|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RESPONDENT: Thank you for that beautiful quote, No. 19 [What is better than love?]. Such quotes bring some needed clarity to the waters that are clouded by all the recent mud slinging. RICHARD: The term ‘mud-slinging’ is an evocative and pejorative turn of phrase that pre-supposes an already arrived-at conclusion. Now, whilst I make no secret of the fact that I have arrived at conclusions by the bucket-load, you have been maintaining that you have not ... that you are ‘open and eager to explore’. In fact, there is another post from you today that states, in part: ‘In not knowing we are fully completely alert. In that insecurity of not knowing there is a wide eyed immediacy. It is the fearful mind that needs to know, it then needs protection from all possible dangers. And the doors are locked and closed. Fear traps us inside. Living without this need to know is freedom? How could there have been any exploration without it? Would Columbus ever have set sail?’ The question I would ask myself is this: Is it, in fact, ‘mud-slinging’ ... or an attempt by a fellow human being to bring clarity into this – so far – benighted world?
RICHARD: The term ‘mud-slinging’ is an evocative and pejorative turn of phrase that pre-supposes an already arrived-at conclusion. Now, whilst I make no secret of the fact that I have arrived at conclusions by the bucket-load, you have been maintaining that you have not ... that you are ‘open and eager to explore’ . In fact, there is another post from you today that states, in part: ‘In not knowing we are fully completely alert. In that insecurity of not knowing there is a wide eyed immediacy. It is the fearful mind that needs to know, it then needs protection from all possible dangers. And the doors are locked and closed. Fear traps us inside. Living without this need to know is freedom? How could there have been any exploration without it? Would Columbus ever have set sail?’ The question I would ask myself is this: Is it, in fact, ‘mud-slinging’ ... or an attempt by a fellow human being to bring clarity into this – so far – benighted world? RESPONDENT: There is no intent here to identify your whole approach with mud-slinging. RICHARD: Okay then, even if your intent is to identify only a part of my approach as being ‘mud-slinging’ ... it amounts to the same thing. A difference in degree is not a difference in kind. (Mud-slinging: abusive and malicious remarks or charges usually used in the phrase: politicians slinging mud at each other; also: one’s name is mud). RESPONDENT: The focus is rather narrow: it involves the way in which you have been interpreting K. RICHARD: I would be interested as to where you consider I have been interpreting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. I have been presenting well-documented facts. RESPONDENT: Nor is this comment directed at you in particular, there are others on the list that are also intended targets. RICHARD: You see, where you say ‘targets’ ... you are revealing something about how you feel about what you perceive as mud being slung at Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. I repeat: I have been quoting documented words from his own mouth. RESPONDENT: My brief comment has to do with appreciation of what Krishnamurti is talking about, and the approach to the insights and understandings of others. In examining what another person says we can manifest several different attitudes. There is the critique of the straw man where we give the weakest and most indefensible interpretation to what is said, and there is the authoritative approach where we do not question, and there is the approach whereby we attempt to read into the other person’s writings the best interpretation possible. The straw man approach I take to be akin to mudslinging. The authoritative approach to blindness, and the latter is the basis for a serious inquiry into the position expressed, overcoming apparent weaknesses in the mode of expression. RICHARD: You say that the optimum approach is where ‘there is the approach whereby we attempt to read into the other person’s writings the best interpretation possible’. Whereas I am only concerned with facts and actuality. A fact does not need interpretation. Facts speak for themselves. There is no need to ‘read’ actuality ... that which is actual is self-evident. RESPONDENT: That is the ‘philosophical side’ of my comment. But there is as well the aesthetic side of what a person expresses. I wonder whether this aesthetic aspect is at all felt or appreciated by you. RICHARD: As I am not at all ruled by any feelings – emotions and passions – whatsoever, I am able to ascertain aesthetical quality easily and cleanly. Also, as I made a living as a full-time artist for many years before my retirement – and being a qualified art teacher as well – I can certainly appreciate that which is pleasing in appearance ... pleasurable to the senses, as in being a delight to the eyes, for example. But love and beauty ... no thank you. Too much suffering has ensued from emotion and passion over centuries of human existence to even contemplate – for a moment – that the affective faculties be given any appreciation whatever. The only good thing about suffering is when it ends ... and permanently. RESPONDENT: It can easily be dismissed as window washing. I was once told that Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel was not any different than any painting job of a ceiling. It is rather incredible and shocking how insensitive people can be to beauty. RICHARD: It is rather startling how people can be insensitive to the plight of humanity at large. Whilst being enraptured by beauty no one notices its obligatory counterpart ... its compulsory cohort ... its ‘Siamese Twin’. RESPONDENT: In the quote that No. 19 brought there is a beauty in the expression. It has an energy that we can feel. RICHARD: Yes, indeed there is an energy that you can feel. That ‘energy’ is generally called ‘The Truth’. Philosophers down through the ages have clearly maintained that the way to ‘The Truth’ is via ‘Beauty’. (‘Genuine’ philosophers must be mathematicians so as to be able to discern the ‘Rightness’ of a philosophy by its ‘Elegance’ ... which is the philosophical term for ‘Beauty’) As ‘The Truth’ is a philosophical nom de guerre for ‘God’ one discovers that one is still trapped in the truth/false; beauty/ugly; divine/diabolical; love/hate dichotomy that has been spoiling this paradise earth since time immemorial. * RESPONDENT No. 23: You keep this up and you will soon have No. 5 and No. 20 sucked into that tractor beam of yours. RICHARD: I think not. No. 5 is locked too deeply into his adopted Hindu/Buddhist belief system to come up for air and
No. 20 is chasing after Love and Beauty whilst pretending there is no hatefulness and ugliness inextricably entwined with them. RESPONDENT: Sorry, but this is a misrepresentation. Where is the evidence that No. 5 is locked into a Hindu/Buddhist belief system? RICHARD: He told me himself in his last two posts: ‘Both the Western ‘soul’ and Eastern ‘atman’ are
commonly seen as pertaining to individuals, but a serious study of Advaita Vedanta or Buddhist essentials points toward another view
...<SNIP> ... Richard, I am not looking for a scholarly debate, but for deep, passionate seeing past the letter of the what Krishnamurti (or
Shankara or Buddha) wrote or said ... <SNIP> ... as seen from here Atman/Brahman is not some mystical ‘font’ of anything, they are one
and the same and encompass everything ... <SNIP> ... it is all one, my prolific friend, and your parsing it out into different aspects of ‘reality’,
‘self’, ‘soul’, ‘actuality’ is mere repackaging and relabelling of the most ancient wine of all. An unfamiliar vessel does not a new
vintage make’. RESPONDENT: And I do not chase after Love and Beauty. Chasing has no sense. RICHARD: If you say so then I stand corrected ... but that means you must be waiting for it to come to you, for ‘Love and Beauty’ is what you want. Either chasing after or waiting for an attachment has no sense. RESPONDENT: As for ‘pretending’, that remains unexamined. RICHARD: Self-deception is always well worthwhile examining. RESPONDENT: You have yet to provide any reason for your belief that they are inextricably intertwined. RICHARD: It is not a belief ... it is an obvious fact. They are all nothing but products of the lonely self and when the self becomes extinct both Love and its hateful counterpart vanish into thin air. The same applies for Beauty and its ugly cohort. Annihilation sure beats merely transcending duality and being alone for all eternity. RESPONDENT: This must be true for any definition of love or beauty, since your statement is not conditioned. RICHARD: It is an unconditional statement of fact.
RESPONDENT: In the quote that No. 19 brought there is a beauty in the expression. It has an energy that we can feel. RICHARD: Yes, indeed there is an energy that you can feel. That ‘energy’ is generally called ‘The Truth’. Philosophers down through the ages have clearly maintained that the way to ‘The Truth’ is via ‘Beauty’. (‘Genuine’ philosophers must be mathematicians so as to be able to discern the ‘Rightness’ of a philosophy by its ‘Elegance’ ... which is the philosophical term for ‘Beauty’) As ‘The Truth’ is a philosophical nom de guerre for ‘God’ one discovers that one is still trapped in the truth/ false; beauty/ ugly; divine/ diabolical; love/hate dichotomy that has been spoiling this paradise earth since time immemorial. Oh yes ... it is an energy all right; it is an energy that has killed 100,000,000 people in wars this century alone. RESPONDENT: If we want we can dissect it and find out why it has that energy, but those sorts of aesthetic critiques by and large do not capture much of the feeling. RICHARD: No, whatever ‘we’ do, ‘we’ must not find out the source of ‘the feeling’ ... because feelings are too revered ... too sacred ... too holy. ‘We’ do not want to know, do ‘we’? ‘We’ prefer to attain to the ‘Unknown’ rather than to live in the ‘Unknowable’. ‘We’ would rather thus passively condone all the animosity and anguish that curses this fair earth of ours ... and weep crocodile tears of heart-felt remorse at all the sorrow and malice. RESPONDENT: My sense of No. 19’s attitude is that she felt that, as did I. RICHARD: I am well aware of No. 19’s attitude ... we are in correspondence at this moment about the Human Condition. Please, look at what I am saying, with what you yourself wrote, ‘that insecurity of not knowing ... where there is a wide eyed immediacy’. After all, we are discussing peace-on-earth in our life-time. My position is that it is indeed possible to locate, and thus eliminate via exposure, that which is causing all the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that has blighted this globe since time immemorial. Plus all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that is endemic to the human condition. This is no small thing we are engaged in ... it has momentous consequences both for oneself and all humankind. So, are you game enough to go all the way, with ‘wide-eyed immediacy’?
RICHARD: I would be interested as to where you consider I have been interpreting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. I have been presenting well-documented facts. RESPONDENT: This is simply inaccurate. First of all, in bringing a few quotes from various texts and speeches, you simply cannot be seen as making a serious attempt to understand what Krishnamurti is talking about. In order to understand these quotes they must be contextualised, they must be placed into the context of the general approach (so that you understand the particular meaning given to terminology and the centrality of the quote to the entire position), they must be placed in the order of development of the approach, they must be read alongside other seemingly contrary quotes that help explain and condition them. I find that quite to the contrary you have been exceedingly selective, extracting what you find establishes the evidence of some crime, and reading these quotes so that it fits into a general critique you have developed for all Eastern thought. RICHARD: This is because it does fit into a general critique I have of all Eastern thought:
RESPONDENT: I will give you only one example here of your distorted interpretation: You wrote: ‘I was merely following the precedent that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself set. He consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’.’ And then you go on: ‘As these words came from a source that he described as ‘that which is sacred, holy’, it is clear that he was bringing some unknown god’s wisdom to earth’. This is nonsense. There is no unknown god, and Krishnamurti never brings God in as the ground from which he is talking. RICHARD: I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: There is nothing mystical here, nothing from some religious authority, nothing in a dimension that is other worldly. RICHARD: Again I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: Contrary to what you have said, Krishnamurti never says that he has a Soul, a Self. RICHARD: Once again, I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: Use of sacred and holy do not make him so, though you use the dictionary to establish your point. Krishnamurti often departed from the dictionary meaning and substituted another meaning, he seems to have enjoyed playing with etymological roots. For example, ‘Alone’ he made to mean ‘all one’. RICHARD: Yet once again, I beg to differ: he did not make ‘Alone’ mean ‘all one’ at all ... etymologically it does, in fact, already mean ‘all one’. I gather that you do not approve of dictionary definitions, but unless we have some standard to start from, before we ascribe our own meanings, we are lost as in regards intelligent communication. This is the dictionary’s version: alone (adjective): from al (all) + (one). (© 1994 Merriam Webster’s Collegiate® Dictionary). RESPONDENT: This is why it is important to read a person with some sensitivity and care before criticising. RICHARD: I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. For example, I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know. RESPONDENT: Let me say clearly, I find no fault with you or anyone criticising K. He did not write dogma. Point out the weaknesses by all means. But criticism must be responsible. RICHARD: Actually, I am not criticising him per se ... I am criticising the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his. I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is very responsible criticism indeed. * RICHARD: You say that the optimum approach is where ‘there is the approach whereby we attempt to read into the other person’s writings the best interpretation possible’. Whereas I am only concerned with facts and actuality. A fact does not need interpretation. Facts speak for themselves. There is no need to ‘read’ actuality ... that which is actual is self-evident. RESPONDENT: I think you are rather naive here. What you take as self-evident, might only be self-evident to you. That is the weakness with all intuitive based knowledge. RICHARD: My knowledge is, most decidedly, not ‘intuitive based knowledge’ . These are hard facts I present. (I have no intuitive faculties, incidentally ... they have vanished along with the imaginative faculties). RESPONDENT: It claims an immediate mistake-proof road towards knowledge, but there is none. Perhaps in future we can discuss what it means to say that something is a fact. There are quotes that you bring, these can be established as factual. But the meaning given to a quote involves interpretation. Meaning that is assigned to a sentence must bring into it much more than the dictionary. That is why the way we perceive is not irrelevant to what is perceived. Interpretation is basic to all thought processes, including visual processing and other senses. In the case of language, this becomes even more central. RICHARD: By all means let us discuss that ... but not in this post. Posts tend to become too long and unwieldily, otherwise. * RICHARD: After all, we are discussing peace-on-earth in our life-time. My position is that it is indeed possible to locate, and thus eliminate via exposure, that which is causing all the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that has blighted this globe since time immemorial. Plus all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that is endemic to the human condition. This is no small thing we are engaged in ... it has momentous consequences both for oneself and all humankind. RESPONDENT: In that you do appreciate frankness, I must tell you that your response here as elsewhere exhibits energy and passion, but also in your response is the impression of disturbance, and this disturbance is not free from or innocent of the problems manifested in our world. I say this only to point out that the words are not enough. Your attitude must also be reflective of what you are saying that attitude is. RICHARD: Yes indeed ... and other people have read whatever they read into my words. I use words very selectively and carefully to impress the other with the immediate urgency of them doing something for themselves. I have made my personal situation clear on many an occasion:
There is none so contumacious * RICHARD: So, are you game enough to go all the way, with wide-eyed immediacy? RESPONDENT: Though I would not choose the word ‘game’ as appropriate, by all means proceed. I find the stated goal, target, intent or purpose of your position to be quite noble and urgent. In that we are in full accord. RICHARD: This is good ... it is of the utmost importance that a sensible way to eliminate the Human Condition be brought forward as soon as possible. * RICHARD: [Dictionary definition] ‘Mud-slinging: abusive and malicious remarks or charges; usually used in the phrase one’s name is mud’. RESPONDENT: Why did you give this? Are you trying to say that the word ‘mud-slinging’ was inappropriately harsh. Perhaps it was. That depends on whether your remarks were abusive. And there is a case to be made that in one sense the answer is yes, for in my opinion they unfairly depicted K, mistreating and distorting the basic core of what he advocated for most of his life. RICHARD: It is in ascertaining what that basic core actually is, that is fundamental to any genuine discussion that can lead to sustainable peace-on-earth.
RICHARD: No. 5 is locked too deeply into his adopted Hindu/Buddhist belief system to come up for air. RESPONDENT: Sorry, but this is a misrepresentation. Where is the evidence that No. 5 is locked into a Hindu/Buddhist belief system? RICHARD: He told me himself in his last two posts: ‘Both the Western ‘soul’ and Eastern ‘atman’ are
commonly seen as pertaining to individuals, but a serious study of Advaita Vedanta or Buddhist essentials points toward another view
...<SNIP> ... Richard, I am not looking for a scholarly debate, but for deep, passionate seeing past the letter of the what Krishnamurti (or
Shankara or Buddha) wrote or said ... <SNIP> ... as seen from here Atman/Brahman is not some mystical ‘font’ of anything, they are one
and the same and encompass everything ... <SNIP> ... it is all one, my prolific friend, and your parsing it out into different aspects of ‘reality’,
‘self’, ‘soul’, ‘actuality’ is mere repackaging and relabelling of the most ancient wine of all. An unfamiliar vessel does not a new
vintage make’. RESPONDENT: Sorry, but I do not see that your conclusion follows from the statements that you quote. The first statement seems to be a comment made by an outsider who is correcting your view of that religion. The second calls for deep passionate seeing, that hardly is being ‘locked too deeply’. The last comments seem to be a personal view of what these terms mean. No. 5 might have interests in the Buddhist or Hindu Weltanschauung, but it does not seem to me to be anything that he takes dogmatically or as even essential to his own perspective. RICHARD: It is easy to see when one knows how to look. Without having to interpret through one’s own belief system – an otherwise intelligent person is thus blind to the obvious – all facts are self-evidently clear. RESPONDENT: Isn’t it a relatively easy thing to suggest that what we are doing is seeing facts and what the contrary position is doing is believing and is blind? Both sides can do this, invalidating the other’s position without having to face it. This is only a rhetorical device often manifesting blind belief on the part of the professed seer. It is a method that blocks investigation into the actual facts of disagreement. RICHARD: Following your reasoning, one would forever be in a state of not knowing. Doubt would rule the roost and stifle decision making completely. As peoples are able make successful decisions every minute of the day, all over the world, then it is obvious that it is possible to be able to rely upon a considered appraisal of whatever is the situation at hand. That is the problem with logicians ... they allow the abstract rules of logic – so alluring in the classroom context – to dictate life in the practical world of people, things and events. Life, fortunately, does not work like that. * RICHARD: Thus, you are partly right in the ‘second comment’ where you say the writer ‘calls for deep passionate seeing’. But, remembering the ‘I am not looking for a scholarly debate’ part of the ‘deep passionate seeing’ then the next part (which you appear to have overlooked) becomes vividly obvious: ‘as seen from here Atman/Brahman is not some mystical ‘font’ of anything, they are one and the same and encompass everything’. The ‘as seen from here’ phrase indicates that the writer is personally sitting in the ‘deep, passionate seeing past the letter of the what Krishnamurti (or Shankara or Buddha) wrote or said’ ... and is inviting me to come and join him. This is because the writer unwittingly detects in me a similar position (‘an unfamiliar vessel does not a new vintage make’) and is saying, in effect: ‘You have not discovered anything new that I am not already living’. RESPONDENT: I do not interpret No. 5’s words this way. You do not seem to understand that when you are dealing with the communications of another, there is always interpretation going on, since we do not have direct access to the intentions of others. And intentions are what secures a given interpretation from the semantic structure. RICHARD: As the others’ intentions are most often confused – at best – and downright disingenuous for the most, one does not need access to their mind. Mostly, taking a walk through another’s mind is somewhat akin to struggling through a hopeless labyrinth made of cotton wool. When one has taken the exciting adventure of a lifetime through one’s own psyche into an actual freedom from the Human Condition, one understands any human psyche. For ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. Nobody is as unique as they fondly imagine themselves to be. All that is left is a few idiosyncrasies peculiar to the particular. RESPONDENT: Your interpretation takes ‘as seen from here’ differently than mine. I understand it as another way of saying, ‘this is my opinion or my view of the subject’. And that view is that all this wisdom literature boils down to the same thing, and then adds that you too are saying what they also are. I do not see that No. 5 is claiming that he is living it. Where is the textual support for this? RICHARD: In what is presented above ... except that I forgot to include the clincher: ‘I experience what little I have read of the Great Dead Guys[tm] not with the picayune eye of a practiced philosopher, but with the same sensorium you describe with reference to the ‘ambrosial’ nature of what most see as ordinary, ‘beans & wieners’ existence’. As ‘sensorium’ means the parts of the brain concerned with the reception and interpretation of sensory stimuli – or more broadly the entire sensory apparatus – then he would be proclaiming himself to be a Hindu Pantheist. That is, ‘God is everything and everything is God’ But I guess you would be aware of all this anyway? RESPONDENT: So our interpretations differ as to whether No. 5 is claiming that he lives the core of the Hindu-Buddhist wisdom, and whether the core is understood by No. 5 to be a matter of Hindu-Buddhist origins, or a universal core that can also fit the wisdom literature of the west. The latter if correct, would negate the identification of No. 5’s position with the Hindu-Buddhist orientation (if indeed there was one orientation – that is my view if you are interested: that there is not one orientation) RICHARD: I am very interested indeed. I am well aware that there are many variations on one universal theme, but surely you do not see a variation being a discrete ‘Truth’ in itself, do you? How many ‘Truths’ are there? We have touched, briefly, on this in a previous post:
I am suggesting that there is only one Universal Theme ... and it is a delusion born out of the illusion of self. * RICHARD: As the writer goes on to say: ‘it is all one, my prolific friend, and your parsing it out into different aspects of ‘reality’, ‘self’, ‘soul’, ‘actuality’ is mere repackaging and relabelling of the most ancient wine of all’, then it becomes patently clear that it is, in fact, the writer’s own personal Weltanschauung. RESPONDENT: The Weltanschauung may simply be that they are all saying essentially the same thing. RICHARD: Do you mean by this the same as what I wrote above: One Universal Theme? * RICHARD: When viewed against the backdrop of all the previous posts the writer has made to this list – and the fact that the writer did not want a ‘scholarly debate’ – then it is not a conclusion that I have made at all but a self-evident fact. This is born out by recent posts which say: ‘Richard, did it ever occur to you that you are simply pointing to coals in Newcastle and called them ‘black fuel chunks?’, and: ‘catch a clue, my friend, I’ve pitched it to you in a nice, gentle arc, use both hands now, OK?’. RESPONDENT: He is reiterating here, that there is nothing new in what you are saying. So? Again I call attention to your use of self-evident fact, rather than understanding that what you are doing is inferring an interpretation from the text. RICHARD: You say ‘inferring an interpretation’? Is this not akin to ‘imputing a false attribution’? Is this not somewhat tautologous? * RICHARD: It is all so easy when one knows how to see with both eyes. RESPONDENT: Apparently not. RICHARD: I would say: ‘apparently so’. Just watch No. 5 back-peddle out of this lot.
RESPONDENT: I do not interpret No. 5’s words the way you do. You do not seem to understand that when you are dealing with the communications of another, there is always interpretation going on, since we do not have direct access to the intentions of others. And intentions are what secures a given interpretation from the semantic structure. RICHARD: As the other’s intentions are most often confused – at best – and downright disingenuous for the most, one does not need access to their mind. Mostly, taking a walk through another’s mind is somewhat akin to struggling through a hopeless labyrinth made of cotton wool. RESPONDENT: Is this your sincere view of communication with others, of understanding their thinking? What are you referring to here? The minds of others in general, or to No. 5? Is this what you see to be humanity? In any case, I do not agree with you on the main point as to whether understanding the intentions of others is essential to determining meaning. Ambiguity for example can only be decided by bringing in the speaker’s intentions. RICHARD: If the speaker cannot explain themselves, then they are not effective communicators. If someone writes or says something and then later writes or says that they did not mean that what they wrote or said, then they are either back-pedalling out of a hole that they have dug for themselves, or they did not know what they were saying in the first place. The whole point of conducting a dialogue is to ascertain what is factual and what is fictional and it is self evident that – for the most – people just do not know what they are talking about. Why should this be such a surprise to you? Determining the proffered intention of another is – most of the time – an exercise in futility. They have an image about themselves to preserve ... that is what their intention actually is. Mostly, people profess to understand far more than they actually know, and when questioned they equivocate and dissimulate like all get-out because they are groping in the dark anyway ... desperately trying to uphold their image. Again: why should all this be such a surprise to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti often spoke about this very thing. Indeed, he had an image to uphold himself ... which is why he suppressed the publication of Ms. Emily Lutyen’s book, all those years ago, for example. This is indeed my sincere understanding of the thinking of human beings at large. The facts speak for themselves ... if people’s condition was otherwise, there would be peace on earth already. * RICHARD: When one has taken the exciting adventure of a lifetime through one’s own psyche into an actual freedom from the Human Condition, one understands any human psyche. For ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’. Nobody is as unique as they fondly imagine themselves to be. All that is left is a few idiosyncrasies peculiar to the particular. RESPONDENT: Yes we are not as unique as we believe. But we are also not identical. There is both uniqueness and commonality. Understanding our own minds does give us insight into others for there is a common structure (as you say and Krishnamurti often points out). But the other is not the same, only in some vague sense similar. We can be fooled into reading our own thoughts into them. That is to ignore the actuality of that unique existence. Indeed, are not your very claims set in the context of how very special you are. That you are not like others. So what are you saying, that you are special but everyone else is just a basic carbon based copy (excuse the pun) of each other? RICHARD: Yes, everyone has the same blue-print ... human beings are all born with the same basic instincts like fear and aggression and nurture and desire and, no matter which culture one was socialised into being a member of, all peoples throughout the world thus have the same emotions and passions. Anger and forbearance, for instance, is anger and forbearance wherever it lives. There is no difference between English anger and forbearance and American anger and forbearance and African anger and forbearance and so on. Or love and hatred, enmity and alliance, jealousy and tolerance ... whatever the emotion or passion may be, they all have a global incidence. The same applies to cerebral activity like imagination, conceptualisation, hypothesising, believing and so forth. Once again,
ubiquitous in its occurrence. As for psychic phenomena like prescience, clairvoyance, telepathy, divination But, step out of the Human Condition – as this body only – leaving the ‘self’ behind in the Land of Lament where it belongs, and immediately, the picture changes ... where there is no ‘I’ or ‘me’, none of the above characteristics apply. Where there are no basic instincts; where there are no emotions or passions; where there is no cerebral energisation; where there is no psychic manifestations, there is no identity whatsoever. With all these similarities null and void, there is now an actual difference between this person and the other. Now one is, for the first time, unique. * RICHARD: No. 5 has written: ‘I experience what little I have read of the Great Dead Guys™ not with the picayune
eye of a practiced philosopher, but with the same sensorium you describe with reference to the ‘ambrosial’ nature of what most see as ordinary,
‘beans & wieners’ existence’. RESPONDENT: There are people who are rather gifted in understanding to others to the point that they can pick up what is not clearly visible in the text. Are you claiming these abilities? For no where do I see the connection from what No. 5 said to being a Hindu pantheist. I take No. 5 to mean by ‘I experience what little I have read’ to be that he approaches these Great Ones not as a thinker but as a simple sensor, feeling it all. And this simple sensor is akin to what you are talking about in regards to yourself. Now where is the problem? Perhaps that ‘I experience’ is taken to mean a claim that he lives the teachings of these Great Ones. I do not agree with this attribution. RICHARD: No, I go by text alone ... he did make that claim to start off with, but has since back-pedalled to quite a remarkable degree. It only took a little bit of questioning after all. As for your comment ‘not as a thinker but as a simple sensor, feeling it all’, do you mean sensing as in the faculty of perceiving by means of sense organs (as sight, hearing, smell, taste, or touch) basically involving a stimulus and a sense organ ... that is, the sensory mechanisms constituting a unit distinct from other functions as movement of thought or feelings? Quite often, I find, people meaning ‘intuiting’ when they say ‘sensing’ ... and intuition is of the affective faculty, not the sensate. As No. 5 was referring to experiencing – deeply and passionately – what the words of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Mr. Shankara and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan were pointing to, then he had to mean intuition ... which is why I defined ‘sensorium’ as being sensate. And as Hindus and Buddhists are either Cosmic Pantheists (‘God is everything and everything is God’) or Acosmic Pantheists (‘God is beyond everything and everything comes from God’), then it is a simple matter to ascertain that No. 5 was either dissembling or somewhat confused about what he was saying. That is why I asked if he was a Hindu Pantheist ... to clarify his situation. He says he is not, and through the dialogue with him it is becoming more clear to him where he is coming from. My guess – and I am incapable of being gnostic – is that he is, basically, a decent, laissez-faire citizen toying with and trifling in matters ambiguous, cryptic and esoteric ... like so many others do. Such a person is to be found expressing an interest in peoples like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Mr. Shankara and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, but without the objective of changing oneself radically, fundamentally and completely ... which is what all three teachers constantly urged their listeners to do. Just a guess, though. RESPONDENT: So our interpretations differ as to whether No. 5 is claiming that he lives the core of the Hindu-Buddhist wisdom, and whether the core is understood by No. 5 to be a matter of Hindu-Buddhist origins, or a universal core that can also fit the wisdom literature of the west. The latter if correct, would negate the identification of No. 5’s position with the Hindu-Buddhist orientation (if indeed there was one orientation – that is my view if you are interested: that there is not one orientation). RICHARD: I am very interested indeed. I am well aware that there are many variations on one universal theme, but surely you do not see a variation being a discrete ‘Truth’ in itself, do you? How many ‘Truths’ are there? RESPONDENT: Each fact is a ‘truth’, but I would not call a perspective ‘true’. Perhaps we can use the metaphor of the elephant and the blind men. A perspective is always in some sense partial, and in that there is both insight and distortion. What counts for being true must be verifiable given the evidence gathered from all perspectives. RICHARD: I am suggesting that there is only one Universal Theme ... and it is a delusion born out of the illusion of self. RESPONDENT: You will have to be more specific here for me to comment. Please explain ‘Universal theme’. RICHARD: The ‘Universal Theme’ is a term used to describe the metaphysical aspect of human thought that runs through all cultures and all ages ... it has a global incidence. By metaphysical, I mean: ‘of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses’. The similarity of all metaphysicality in all religions and all spirituality points to the fact that there is essentially only one ‘Inner Way’, the experience of which is expressed differently in the respective cultural and religious environments. Mr. Lao-Tzu’s notion, for example, of ‘The One’, which is not only ‘Primordial Unity’ but ‘The Oneness’ underlying all phenomena – the point in which all contraries are reconciled – was spoken of by such Western mystics as Mr. Plotinus, (a 3rd century AD Greek philosopher) and Mr. Nicholas of Cusa, (a 15th century French philosopher). Eastern mysticism, distinguishes itself from Western mysticism by its conscious techniques of mind and body designed to induce trance and to give access to mystical experience. But these disciplines of learning to ‘sit in forgetfulness’ are akin to Mr. Plotinus’ concern to ‘be deaf to the sounds of the senses and keep the soul’s faculty of apprehension one-pointed’ and to the 16th century Spanish mystic Ms. Teresa of Avila’s state where ‘the soul is fully awake as regards God, but wholly asleep as regards things of this world’ ... and oblivious in respect of herself. Mr. Lao-Tzu’s strangely sober and abstract descriptions of ecstatic union with ‘The Tao’ have been compared to the medieval German mystic Mr. Meister Eckharts’ ‘Still Desert of the Godhead’ ... and his pupil Mr. Heinrich Suso’s union of the essence of the soul with ‘the Essence of Nothingness’. One instance of Western physiological techniques is the Hesychasts, a sect of Greek Orthodox mystics on Mt. Athos in the 14th century who used respiratory practices and concentration on internal organs to prepare for the mental ‘Jesus Prayer’. Is this not what you meant by a ‘universal core that would fit the wisdom literature of the West’? * RESPONDENT: The Weltanschauung may simply be that they are all saying essentially the same thing. RICHARD: Do you mean by this the same as what I wrote above: One Universal Theme? RESPONDENT: Maybe, I do not know what you meant. If it is then you and No. 5 are in agreement with each other. I, however, find that we see unity because we read into these diverse texts the same thing, that is we select and reinterpret the terminology to make it all fit into the same package. RICHARD: You will see, by now, that No. 5 and myself are not in agreement, for I talk of the sensate experience of the actuality of this world of people, things and events. No. 5 misused the term ‘sensorium’ rather badly, for people like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Mr. Shankara and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan are concerned with the ‘Inner Way’ ... the metaphysical cannot be accessed via the senses. It is not a case of reading into ‘these diverse texts the same thing’ or ‘selecting and reinterpreting the terminology to make it all fit into the same package’ ... it is indeed the very self-same package. There is only one ‘The Truth’. And I am saying that it is a delusion born out of the illusion of self.
RESPONDENT: In that Krishnamurti was presenting not a philosophy but a commentary on living, notes that are helpful and insightful in terms of the way we live, looking at the way Krishnamurti lived is a valid and legitimate approach to understanding what he was saying. But this must be qualified. For this is valid so long as we also understand that there may be a difference between the man Krishnamurti and what was said, that is, the truth or falsity of what is said is independent of whether the man Krishnamurti lived it. RESPONDENT No. 7: For me it sure takes away from the validity of what he said if he didn’t
live it. RESPONDENT: That is because you cannot distinguish between pointing to something true and the person pointing to it. RICHARD: How does one know – as you presumably do because you make this statement – that something is true if no one on earth is living the ‘Teachings’ ... especially the one who is doing the pointing? Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’? RESPONDENT: Actually it is not important at all how Krishnamurti lived, what is important is how you live. RICHARD: I beg to differ. If someone is going around the world professing to be bringing valuable ‘Teachings’ into the world – that he himself is not living – then why should one believe the ‘Teachings’ to be valuable? Where is the evidence that they are liveable? Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’? * RESPONDENT: Even if Krishnamurti lived exactly the way you think he should live, that is in line with what you [Respondent No. 7] believe he said, YOU would still have to learn on your own. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I would credit No. 7 with enough intelligence to understand that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti would surely be living in line with what he himself said, rather than – as you so quaintly put it – what No. 7 ‘believes’ he said. How do you know what No. 7 believes ... as distinct from what No. 7 knows? As for ‘learning on your own’ ... who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’? RESPONDENT: That is why Krishnamurti asks over and over again, why are you concerned with the speaker, why are you looking at the speaker. RICHARD: My guess on why he asks that ‘over and over again’ would be to take attention away from the fact that the speaker is not living the ‘Teachings’ himself. Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’? * RESPONDENT: Do you understand? There is a very important difference here in our relationship to what Krishnamurti was saying. RICHARD: Is the relationship not one of credulousness? Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’? RESPONDENT: So long as the validity is based on how he lived, then what is important is Krishnamurti and not looking ourselves. RICHARD: Maybe I could rephrase that pithy aphorism: ‘He who does not live it should not speak it’. However that may be, the important question remains: Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’?
RESPONDENT: We can continue to believe that Krishnamurti was a reincarnation of the Buddha or many other spiritualistic and religious explanations for what was operating, but I think all of this would actually reinforce religious belief systems and our own particular religious convictions and conditioning. If what Krishnamurti says has to do with the arising and unfolding of intelligence than to look for explanations in spirits and some sort of spiritual otherness, is really to get away from what Krishnamurti was talking about. So either we are going to be lost in these sorts of stories, hagiography, writing and reciting the religious miracles and tales of a new religion, or we are going to see in all this talk and description an expression of our thought and desire that Krishnamurti be special. Whatever Krishnamurti said about himself or others say about him, we are going to have to face the question of whether what he says is available to everyone or only to those with some sort of special connection to spiritual entities. For me what Krishnamurti says has no importance whatsoever if it requires belief in such a spiritual connection. It is just the same old religious gibberish dependent on some external entity that we take someone else’s word exists, and that they encountered. Either intelligence lies beyond conditioning or it does not. Spiritual entities are not going to be much help in looking into this question. RICHARD: I took particular note that you said quite specifically: ‘For me what Krishnamurti says has no importance whatsoever if it requires belief in such a spiritual connection. It is just the same old religious gibberish dependent on some external entity that we take someone else’s word exists, and that they encountered’. Yet this very thing is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about all those sixty-odd years that he talked ... such a spiritual connection, he says, enables god to manifest itself in the very body that has such a spiritual connection. Only – he goes on to say – he prefers to use the word ‘life’ instead of ‘god’. So when he says ‘love life and put this love before everything else’ he is being very precise ... He is saying: ‘love god and put this love before everything else’ To wit:
From these passages one can easily see that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘I am life ... life is god ... I am god made manifest’. He then goes on to say: ‘I am everything, since I am life (god)’. To drive the point home he says: ‘Truth, the real God – the real God, not the God that man has made’. Therefore, ‘life’, ‘god’ and ‘truth’ are one and the same thing. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘I am god made manifest ... god is truth ... I am truth’. Then he says: ‘The real thing (‘life’, ‘god’ and ‘truth’) wants a total, complete human being whose heart is full, rich, clear, capable of intense feeling, capable of seeing the beauty’. Love, therefore, is an ‘intense feeling’ in the ‘full, rich, clear heart’. As he urges his listeners to drink the clean water which I have – and it is a water that shall purify and heal greatly – then some considerable light is thrown on his oft-repeated statement about not being a teacher. By being in his presence and experiencing his love (god’s love) then whatever ails you will be cured ... especially if you know how to ‘listen’. Two years before his death, when asked to reflect upon the importance of his own life, he replied: ‘Does it matter if the world says of K, ‘What a wonderful person he is. ... Who cares? ... The vase contains water; you have to drink the water, not worship the vase. Humanity worships the vase, forgets the water’. He said: ‘The speaker doesn’t have anything he could teach you ... The speaker is only a mirror where you can see yourself. Then, when you recognise yourself clearly, you can put aside the mirror’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘Listen to me ... just for two minutes, listen and recognise yourself as I have done: I am life. Love life. Life is truth. Love truth. Truth is God. Love God. I am God made manifest’. And if ‘god’ and ‘life’ and ‘truth’ being synonymous for him is not enough evidence, he goes on to elaborate on this theme:
It is all so familiar ... Gurus and God-men have been saying and doing and being and urging this religious or spiritual or mystical or metaphysical solution for millennia. All the Masters and Messiahs; all the Saints and the Sages; all the Saviours and the Avatars have failed to bring about their much-touted Peace On Earth. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was simply the latest in a long line of failures. And he wanted this for his listeners: ‘I am not talking for my benefit. I am not interested in talking. But I am interested to find out if you can also discover the same thing so that your own life will be totally different, transformed’. He also stayed with the same message all his public life, changing only the way he said it:
I would venture to suggest – most firmly – that what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says definitely has no importance whatsoever as it does indeed ‘require belief in such a spiritual connection’. It is indeed ‘just the same old religious gibberish dependent on some external entity that we take someone else’s word exists, and that they encountered’. There is a third alternative.
RESPONDENT: Where are we going that we do not have time to sit down with some friends and enjoy the afternoon sun and the sweet spring air over a good meal? Are we rushing to convince the world to transform or else face the doom? Are we on a mission? And where are we now? Are we at this very moment open and light, filled with the freshness and vitality of an awake mind and sensitive heart, or is there this heavy load we must carry, our own cross, burdened by the pain of relationship, the frustration in discussions where we cannot convince the other or even get our points across and acknowledged? RICHARD: I am riding my bicycle along the flat cycling track that leads out of the village to a shopping centre located on the outskirts of town, known locally as ‘The Light Industrial Estate’, which is full of small factories and warehouses. I am going there to buy a new queen-size bed; my current one, being nearly a decade old, is past its prime and rather needs replacing. It is charming to be riding in this autumn sunshine ... it is a congenial day. The slight current of air generated by my easygoing movement is gentle on my face. With high-rise handlebars I am capable of sitting up straight to ride and am thus able to easily take in the scenery ... unlike those racing cyclists I see who, being head down and tail up, are oblivious to their surroundings. I am not going anywhere in a hurry; I like to freely enjoy being here, savouring the world in all its sensual delight. I am pleased to see, running parallel to this track, the main highway in and out of town; busy with cars buzzing to and fro, it adds bright splashes of colour to my vista. On my other side lies a magnificent large swamp, with well-adapted trees and shrubs growing out of its still and turbid water. Birds and crickets are filling the air with their sweet melodies and all is alive with life. With a few puffy white clouds scattered randomly in a light-blue sky, the stage is well set for me to partake in the sheer joy of being alive in this physical world and going about my daily delectations. All this is just happening of its own accord. Everything I experience is actual to this moment. And this moment is occurring now. This particular moment of being here has never happened before ... and it will never happen again. This moment is ever-fresh, perennially new. It is consistently so; dependable in its originality and reliable in its uniqueness. For twenty-four-hours-a-day it is like this, day-in-day-out ... therefore it is impossible for it to ever become boring. This moment does not exist in the ‘real world’, it exists in the actual world. Only the present can exist in reality. Reality is not actuality. Reality is the world that is perceived through the senses by ‘me’, the psychological entity that resides inside the body. Actuality is the world that is apperceived at the senses by me as this body-consciousness. Reality is objectively reinforced as being ‘real’ by other entity-encumbered bodies that ‘I’ speak to. They endorse ‘my’ perception of the ‘real world’ as being the genuine, authentic world. It is not. Only the actual world is genuine and authentic. It is primary and pre-eminent ... and it is perfect. I have arrived at my destination and am wandering through this vast warehouse, packed from end to end with all that anyone could require ... in the way of household furnishings. There is simply an abundance of goods and chattels here; a multitude of beds to choose from. A friendly staff member comes to assist me and is proving to be a fund of useful information. Eventually I settle for an orthopaedic ensemble and buy some sunny yellow sheets and pillowcases with a matching valance. I set off to examine the varied styles of bed-side tables ... there are so many and I am happy to be taking my time choosing, for it is a joy to be here, doing all this. The man is not hurrying me at all and is patiently showing me through the diversity he has available. It seems almost too soon, yet I have been here for ages, and I have opted for a pine-wood setting with a compatible bookcase-come-television-cabinet for the set I have in the bedroom. The blonde pine will complement the sunny yellow bedding and create a cheerful ambience. I pay for it all and arrange for delivery sometime in the late afternoon. Bidding the gregarious salesman farewell, I repair to the nearby café to sit in the sun with a welcome cappuccino. All in all it is being a felicitous morning ... faultless in its simple pleasure. Every day is like this in this actual world, although I can occasionally meet unhelpful people, unhappy people, even rude people ... the entire gamut of human expression. I can easily make allowances for them for I know that they all live in reality ... and life can be a grim business there. Here, all is benevolent, friendly and kind; no perversity has ever existed in actual freedom. There is a marked absence of malice here; evil has no foothold, no being anywhere at all. When ‘I’ cease to exist as a psychic entity, so too does the diabolical disappear. To put it bluntly: ‘I’ am a mixture of Good and Evil ... both are psychic forces which have waged their insidious battle in the human psyche for aeons. ‘I’ try heroically, but vainly, to attain to ‘The Good’, hoping thereby to conquer ‘The Bad’, for so have humans been taught, been mesmerised, with precept and example, by the Saints and the Sages throughout the ages. All this is a futile drama played out in the realm of reality. In actuality, neither Good nor Evil have any substance whatsoever. With utter purity prevailing everywhere, virtue has become an outmoded concept. It is vital only in reality, in order to curtail the savage instincts that generate the alien entity. ‘I’ live in constant apprehension that ‘my’ bad side will get the better of ‘me’, and ‘I’ must maintain eternal vigilance. Such effort is exhausting and unsustainable ... from time to time a crack appears in ‘my’ defences and something nasty can slip out. It can cause harsh words and offensive or anti-social behaviour in the heat of the moment ... or it can take the form of a cold-blooded plan to exact revenge at a later date. These are actions which ‘I’ afterwards regret and ‘I’ will say something like: ‘I don’t know what came over me, this is not like me’. ‘I’ can then feel sorry, remorseful, and with sufficient repentance ‘I’ can regain ‘my’ virtue ... until next time, that is. It is the self that generates all the ills of humankind, perpetuating misery and suffering. And it is to no avail to strain to attain to spiritual enlightenment in order to cure or heal all the nastiness of humans; such action has been tried before with demonstrably disastrous results. Life can be a grim business in reality. It is all so simple, in the actual world; no effort is needed to meet the requisite morality of society. I have no ‘dark nature’, no unconscious impulses to curb, to control, to restrain. It is all so easy, in the actual world; I can take no credit for my apparently virtuous behaviour because actual freedom automatically provides beneficial thoughts and deeds. It is all so spontaneous, in the actual world; I do not do it ... it does itself. Vanity, egoism, selfishness ... all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ ceased to be. And it is all so peaceful, in the actual world; it is only in actualism that human beings can have peace-on-earth without toiling fruitlessly to be ‘good’. The answer to everything that has puzzled humankind for all of human history is readily elucidated when one is actually free. The ‘Mystery of Life’ has been penetrated and laid open for all those with the eyes to see. Life was meant to be easy. RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard for this post. Without intending to criticise, allow me to say that it is the first one I have read that you have written that is not defensive in some sense. You are basically describing, and there is no need to bring in the ‘added comments’ towards the end that this is THE answer. RESPONDENT No. 5: Exactly – as I wrote to Richard very early in his time among us, I have no quarrel with his shared observations, only with his intellectual assessment of their uniqueness and/or exclusivity. RESPONDENT: Why not let the description do the work? If what you say brings interest on the part of the other to explore further into what you are describing then the question of whether this is The answer, will arise and be explored. Why do you have the need to somehow evaluate your own experiences as the greatest and the ultimate? RESPONDENT No. 5: Why indeed? RESPONDENT: It is like the author who critiques his own book. Give the listener a chance to go into it. This comparative evaluation is really beside the point. Either the experiences have significance or they do not, your telling us that they do is not going to change the facts this way or that way. RESPONDENT No. 5: Yes, and it is ‘the facts’ with which there is no quarrel, only the superfluous chest beating provokes controversy. RESPONDENT: And what it does, is sometimes evoke a negative reaction to what you are saying. Ego seems to provoke ego. If I say I had a better day than you, all of a sudden we are at it. Maybe you did not have such a good day after all, but that does not matter any more. What matters is the put down, the ego comparison. RESPONDENT No. 5: Yes, there is no conflict if there are no lavish claims. RESPONDENT: So allow me out of friendliness to point out that these claims shift the focus away from the simple sensual beauty encountered, to the confrontational questioning of all the listener believes and holds dear. RESPONDENT No. 5: Or to the speaker’s assumptions concerning what ‘the listener believes and holds dear’. RESPONDENT: So can you put away this evaluation, so that we can move beyond comparing, and we can instead examine what you are putting forward in your description? RESPONDENT No. 5: Amen! RICHARD: I consider that to be an excellent idea from both of you. Please, cut out all that you object to in the post ... edit it according to your comments above ... and re-post it as you would like to see it. Then give your evaluation born of your examination. And we can take it from there.
RICHARD: I consider that to be an excellent idea. Please, give your evaluation born of your examination. And we can take it from there. RESPONDENT: And with this understanding, your description of your daily normal experiences take on a totally different context. There seems to be two basic concerns in your post below: 1. The actual in contraposition to the real. 2. The moral basis of a life of actuality. Perhaps we can use your text below to raise some questions for further discussion? [Richard]: ‘I am not going anywhere in a hurry; I like to freely enjoy being here, savouring the world in all its sensual delight. I am pleased to see, running parallel to this track, the main highway in and out of town; busy with cars buzzing to and fro, it adds bright splashes of colour to my vista. On my other side lies a magnificent large swamp, with well-adapted trees and shrubs growing out of its still and turbid water. Birds and crickets are filling the air with their sweet melodies and all is alive with life. With a few puffy white clouds scattered randomly in a light-blue sky, the stage is well set for me to partake in the sheer joy of being alive in this physical world and going about my daily delectations. All this is just happening of its own accord. Everything I experience is actual to this moment. And this moment is occurring now. This particular moment of being here has never happened before ... and it will never happen again. This moment is ever-fresh, perennially new. It is consistently so; dependable in its originality and reliable in its uniqueness. For twenty-four-hours-a-day it is like this, day-in-day-out ... therefore it is impossible for it to ever become boring’. [endquote]. Yes this vivid experiencing is never boring. This state does seem to be that which is experienced by many if not all people. RICHARD: This vivid experiencing of the direct apprehension of actuality has been spontaneously experienced by every single human being that I have spoken to about these matters over the last eighteen years. It is called a pure consciousness experience (PCE) and was personally experienced in 1980 artificially with psylocibin ... which triggered off numerous memories of the exact same PCE at odd moments throughout my life. Specifically, there was one clearly remembered in detail at eight years of age, for example. I have been told – and read – that it can also be induced by other psychotropic substances like ‘lysergic acid’ and ‘ecstasy’ and ‘mescaline’ and ‘peyote’ and the like. Mr. Alan Watts is a veritable gold-mine of information on the subject ... but alas, he attributed to it the religious/ spiritual/ mystical experience and went off into the eastern metaphysical philosophies. RESPONDENT: But the state [of vivid experiencing] deteriorates, the mind grows weary, and the vividness is lost. This has something to do with the way in which the mind distances itself from the experiencing. This involves thinking about the experience, but it also involves the way in which memory and accumulating experiences dulls. RICHARD: Yes, the temporary experience does ‘deteriorate’ ... but this state shows the genuine aspirant what is possible. One then makes the living of this condition, twenty four hours a day, one’s number one priority in life. It is called being here at this moment in eternal time and at this place now in infinite space ... one is then this physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being. For this to happen, not only ‘I’ as ego must dissolve, but ‘me’ as soul must disappear as well. Then, when there is no identity ‘being’ whatsoever, the clean and clear and pure perfection of the infinitude of this self-same universe becomes apparent. Peace-on-earth was here all the time. Is the deterioration because ‘the mind distances itself’? Is it because of ‘memory accumulating experiences’?
When I recall what happened back in 1981 when activating the PCE on a daily basis in order to make the condition permanent, thought and memory Whereas rational thought – sensible thought – is a pleasure ... a delight and a joy to behold. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘This moment does not exist in the ‘real world’, it exists in the actual world. Only the present can exist in reality. Reality is not actuality. Reality is the world that is perceived through the senses by ‘me’, the psychological entity that resides inside the body. Actuality is the world that is apperceived at the senses by me as this body-consciousness’. [endquote]. Can you explain this difference between ‘apperceived at the senses by me’ and ‘perceived through the senses by ‘me’’? RICHARD: The ‘I’ in the head and ‘me’ in the heart are aliens having a parasitical existence in the psyche itself ... it is as if everybody has a couple of ‘walk-ins’ living inside of them. They, as ‘I’ or ‘me’, look out through the eyes as if looking out of a window onto the outside world. In a PCE they temporarily abdicate the throne and everyday perception becomes apperception ... which is the eyes seeing, the ears hearing and so on. Then one is this flesh and blood body only being aware of its own accord. I use the first person pronoun in reference to what I am – not who I am – and what I am is this body only. But I am not an identity ... just as one can shift one’s identity from the mind to the heart to imitate enlightenment, so too can one shift one’s identity from the mind to the heart and then to the body in order to imitate an actual freedom. This virtual freedom thus engendered I call actualism. But one must go dangerously through the heart first ... it is a risk well worth taking. RESPONDENT: You seem also to make a basic distinction between ‘this moment’ and ‘the present’. What is the difference for you? RICHARD: The ‘present’ is sandwiched betwixt the ‘past’ and the ‘future’ and is a product of belief and imagination. Whereas this moment exists in its own right ... independent of any observer as a believer or an imaginer. RESPONDENT: Why is your concept of reality limited to what is perceived through the senses, what about the inferences of thought, analysis, mathematics? RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no problem with things like thought as in ‘analysis and mathematics’ ... because it is understood that they are abstract concepts and – while being useful tools – have no substance in actuality. For a person in the real-world, such tools are taken to be real in themselves ... that is, substantial. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Reality is objectively reinforced as being ‘real’ by other
entity-encumbered bodies that ‘I’ speak to. They endorse ‘my’ perception of the ‘real world’ as being the genuine, authentic world. It
is not. Only the actual world is genuine and authentic. It is primary and pre-eminent ... and it is perfect. RICHARD: If the real world is ‘authentic’ then it means that malice (with its wars and rapes and murders and tortures and abuse) and sorrow (with its sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide) are here to stay. Can you not remember a PCE wherein all was already perfect as-it-is and always has been? Thus the obvious facts come, of course, primarily from personal experience ... backed up by abundant scholarly research and personal face-to-face discussion with my fellow humans to ascertain them as being objective facts. I spent the first thirty four years of my life living in the normal reality as experienced by 5.8 billion human beings and the next eleven years living in the abnormal Reality as experienced by .000001 of the population. I do not live in isolation. My first wife lived with me during my breakthrough from normal ‘reality’ into abnormal
Reality. My second wife lived with me during my breakthrough from abnormal ‘Reality’ into this on-going actuality that I have been living for
five years. My current companion only knows me as I am now. Thus there are people who can personally verify that whenever they have a PCE – and
experience for themselves what I talk of – that it is more than a coincidence that I always have one too! They have thus come to understand,
through repeated experience, that I am already always here. There is a man who knows me personally who has written about his experience of life as
a result of his interaction with me. He has just recently published a book about actualism in action and it can be accessed on his Web Page( www.actualfreedom.com.au/actualism) under ‘Peter’s Journal’ Other than that, there remains a critical examination of all the words that I advance as being obvious facts to ascertain if they are intrinsically self-explanatory. When they are seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about, then the obvious facts speak for themselves. An obvious fact is a fact as seen in an insight, for example, or more easily with apperceptive awareness. An ‘objective fact’ is not so reliable – other than those ascertained by technology – as they are subjective experiences in common ... that is, shared by others. Mass hallucination is only too common. Ultimately one sees that there is no choice but to have the courage of one’s own conviction as is born in the PCE. After all, it is your life you are living, and it is you who reaps the rewards or pays the consequences of any action or inaction you may or may not undertake. In other words, I am the only person who can change myself – and I am the only person I can change – thus it is entirely up to me as to whether I will become happy and harmless by eliminating the root cause of sorrow and malice. And who would have it any other way, upon sober reflection? * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘I have arrived at my destination and am wandering through this vast
warehouse, packed from end to end with all that anyone could require ... in the way of household furnishings. There is simply an abundance of goods
and chattels here; a multitude of beds to choose from. A friendly staff member comes to assist me and is proving to be a fund of useful
information. Eventually I settle for an orthopaedic ensemble and buy some sunny yellow sheets and pillowcases with a matching valance. I set off to
examine the varied styles of bed-side tables ... there are so many and I am happy to be taking my time choosing, for it is a joy to be here, doing
all this. The man is not hurrying me at all and is patiently showing me through the diversity he has available. It seems almost too soon, yet I
have been here for ages, and I have opted for a pine-wood setting with a compatible bookcase-come-television-cabinet for the set I have in the
bedroom. The blonde pine will complement the sunny yellow bedding and create a cheerful ambience. I pay for it all and arrange for delivery
sometime in the late afternoon. Bidding the gregarious salesman farewell, I repair to the nearby café to sit in the sun with a welcome cappuccino.
All in all it is being a felicitous morning ... faultless in its simple pleasure’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Yes, the clean and clear and pure perfection of peace-on-earth never goes away. There is a preference for the creature-comforts, of course, but one takes the world of people, things and events as it is. Even if every single human being was happy and harmless, there would still be cyclones and earthquakes and tidal waves and fires and crocodiles and sharks and mosquitoes and so forth. Life is an adventure, after all. Every day is like this in this actual world, although I can occasionally meet unhelpful people, unhappy people, even rude people ... the entire gamut of human expression. I can easily make allowances for them for I know that they all live in reality ... and life can be a grim and glum business there. Here, all is benevolent, friendly and kind; no perversity has ever existed in actual freedom. There is a marked absence of malice here in this actual world; evil has no foothold, no being anywhere at all. RESPONDENT: You do not have it, but you are therefore pushed, you are taken advantage of, now what happens psychologically, how do you react? RICHARD: Unlike in enlightenment, pacifism * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘When ‘I’ cease to exist as a psychic entity, so too does the diabolical disappear. To put it bluntly: ‘I’ am a mixture of Good and Evil ... both are psychic forces which have waged their insidious battle in the human psyche for aeons. ‘I’ try heroically, but vainly, to attain to ‘The Good’, hoping thereby to conquer ‘The Bad’, for so have humans been taught, been mesmerised, with precept and example, by the Saints and the Sages throughout the ages. All this is a futile drama played out in the realm of reality. In actuality, neither Good nor Evil have any substance whatsoever. With utter purity prevailing everywhere, virtue has become an outmoded concept. It is vital only in reality, in order to curtail the savage instincts that generate the alien entity’. [endquote]. Yes, the moral obligation does bring with it suppression and inner conflict. RICHARD: There is no need for morality where there is no sorrow and malice. One still complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols ... this being exceedingly sensible given that people are as they are. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘‘I’ live in constant apprehension that ‘my’ bad side will
get the better of ‘me’, and ‘I’ must maintain eternal vigilance. Such effort is exhausting and unsustainable ... from time to time a crack
appears in ‘my’ defences and something nasty can slip out. It can cause harsh words and offensive or anti-social behaviour in the heat of the
moment ... or it can take the form of a cold-blooded plan to exact revenge at a later date. These are actions which ‘I’ afterwards regret and
‘I’ will say something like: ‘I don’t know what came over me, this is not like me’. ‘I’ can then feel sorry, remorseful, and with
sufficient repentance ‘I’ can regain ‘my’ virtue ... until next time, that is. It is the self that generates all the ills of humankind,
perpetuating misery and suffering’. [endquote] RICHARD: No ... it is the identity that is at fault. It is not only the ‘self’ but the ‘Self’ as well. The religious and/or spiritual and/or mystical and/or metaphysical people stopped half-way in the dissolution of identity by realising unity. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘And it is to no avail to strain to attain to spiritual enlightenment in order to cure or heal all the nastiness of humans; such action has been tried before with demonstrably disastrous results. Life can be a grim business in reality’. [endquote]. Yes, this we are in agreement on. But why then do you seem to be advancing something so closely connected? RICHARD: Because spiritual enlightenment comes with the dissolution of half of the identity. They are nearly here in actual space and time, so there is an apparent similarity to start off with. But then they go off into timeless and spaceless realms of delusion and hallucination and miss the point entirely. It is all to do with the instinct for survival which the ‘walk-in’ has arrogated for itself. It has to thus seek immortality in some metaphysical dimension. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘It is all so simple, in the actual world; no
effort is needed to meet the requisite morality of society. I have no ‘dark nature’, no unconscious impulses to curb, to control, to restrain.
It is all so easy, in the actual world’. [endquote] RICHARD: The ‘dark nature’ was extinguished along with the extinction of identity ... and so too went its opposite
‘light nature’. The ‘Good’ is a psychic force that exist solely to combat the ‘Evil’ One cannot think these things away ... just as one cannot feel one’s way into actuality. Seeing the obvious facts of actuality sets one on the wide and wondrous path to actual freedom. And there is nothing that is ‘there’ that I do not want to admit to or not look at or to not acknowledge ... it is all gone. Finished. Extinct. I do not ‘feel’ that all that is ‘not there any longer’ for feelings have also gone (and feelings are notoriously unreliable for ascertaining a fact anyway). I know experientially that there is nothing untoward here ... besides, it is impossible to fake this for five years. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘I can take no credit for my apparently virtuous behaviour because
actual freedom automatically provides beneficial thoughts and deeds. It is all so spontaneous, in the actual world; I do not do it ... it does
itself. Vanity, egoism, selfishness ... all self-centred activity has ceased to operate when ‘I’ ceased to be. And it is all so peaceful, in
the actual world; it is only in actualism that human beings can have peace-on-earth without toiling fruitlessly to be ‘good’’. [endquote] RICHARD: There is indeed a concern for others ... we are all fellow human beings. There is no psychology operating here, all is spontaneous and free. There is no need for a feeling of not harming others, for one is already always harmless in character. I am free to help those who want the only kind of help that I can give ... other than common physical assistance, of course. Mostly people want to be helped in the way they think and feel that they should be helped ... which usually amounts to comforting with consolation and succour. Those people who want to be actually free of the Human Condition are rather thin on the ground ... which generally leaves me happily sitting in the café! However, I am actively discussing these matters with my fellow humans on a face-to-face basis, as well as through writing. I have over a quarter of a million words in print ... 165,000 available free on my Web Page. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘The answer to everything that has puzzled humankind for all of human
history is readily elucidated when one is actually free. The ‘Mystery of Life’ has been penetrated and laid open for all those with the eyes to
see’. RICHARD: Freedom is freedom from identity. Then the questions and answers are obvious. There is still room for the acquisition of skills and expertise in various disciplines ... but I was referring to the ‘Ultimate Answer’. It is wide-open to view and is everywhere all at once. I see it; I breathe it; I drink it: I eat it; I hear it; I smell it; I taste it ... all the time. It never goes away, nor has it ever been away. It has always been already here and always will be. Perfection is always like this. * RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Life was meant to be easy’. [endquote] RICHARD: I am not suffering from disassociation ... I watch the news of the world and speak with people on a daily basis and I see all the unnecessary suffering going on because its reality is taken to be actual. Life in the actual world is what is genuine and authentic ... to escape from a grim and glum illusion and not become seduced into the loving and compassionate delusion of mysticism is an eminently sensible thing to do. You may call it ‘escapism’ and be probably correct ... but it sure beats the masochism and sadism of everyday reality. The only good thing about suffering is when it ends. Yet it can end for anybody ... and when it ends for everybody, there is global peace. This ‘escapism’ sounds pretty good to me! I may be a lot of things ... but I am not silly. RESPONDENT: Does responsibility and seriousness come with being carefree? RICHARD: No, the utter reliability of being always happy and harmless replaces the onerous burden of being responsible ... and actuality’s blithe sincerity dispenses with the gloomy seriousness that epitomises adulthood. It is funny – in a peculiar way – for I often gain the impression when I speak to others, that I am spoiling their game-plan. It seems as if they wish to search forever ... they consider arriving to be boring. How can unconditional peace and happiness, twenty-four-hours-a-day, possibly be boring? Is a carefree life all that difficult to comprehend? Why persist in a sick game ... and defend one’s right to do so? Why insist on suffering when blitheness is freely available here and now? Is a life of perennial gaiety something to be scorned? I have even had people say, accusingly, that I could not possibly be happy when there is so much suffering going on in the world. The logic of this defies credibility: Am I to wait until everybody else is happy before I am? If I was to wait, I would be waiting forever ... for under this twisted rationale, no one would dare to be the first to be happy. Their peculiar reasoning allows only for a mass happiness to occur globally; overnight success, as it were. Someone has to be intrepid enough to be first, to show what is possible to a benighted humanity. One has to face the opprobrium of one’s ill-informed peers.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Three) 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 |
