condition. The Human Condition is a term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of so-called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. Freedom from the Human Condition is the ending of the ‘self’. The elimination of the ‘self’ is the demise of both ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within oneself. Then ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ vanish forever along with the dissolution of the psyche itself ... which is the only place they can live in. Because there is no good or evil in the actual world of sensual delight – where I live 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 time and this place in space is to be living in a fairy-tale-like ambience that is never-ending.
RESPONDENT: This (spiritual enlightenment) is not a new discovery. It has been found to be what is by many others. RICHARD: I could not agree more. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – the latest in a long line of saviours – was living in the metaphysical world whereas I live in the actual world. To become enlightened is to find a solution to the ills of humankind in a metaphysical dimension, and like all solutions found there, it does not work here on earth in this physical dimension. RESPONDENT: That is precisely what Krishnamurti taught, my friend. Of course thought turns what he said into something metaphysical. That is why it is a mistake to follow Krishnamurti or anyone else. The boundless dimension is only here and now penetrating all things. That is a fact that is seen, not a metaphysical theory or cosmology. RICHARD: Thought does not turn what he says into something metaphysical ... it is already metaphysical. If it is a mistake to follow Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti then why do you quote him incessantly? The boundless dimension is not penetrating all things ... it is all things. It is called: this very material universe. This is not a fact that is merely seen ... this is lived as an actuality. You see, what one is as this body is this material universe experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being. The physical space of this universe is infinite and its time is eternal ... thus the infinitude of this very material universe has no beginning and no ending ... and therefore no middle. There are no edges to this universe, which means that there is no centre, either. We are all coming from nowhere and are not going anywhere for there is nowhere to come from nor anywhere to go too. We are nowhere in particular ... which means we are anywhere at all. In the infinitude of the universe one finds oneself to be already here, and as it is always now, one can not get away from this place in space and this moment in time. By being here as-this-body one finds that this moment in time has no duration as in now and then – because the immediate is the ultimate – and that this place in space has no distance as in here and there – for the relative is the absolute. In other words: I am always here and it is already now.
RESPONDENT: Awareness prior to thought changes the nature of passion. For example, Krishnamurti spoke of a compassion and beauty that is without cause, not reactive. If awareness is there, functioning (thoughts, feelings, sensations) is transformed. RICHARD: But it is not without cause ... the cause lies in the heart. There is no uncaused compassion or beauty floating around in a disembodied realm ... that would be metaphysical (and you stress that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is not metaphysical). So therefore this ‘compassion and beauty that is without cause’ must lie in something physical. Ergo, the heart ... it is the most obvious place to look. There is a word for this ‘uncaused compassion and beauty’ : narcissism. RESPONDENT: The opening of the heart is part of it, as the affective is closer to pure being. RICHARD: It is not ‘closer to’ ... it is pure being. When the ‘I’ as ego dissolves, one’s sense of identity makes a quantum leap from the head to the heart. This is to realise ‘pure being’ ... an oceanic sense of beatitude. RESPONDENT: If it involves identification with the affective, that is not ‘pure’ is it? RICHARD: In order to avoid identification, people practice detachment. My question is this: Who is being detached? And from what? The notion of ‘pure being’ is a contradiction in terms. Being ‘who’? It is far easier to cease being an identity than to cease identifying (one goes into infinite regress otherwise). Then there is purity. It is the purity of not ‘being’ at all. This extinction of any ‘presence’ whatsoever reveals the purity of the perfection of the infinitude of this very material universe to this flesh and blood body. Then the already existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent.
RICHARD: It is not enlightenment that I am speaking of ... it is all about going beyond enlightenment into the actuality of being here on this very physical planet that is meandering about in a very actual universe. Not only must the ego dissolve (like his did) but the soul must die as well (which his did not). Then one is here in this actual world – not the real world that five point eight billion people are living in – but the actual world that is accessible only when ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul become extinct. RESPONDENT: There is a penetration and finally a break through the ground of false, limited, ‘normal’ mental consciousness into the vast and luminous nectar of awakened consciousness or awareness. This lasts for only a few seconds at first. Later a sweet, harmonious, luminous, dimension is seen as a constancy. With undivided awareness, there is much more stability in the normal mental and emotional processes than in the original, pre-meditation ‘self’. This transparency is not ‘me’ or mine but it does indeed remain as foundation for seeing. RICHARD: It is vitally important to look at and touch physical things – trees, armchairs, ashtrays, flowers, whatever – otherwise one goes into an inner state, a trance state. One then enters into a mystical state of being ... which is to be of this world but not in it ... or in this world or not of it ... or whatever nonsense people come out with dressed up as sagacity. This is the mistake all religious and spiritual people make. One needs to come to one’s senses – both literally and figuratively – and then the ‘vast and luminous nectar of awakened consciousness or awareness’ becomes actual. Never mind that it lasts but a few seconds ... one second is enough to encourage one to proceed. Nothing is gained without effort, and application and diligence, coupled with pure intent, gives rise to patience and perseverance. By staying in the actual world of the senses, this ‘foundation for seeing’ will enable you to apperceive this world of people, things and events as-it-is. And what is as-it-is, is what I call actualism ... and actualism is not a vision of mine, it is simply an accurate description of the actual world of sensual delight. The Oxford Dictionary says: ‘actualism; the theory that matter is not merely passive’. That is all ... and I have not investigated any further for I do not want to know who formulated this theory. It is that description – and not the author’s theory – that appeals to me. For, living as I do in the fairy-tale-like actual world with its quality of magical perfection and purity, everything and everyone takes on a lustre, a brilliance, a vividness, an intensity and a marvellous, wondrous vitality that makes everything alive and sparkling ... even the very earth beneath my 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 everything and everyone. We do not live in an inert universe ... but one cannot experience this whilst clinging to immortality. I am mortal.
RESPONDENT: The description is not the thing. Seeing does not involve the symbolic. To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing, but only images are projected. RICHARD: As for ‘life is a beneficence’ being only a ‘projected image’ ... well, all I can suggest is that you continue to live in your grim and glum reality, with brief moments of a break-though into a loving and compassionate delusion as a reprieve. Meanwhile, living in the ‘projected symbol’ called the actual world of people, things and events as I do, I will without doubt continue to experience the ambrosial beneficence of the infinitude of this material universe with a carefree gaiety. For concomitant to the extinction of malice and sorrow is blitheness and benignity. To be rid of animosity and anguish is to be happy and harmless. This benediction has been going on for twenty four hours a day for the last five years. Not bad going for a ‘projected symbol’ eh? RESPONDENT: You misread the post. It said: ‘To say things like: there is nothing sacred, life is a beneficence, or other such nonsense may in fact be from seeing (i.e.: actual) but only images are projected’ (i.e.: heard by others). RICHARD: I did indeed misread the post ... I understood you to mean that I was living in a projected image. I stand corrected. Maybe the next part of this dialogue will achieve something other than projecting images ... that is, as heard by others. * RICHARD: Apperception RESPONDENT: This is similar to what I was saying to No. 20 but you use a different term, apperception. Do you understand apperception as different from choiceless awareness? RICHARD: Oh yes, most definitely ... which is why I choose to call this actual awareness that is my on-going experience ‘apperceptive awareness’. I lived ‘choiceless awareness’ for eleven years, and when I read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1984-1985, I could relate to his use of that phrase. I have been wondering if we cannot come at explaining the difference between these two expressions using some different phraseology ... we have become bogged down in that run of what you have aptly called ‘never ending goodbye and best wishes message’. Because what I am going to write is that ‘choiceless awareness’ is an affective and sensate apprehension of the world of people, things and events, whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ is a sensate-only apprehension of the world of people, things and events. Both ‘choiceless awareness’ and ‘apperceptive awareness’ are only possible when there is no ‘I’ in the head as the ‘thinker’ ... the ego or self. But ‘choiceless awareness’ is where one experiences the world by feeling out its nature as a ‘me’ in the heart as the ‘feeler’ ... the soul or Self. One is the affective faculties – which is pure being – and there is an oceanic sense of oneness ... a ‘wholeness’. Whereas ‘apperceptive awareness’ can only occur when the affective is extinguished entirely ... which means that there is neither an ‘I’ in the head or a ‘me’ in the heart. No self or Self. No identity, no being at all ... no presence whatsoever. But I have used all those words before, to no avail. So, another approach: literally, I have no feelings – emotions and passions – whatsoever ... and have not had for five years. This is why I have been diagnosed as ‘alexithymic’ by two accredited psychiatrists ... which is not strictly correct for alexithymia means not able to feel feelings. Other people can see such a person being angry, for example, but he/she will not be aware of this. It is not a case of him/her denying their feelings – or not being in touch with their feelings – but is a morbid condition. It is most common in lobotomised patients. This is all the result of finding the source of ‘myself’ ... I discovered that ‘I’ was born out of the instincts that blind nature endows all sentient beings with at birth. This rudimentary self is the root cause of all the malice and sorrow that besets humankind, and to eliminate malice and sorrow ‘I’ had to eliminate the fear and aggression and nurture and desire that this rudimentary self is made up of ... the instincts. But as this rudimentary self was the instincts – there is no differentiation betwixt the two – then the elimination of one was the elimination of the other. One is the other and the other is one. In fact, with the elimination of the instincts, ‘I’ ceased to exist, period. Gone too is fear and aggression and nurture and desire. As I am devoid of calenture entirely, I can see and understand clearly what happens when one ‘surrenders one’s ego’, or ‘stops thought’, or ‘merges with the cosmos’ ... or whatever phrase is applicable. The questions no one seems to have successfully answered are: What is this ego? Where is it, precisely? What is its function? Where did it come from? What if we were to say, in order to simplify matters for now, that the ego is nothing more – and nothing less – than the instinctual passionate will to survive codified by the very necessary conscience ... that socialised knowledge of Right and Wrong? What if we were to say that it is located in the forehead in line with the temples just above and between the eyes? What if we were to say that it is the little man/ woman who pulls all the levers and presses all the controls ... and fondly considers itself to be vitally important in the scheme of things? What if we were to say that it is born out of the passionate instinct for survival that blind nature endows us with at conception: fear and aggression and nurture and desire? Would this help to clarify anything? Thus its nature would be that of an emotional and passionate self. Therefore, no one can really ‘surrender their ego’ whilst the affective faculties are still extant ... they can only give up their will. Not for nothing do all scriptures have some equivalent saying to the Western biblical command: ‘Not my will but Thy will, Oh Lord’. This is why obedience, supplication, humility, penitence, entreaty and so on are the requisite demands to be met in order to relinquish the strangle-hold the wilful self has on the psyche. If successful, the wilful self dissolves and mysteriously re-appears as the compliant Self. One is pure spirit. The instinct for survival has triumphed over adversity and one is immortal at last. One views everyday reality through the eyes of beauty and love and beholds great mystery and majesty. This is ‘choiceless awareness’ ... divine obedience. Whereas I, being autonomous and apperceptively aware, am free to choose whatever. RESPONDENT: Apperception is awareness without any motive, it is immediate. RICHARD: I would not say ‘without motive’ ... but it is certainly immediate. It is immediate and direct, unmediated by any feelings whatsoever. The bodily needs are what motivates will – and will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function ... not a self. Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the self is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of fear and aggression and nurture and desire, can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will is called intelligence. This intelligence is the body’s native intelligence ... and has naught to do with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s disembodied ‘intelligence’. RESPONDENT: Yet all egoistic feelings don’t disappear once and for all. There is an on-going process. Can you comment on this apparent contradiction? RICHARD: If what I have written above is conducive to understanding, you will begin to see why ‘egoistic feelings don’t disappear once and for all’. You are not obedient and humble enough! If you still wish to become enlightened, you will need to sublimate your passions – surrender your wilful self – and move into accord with some metaphysical Absolute, like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did in 1922 under a pepper tree, as detailed by Ms. Mary Lutyens. Abject subjugation of the will should produce the essential servitude – great cunning is required – and the rest is up to the ‘Grace of God’. If, however, you are starting to see through all this hocus-pocus, you will be beginning to understand that it is possible to live in this modern era, freed even from out-dated philosophy and psychiatry. You will be challenging every religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical tenet and be surpassing any of the Altered States Of Consciousness. By discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, you will find that 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 and no-thing. For it is now possible for any human being to be totally free from sorrow and malice; the two fundamental elements that prevent one from being happy and harmless. Gone now are the days of having to assiduously practice humility and pacifism in an ultimately futile attempt to become free by transcending the opposites ... the traditional and narrow path of denial and fantasy, negation and hallucination. A wide and wondrous path of blitheness and gaiety is now available for one who wishes to live in the freedom of the actual world. Actualism is a tried and tested way of being here in the world as it actually is ... stripped of the veneer of reality that is super-imposed by the psychological entity within the body. This entity is that sense of identity that inhibits any freedom and sabotages every well-meant endeavour. Thus far one has had only two choices: being normal or being spiritual. Now there is a third alternative ... and it supersedes any Mystical Reality. It is possible to be actually free, in this life-time, as this body, here on earth.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Two) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
