Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’
with Respondent No. 20
RESPONDENT: Richard, your reading of K once again, reflects an interest in showing how K failed to live what he taught (the ideal).
RICHARD: As always I am only interested in having an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race.
RESPONDENT: Only interested in one goal?
RICHARD: When writing to mailing lists such as this ... yes (thus not only ‘showing how K failed to live what he taught’).
RESPONDENT: So you are saying that you do have other interests, only not in writing to this mailing list. There is interest in showing how K failed, but only in so far as it pertains to that one interest.
RICHARD: Yes ... this is an accurate understanding of what I am saying.
RESPONDENT: The question is how does the question whether K failed to live what he taught, pertain to this one interest of ending all the wars, etc.
RICHARD: Because it demonstrates, by example, along with other many and varied saints, sages and seers that the ‘Teachings’ are unliveable ... or, more specifically, that spiritual enlightenment has not, does not, and will not, bring about peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: That is an interesting psychological observation.
RICHARD: Indeed it is ... strange as it may seem there are not many people vitally interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: The observation I was referring to was something else: that this was your ONLY interest.
RICHARD: I am aware of this ... I was taking it one step further inasmuch as the fact that it is my ‘ONLY’ interest when writing to mailing lists such as this should occasion a response such as yours (given that this mailing list is set-up to discuss these very matters).
RESPONDENT: There are many people vitally interested in peace, in happiness, in sensual delights. But there are not many interested in what you claim to be the only liveable answer.
RICHARD: So I have noticed ... now is that not what really constitutes ‘an interesting psychological observation’ ?
RESPONDENT: Do you not have any interests not consumed by this one?
RICHARD: Do you mean on mailing lists such as this ... or my life in general? If it be the latter then ... yes. I do have other interests outside of writing. My life with my companion is my number one priority.
RESPONDENT: It is only natural that you have other interests, and that your number one priority is not your agenda.
RICHARD: I glad we have cleared that up then.
RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever find interest in discovering, exploring, adventuring?
RICHARD: I have already explored and adventured and discovered – both in regards the human condition and the physical world – inasmuch as I have packed as much into one life as the average person would take three to accomplish. I am now retired and on a pension ... instead of pottering around in the garden I am currently pottering around the internet.
RESPONDENT: So you think you have accumulated more experiences than three average lifetimes?
RICHARD: No, I do not ‘think’ that at all ... that is what you make of it. When I say that I have explored and adventured and discovered – both in regards the human condition and the physical world – inasmuch as I have packed as much into one life as the average person would take three to accomplish I go by what many, many other peoples have told me when they become cognisant what I have been up to (plus what I read about, hear and see on various media).
RESPONDENT: In that you have not lived even one of those other lives, you cannot know that.
RICHARD: Unless those many, many peoples are lying to me – and the various media are involved in a gigantic conspiracy aimed at misleading me – then I can indeed know that.
RESPONDENT: And this sort of thinking, in terms of believing that you know and experiencing so much more than others, breeds conflict.
RICHARD: As your conclusion is based on a false premise it has no validity.
RESPONDENT: In giving significance to the accumulation of knowledge and experience, exploring, discovering, adventuring comes to an end.
RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are wanting to convey ... you specifically ask ‘don’t you ever find interest in discovering, exploring, adventuring’ (as if that is a beneficial thing to do that I am not doing or have not done) and when I reply that I have indeed explored, discovered and adventured (both in regards the human condition and the physical world) you then proceed to tell me that ‘in giving significance to the accumulation of knowledge and experience, exploring, discovering, adventuring comes to an end’.
Now, I never said that I gave significance to ‘the accumulation of knowledge and experience’ – that is what you make of my report of all my exploring and discovering and adventuring – therefore your conclusion (that ‘exploring, discovering, adventuring comes to an end’ for me for those reasons) is not applicable to me.
It has come to an end because I have found what I was looking for ... now I am living it.
RESPONDENT: The mind is closed, when it filled with itself.
RICHARD: Your mind may be – only you can know that – but the mind that is the brain in action in this skull is neither ‘filled with itself’ nor ‘closed’.
This mind is an unlimited mind ... I am this infinite and eternal and perpetual universe experiencing itself as an apperceptive human being: as such it is stunningly aware of its own infinitude.
RICHARD: There is a vague notion of one day retiring to a tropical isle and watching the fish leap in the lagoon.
RESPONDENT: Why does it matter where you are, or what you are watching?
RICHARD: In ultimate terms it matters not at all ... in terms of variety of environmental experiencing it is fun to shift to differing climes and locations now and again.
RESPONDENT: Is not the paradise present in living the actuality of this moment?
RICHARD: Indeed ... it would make no difference if I were to be living in solitary confinement in some obscure penitentiary on bread and water. Given that other options are available – such as currently living in this sub-tropical seaside village – I get to choose variety instead.
Ain’t life grand!
RESPONDENT: There is so much that evokes interest, why the focus?
RICHARD: Just for starters ... all the mayhem and misery that besets the human race.
RESPONDENT: In that there is no compassion, no benevolence, no feeling for others, what accounts for this concern for humanity?
RICHARD: Quite simply: we are all fellow human beings.
RESPONDENT: So though you have not been interested in K ...
RICHARD: If I may interject ... I have been very interested in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti: I have read about 30 of his 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 ‘K-readers’ face-to-face.
RESPONDENT: Yes, that is quite obvious, which led me to question your comment that you had only one interest, and why you have this interest.
RICHARD: As I said ... I am glad we have cleared that up.
RESPONDENT: ... you have repeatedly written that K failed to live what he (taught), and have gone to some length in explaining your point. What is the connection between this, and your one all consuming interest?
RICHARD: I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness ... 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. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to intimately know via direct experience ... and now I do.
RESPONDENT: Your claim to have read K and others with extreme care and responsiveness, does not come to much, since your interpretation of this material, is polemical.
RICHARD: As I am well aware that peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, is a controversial and/or contentious issue it does, despite your analysis, indeed ‘come to much’ ... it comes to much, much more than you appear to be cognisant of thus far in these e-mail exchanges.
RESPONDENT: It is being driven by that agenda, and that is what prevents care and responsiveness.
RICHARD: As I am not ‘driven’ at all your conclusion is invalid ... my agenda is an instantly droppable free choice each moment again.
RESPONDENT: And since you have already concluded that you know what K said, not simply conceptually, but that you have experienced that source from which K speak, you allow for no possibility that you have misunderstood.
RICHARD: Yes ... this is an accurate understanding of what I am saying.
RESPONDENT: And though you do not even allow for the possibility, the evidence repeatedly points to misunderstandings.
RICHARD: You would be aware, of course, that you need to demonstrate your unfounded allegation before I will even consider it? Many different people say all manner of unsubstantiated things about me which, according to them, I should look into ... if I were to do so I would have a full-time job doing other people’s off-the-cuff bidding.
Hence a demonstration is required to get my attention.
RESPONDENT: It has a polemical quality to it, that reflects an agenda.
RICHARD: I have made my agenda crystal-clear on many an occasion – peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body – and I am well aware that this is a controversial and/or contentious issue.
RESPONDENT: You do have an agenda, and when there is an agenda, any agenda, it has a direct effect on the ability to be open, to listen.
RICHARD: I am open to anything that brings about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: In what way are you open?
RICHARD: I am open to anyone coming through with demonstrable evidence of anything at all that brings about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body
RESPONDENT: You have determined both what counts as the end and what is the only viable means.
RICHARD: Not ‘the only viable means’, no ... I wrote the following only the other day:
As for ‘what counts as the end’ (the already always existing peace-on-earth) ... it determines itself.
RESPONDENT: There is no longer any openness, for you are convinced that you have already arrived.
RICHARD: No ‘openness’ to what? To something that has not worked, does not work and will not work? Many, many dedicated peoples have earnestly striven, for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history, to make what is popularly called spiritual enlightenment work ... but to no avail.
Just as did the enlightened being inhabiting this body for eleven years.
RESPONDENT: And ironically, this very belief is a blocks to the cooperation needed for ending human conflict.
RICHARD: And just what ‘belief’ would that be?
RESPONDENT: Does not this agenda also include showing that you are the only valid example of living ‘peace on earth’ (to your knowledge) in the whole history of mankind?
RICHARD: For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes.
RESPONDENT: Here is the motive for showing the world how everyone else has failed.
RICHARD: No ... the motive ‘for showing the world how everyone else has failed’ is nothing more mysterious than pointing to the obvious.
To wit: everyone else has actually failed.
RESPONDENT: That attitude, that only you are right and everyone else is wrong, can only lead to further conflict, for it feeds divisiveness.
RICHARD: As it is not ‘an attitude’ but an on-going living experience of purity and perfection your conclusion is invalid.
RESPONDENT: It is therefore, a question whether there is an openness to understand what he is pointing to, and what his life shows, when freed up from that agenda.
RICHARD: I understand that what he is pointing to is stepping out of the stream, that exists prior to birth and which will exist after death unless one listens to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world, and that his life shows that he did step out of the stream ... which has parallels to stepping off the Buddhist wheel or cycle of birth, death and rebirth.
RESPONDENT: Putting aside my questions as to the accuracy of this understanding of K ...
RICHARD: If you really want to put then aside why not just do so without the theatrical gesture of informing me? Either that or come straight out with your reservations.
RESPONDENT: That you take this for a theatrical gesture, shows how limited is that extreme care and remarkable responsiveness in reading.
RICHARD: I demur ... it is because of the extreme care and remarkable responsiveness with which I read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) that I can recognise a theatrical gesture when I see one in action. Indeed, further below you clearly express your disinterest in allocating the time to a meaningful and substantiated discussion ... allow me to copy-paste it up here so as to save looking for it:
RESPONDENT: The intent was to inform you of these reservations, without having this divert the discussion.
RICHARD: If I may point out? This entire discussion you are conducting is already a diversion ... the subject is [quote]: ‘Eradicating Anger’ [endquote]. And yet what is your interest in this discussion about eradicating anger from which you ostensibly do not wish to ‘divert the discussion’ ? Again I will copy-paste from further below:
RESPONDENT: There is always the opportunity of coming back to it.
RICHARD: Then here is your opportunity to do so .... I will re-phrase it slightly so as to demonstrably keep it within the topic: what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is pointing to is stepping out of the stream, that exists prior to birth and which will exist after death unless one listens to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world, and his life shows that he did step out of the stream – which has parallels to stepping off the Buddhist wheel or cycle of birth, death and rebirth – in lieu of eradicating anger.
Over to you.
RESPONDENT: ... is there not a question as to what sort of behaviour (including thought and feeling), the expression ‘stepping out of the stream’ is meant to point to?
RICHARD: If it is not the ‘sort of behaviour (including thought and feeling)’ as is epitomised by peace-on-earth then ... no.
RESPONDENT: So you are saying that you know without question, what K meant by the expression.
RICHARD: Yes ... I know it intimately from having lived that/been that which his ‘Teachings’ point to, night and day, for eleven years.
RESPONDENT: But since you are not K, this is only conjecture.
RICHARD: Not ‘conjecture’, no ... direct experiencing.
RESPONDENT: Is it not possible that what you take that expression to point to, is not what K is pointing at?
RESPONDENT: How convinced you are of your interpretations, so convinced that you probably do not even see that they are interpretations.
RICHARD: Here is your ‘interpretations’ theme again ... do you ever countenance the possibility that not everybody is interpreting?
RESPONDENT: And without that openness, there is no way that such a discussion is helpful to understanding the relationship to K, and it is after all, that relationship, which is reflected in the reading.
RICHARD: Of course ... and without a similar openness to discussing all aspects of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world – in particular whether they are liveable or not – then all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on will go on forever and a day.
RESPONDENT: Yes, openness includes that discussion.
RICHARD: Good ... that is what this thread is all about (eradicating anger).
RESPONDENT: But the very expression, ‘eradicating anger’, may not mean the same thing to you, that it does to others, simply because there can be differences in how ‘anger’ is being defined.
RICHARD: Okay ... you define it then and we will take it from there.
RESPONDENT: And it still remains a question whether all that you call ‘anger’ requires eradication in order to achieve that end of eradicating wars, and human suffering.
RICHARD: For you maybe – only you can know that – but it does not ‘remain a question’ for me.
RESPONDENT: But I do not get the connection between that particular discussion of the ‘Teachings’ and that result.
RICHARD: So I noticed ... whereas I would have considered it obvious to any astute person that anger (and anguish) is germane to the subject.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps what you think is ‘obvious’ or ‘astute’ is not.
RICHARD: Are you really saying that anger (and anguish) is not germane to the subject of enabling peace-on-earth?
RESPONDENT: In any case, you have missed the meaning of what I was saying. I am asking why seeing the falseness of what K said, helps bring about peace on earth.
RICHARD: By seeing through the rhetoric, about anger and anguish being ended, to the reality of a life lived with anger and anguish bleeding-through from time-to-time.
RESPONDENT: That can also be seen in the comments that followed.
RICHARD: What ‘comments’ specifically? Vague generalisations conveys nothing substantial such as can be adequately addressed.
RESPONDENT: Why is it at all important to that end to discuss the liveability of the teachings?
RICHARD: So as to have an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race.
RESPONDENT: How does this ‘end’ follow from a discussion of K’s teachings?
RICHARD: When the invalid solution, hawked around for thousands of years, is seen for what it is (unliveable) that seeing clears the way for the valid solution (the liveable) to come into view.
Again this comes from direct experience ... I am not talking theory.
RESPONDENT: That would assume that the Teachings are a blueprint for how mankind is to live, and they are not.
RICHARD: That is not the impression Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti conveyed over 60-plus years.
RESPONDENT: It is the impression to me.
RICHARD: Yet he was most insistent that one listened only to the ‘Teachings’ ... he expressly stated that the person listening to him was to exclude everything they had ever heard, read, experienced or otherwise learned in their life-time thus far or else they were not ‘listening’. In fact, according to him, the listener is not to compare, evaluate or judge in any way, shape or form. Vis.:
He effectively says that if one excludes all the knowledge one has gathered; what one has acquired through books, through experience, then one is listening (whereas if one does not exclude all the knowledge one has gathered; the knowledge of what one has acquired through books, through experience, therefore because one is comparing, judging, evaluating, then one can’t possibly find the truth). Which exclusive listening to the truth is otherwise known (in the world of saints, sages and seers) as ‘satsang’.
Which easily constitutes what could be called a ‘blueprint’ which has been hawked around for thousands of years.
RESPONDENT: Such a blueprint, would simply be another form of conditioning, another method, that would imprison man.
RICHARD: And if he were still alive would you point this out to him so that he could then recall all of the ‘Teachings’ – all the books, all the audio tapes and all the video tapes – which you have been enjoined to listen to exclusively ... and uncritically?
RESPONDENT: Indeed, K taught that any such blueprint is an obstacle to that end.
RICHARD: Yet he did say on his death-bed that nobody had lived the ‘Teachings’.
RESPONDENT: You are accepting as fact something that was merely reported.
RICHARD: Here is the exact quote:
RESPONDENT: Don’t you understand that people generally report what they THINK they heard, and that can be substantially different from what was actually said.
RICHARD: Sure ... but as I understand it Ms. Mary Lutyens obtained the transcript (as quoted above) from a taped message he recorded shortly before his death.
RESPONDENT: And even if he did say this, what can be understood from that statement about whether the teachings constituted a blueprint.
RICHARD: Maybe you could read the quote and see for yourself? Otherwise you are asking me to interpret his words for you.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps he was saying that they did not live the teachings, because they took them for a blueprint, perhaps he was not thinking clearly, as he was near death.
RICHARD: Are you really going to set yourself up as being a competent psychologist/psychiatrist capable of determining his state of mind ... and just because he was near death?
RESPONDENT: What you are doing is to take a comment overheard, give it an interpretation that supports your own view that K failed, and then give that comment so much significance, that it outweighs all contrary evidence of what he taught. And this is what you call reading K with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness.
RICHARD: No ... all this which you have just concluded about me and where the quote came from is what comes from you.
RICHARD: ... I was addressing the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case.
RESPONDENT: By not drawing this distinction the rational basis for legal arbitration of disputes is being rejected.
RICHARD: How so? If one is subpoenaed to appear in court, and one does not comply, armed persons will come knocking on one’s door to forcibly take one away. To take out a writ against one’s fellow human being is to tacitly acknowledge, and therefore condone, the physical force/restraint that will be used in the event of non-compliance. For the pacifist it amounts to getting someone else to do one’s dirty work for one ... just as in a war. I was a pacifist for eleven years ... it was events such as this that showed the lie of the principle of non-violence.
RESPONDENT: First, this is not the way that such disputes are arbitrated by the courts. Being sued under the law of contracts, or torts, does not lead to the physical use of force by officers of the court to secure an appearance. The result of (usually multiple) non-appearance when summoned, neither by yourself or your agent (e.g. lawyer), is to forfeit your case.
RICHARD: Even so, ultimately physical force is used ... for example, in the scenario you sketch, to collect on or seize what has been forfeited if there be no eventual compliance. If there is no enforceable penalty to pay law and order has no impact ... and the bully-boys and feisty-femmes will laugh at the toothless tiger.
RESPONDENT: The courts can enforce their judgments.
RICHARD: Not just ‘can enforce’ ... they do enforce (it is integral to the entire system).
RESPONDENT: And I agree, that this is a necessary requirement of a working legal system.
RESPONDENT: But that does not mean that there is an appeal or indirect use being made of the force at the court’s discretion.
RICHARD: But it does ... ultimately it does indeed have that recourse to force.
RESPONDENT: The court is often used as impartial arbiter.
RICHARD: Ideally it is ‘impartial’ , yes ... even so that impartial arbitration is backed by implicit physical force/restraint otherwise there is no respect inhered.
RESPONDENT: Most often, both parties use the court to arbitrate the conflict, and willingly comply with whatever judgment, simple because of the ‘moral’ authority of the court, and not because of the court’s ability to direct law enforcement agents.
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... if it were a matter of simply having someone impartially arbitrate a dispute there are many instances where two rational peoples go to an independent or uninvolved elder and put the matter before her or him for mediation. Where rationality breaks down, when emotions and passions rule the mind, the law-court is where such disputes wind up ... and precisely because the verdict can be enforced with the full resources of the state.
RESPONDENT: We do not therefore know what this action says about K’s relationship to the power of the state to enforce its laws and judicial decisions ...
RICHARD: Let us keep this simple ... his ideal is two people sitting as friends under a tree discussing together; his reality is to take his former associate to court (three times over sixteen years) and even then the matter was not settled until after his death.
RESPONDENT: ... nor do we know from the quote you reproduced, what his relationship was to the use of military force in all situations.
RICHARD: That is but one quote ... one that is representative of the entire thrust of his ‘Teachings’.
RESPONDENT: You are making K out to be a supporter of a pacifist doctrine that is extreme and unrealistic.
RICHARD: Yet he was ‘extreme and unrealistic’ when it came to non-participation in war ... the quote I provided demonstrates this unambiguously (‘you will be shot’).
RESPONDENT: And this is for polemical reasons, and not out of some extreme care and remarkable responsiveness in reading what he wrote and hearing what he said.
RICHARD: I see that you are making a big thing out of this ‘polemical’ theme you have running ... which starts to sound as if it is a way to prevent dissension from the party line (as in put a stop to investigating and uncovering, exploring and discovering) whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself said to question everything ... even the speaker.
Why should honest enquiry be deflected by dubbing it a polemical agenda?
RESPONDENT: But there is a larger issue here, whether it is hypocritical for the pacifist to use the legal system for protection, just as it may be hypocritical to use the police force and army for protection from violent attack.
RESPONDENT: And this larger issue appears to be a matter of how that ‘pacifist ideal’ is understood. Taking ‘pacifism’ to be an absolute rule that it is always wrong to use force for protection or securing rights granted under law, would make appealing to the legal system hypocritical.
RESPONDENT: But pacifism need not be conceived as such, and K did not commit himself to any such principle.
RICHARD: In the case of litigation ... obviously not; in the case of war ... obviously so.
RESPONDENT: So if K did not commit to that principle in the case of litigation, why do you use it to flog him?
RICHARD: Not ‘flog him’ , no ... it is the shortcomings of the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment that I am exposing. I know its flaws intimately from direct experiencing, night and day, for eleven years ... but I do not expect, and would not want, anyone to merely take my word for it. And it is to this end that what I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (of having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war).
I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life.
RESPONDENT: Is K’s position obvious from this one quote?
RICHARD: This ‘one quote’ is representative of the general trend of the ‘Teachings’.
RESPONDENT: Did K ever say that the police should be disbanded, or that murderers should not be detained? Did K ever say that it was wrong to oppose tyranny ...
RICHARD: Golly ... that is the very point I am making (partial pacifism).
RESPONDENT: ... or that force should never be used to stop genocide?
RICHARD: That ‘force should never be used’ is what the entire thrust of the ‘Teachings’ are on about – and it is in keeping with the religious response in general – it is just that the details are not specifically spelled out (or, rather, thought out) ... which lack of practical foresight is also in keeping with the religious response in general.
RESPONDENT: In this way, ‘pacifism’ is often understood as an attitude that opposes only certain forms of the use of force, and not all uses.
RICHARD: Sort of like being only partially-pregnant, eh?
RESPONDENT: No, sort of like saying that eating food is only good if you eat the right food, and only in the right quantity.
RICHARD: And it sits comfortably with you to have the people who eat the wrong food in the wrong quantity protect you – the military from invaders and the police from banditry and the customs from vagrants and the warders from criminals and the security from thieves for example – so as to ensure that you are able to safely sup on the right food in the right quantity?
What do you reckon would happen if the military, the police, the customs, the warders and the security, for example, all cottoned on to your wisdom and also started eating the right food in the right quantity?
RESPONDENT: As such, the ‘pacifist’ can still see the need for police action, as well as a legal system that is designed to provide an alternative to might makes right.
RICHARD: As both a police action and a legal system are backed by might it is a moot point ... even so it is but a selective pacifism and not the Full Monty.
RESPONDENT: The Full Monty is a Fool’s Monty ...
RICHARD: Of course it is ... the bully-boys and feisty-femmes would soon rule the world.
RESPONDENT: ... that has nothing to do with K was saying.
RICHARD: I know it has not ... he went for the Half Monty.
RESPONDENT: Yet you felt to make a point out of how contradictory and hypocritical it was to appeal to the legal system.
RICHARD: It is not something I ‘felt’ ... it is something patently obvious for those with the eyes to see (only you call those eyes polemical and thus cannot see it).
RESPONDENT NO. 42: I sense a desire to tag k with labels. The label ‘pacifist’ k has always rejected, in fact it is Ghandi’s pacifism that he criticizes, even ridicules. He rejects it as he rejects any pre-formulated attitude which would prevent one from responding appropriately to a given situation.
RICHARD: Are you so sure about this? Here is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has to say on the subject: [quote]: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. (‘Freedom From The Known’ ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot.
RESPONDENT: Why do they get to rule the world?
RICHARD: Because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples will have been imprisoned or shot.
RESPONDENT: You assume that K was setting down a universalised principle for right action, applicable to everyone, but one that will be followed by all but the bully boys.
RICHARD: And the feisty-femmes.
RESPONDENT: But there is no indication that this is what he was doing here ...
RICHARD: Au contraire ... his avowed aim, in 1929, was to set everyone free (which overlooks the fact that not everyone will want to be thus freed in the manner he prescribed).
RESPONDENT: There was no manner prescribed ...
RICHARD: There was ... easily recognised as what is popularly known as spiritual enlightenment.
RESPONDENT: ... all and every prescription was seen as false.
RICHARD: Every ‘prescription’ other that what is popularly known as spiritual enlightenment, that is.
RESPONDENT: Living without any prescribed manner is what he pointed to.
RICHARD: No ... being enlightened is what ‘he pointed to’ .
RESPONDENT: ... and he contradicts much of what he writes elsewhere as to the right guide of action.
RICHARD: Aye ... consistency is not a strong point among the many and varied saints, sages and seers.
RESPONDENT: But in this case, it seems the interpretation is what is responsible for the inconsistency.
RICHARD: Here is your ‘interpretation’ theme again ... where would you be without it as a counter-argument, eh?
RESPONDENT: The act of opposing fighting in a war or being inducted in the armed forces, does not result in rule by the bully boys.
RICHARD: If an entire nation did so it would ... it is simply impractical unless every man, woman and child became pacifistic at once (and even then their submerged feelings would erupt from time to time).
RESPONDENT: But entire nations have not ...
RICHARD: I need only point to the Tibetan situation to demonstrate the results of the ‘ahimsa’ teaching.
RESPONDENT: ... and opposing wars that are unjust, where despots and demagogues enlist the support of the common person, is to oppose the rule of bully boys.
RICHARD: Not if the ‘common person’ en masse also listen exclusively and uncritically to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and also ‘refuse to join the army’ and ‘refuse to fight’ ... ‘despots and demagogues’ are unlikely to listen to reason.
RESPONDENT: For that to happen, this action must be abstracted from its concrete conditions and deemed applicable in all contexts.
RICHARD: If a proposed solution has no universality it is not worth pursuing ... ‘tis then a selfish solution.
RESPONDENT: Not selfish ...
RICHARD: If it has no universality it is indeed selfish ... any proposed solution must be equitable.
RESPONDENT: ... but situational, dependent on context and realistic effects and conditions, rather than on the rational abstraction of universalisation, which does not accurately indicate what is moral.
RICHARD: Hmm ... and what about such abstract universalisations as ‘refuse to join the army’ and ‘refuse to fight’?
RESPONDENT: They cannot rule those that are not intimidated by threats of violence ...
RICHARD: I fail to comprehend why you would downgrade being shot or imprisoned to being only ‘threats’ of violence ... being shot or imprisoned is already violence.
RESPONDENT: K says ‘may be imprisoned’ that means that it is not a certainty.
RICHARD: Perhaps not a 100% certainty ... but I have personally seen it happen in practice (plus read about it).
RESPONDENT: It is a possible outcome of the action being taken.
RICHARD: Or even the most likely outcome ... for that is what the evidence of history shows.
RESPONDENT: As an aside to our discussion, I doubt the historical accuracy of this claim. On the battlefront, deserters and those who refuse to fight, are mostly shot or imprisoned.
RICHARD: Yes, and it may be worth knowing that you are talking to somebody that spent time in the military on active service in a war zone. I am acutely aware of the penalties you describe ... not just as something which happens far away to some other people in some other time.
RESPONDENT: But on the home front, there are many avenues of escape, even in totalitarian regimes. Throughout history, many have refused to fight and have been able to avoid imprisonment and being shot, from hiding or fleeing or marrying, or taking on special jobs, or joining some religious order.
RICHARD: Of course. But that is dodging the issue, in other words, instead of being what is called a ‘conscientious objector’ ... whereas I was talking of going public about it (which is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did) so as to influence others. Please remember his avowed aim (to set humankind free) ... and all this hiding, fleeing business is a poor, poor freedom.
And, once again, not universally applicable.
RESPONDENT: So at that point when the decision is being taken, it is only a ‘threat’ of imprisonment or being shot.
RICHARD: Aye ... but where the tire meets the road is where the threat becomes the reality.
RESPONDENT: Imprisoning or shooting the pacifist does not enable the bully boys to rule, rather the subjugation of those that are not pacifists.
RICHARD: You keep missing the point ... the ‘refuse to join the army’ and the ‘refuse to fight’ advice is not just meant for some people (if it is it is selfish or unequitable).
RESPONDENT: And this is where the pacifist’s act falls short of meeting the challenge to the suffering and death that the bully boys bring about.
RICHARD: The ‘pacifist’s act’ falls short of a lot of things ... but primarily practicability.
RESPONDENT: It is compassion for that suffering and death that may require the rational, measured use of force.
RICHARD: I shall put it this way: I would not want to be on the receiving end of someone’s compassionate use of force. Too many evils have been done with and because of love and compassion for either of them to have the slightest skerrick of credibility left as being an adequate motive/guide/gauge for appropriate action whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: My point is that the bully boys do not rule those that are not intimidated by their threats.
RICHARD: Both the bully-boys and feisty-femmes rule when they carry out their threats though.
RESPONDENT: The bully boys may very well comprise the government demanding enlistment.
RICHARD: I am no advocate of conscription ... forcing someone to kill and/or to maim and be killed and/or be maimed could easily fit into the criteria for a ‘crime against humanity’. The obvious defence is a voluntary defence – a country thus votes with its feet – and if there be not sufficient ‘votes’, as it were, the country has therefore voted to surrender.
RESPONDENT: In which case, they rule in complying with that enlistment.
RICHARD: Agreed. The bully-boys and feisty-femmes are within a country’s borders as well ... and in all walks of life.
RESPONDENT: Bully boys have had their historic successes, but how long can the rule of fear last?
RICHARD: Only for as long as the recipient has fear ... concomitant with the eradication of anger (which is what this thread is about) comes the eradication of fear.
RESPONDENT: Use of fear as a political means for keeping power is inherently unstable.
RICHARD: Of course ... which is another reason to eradicate fear (and anger) in all its entirety.
RESPONDENT: Fear cannot command loyalty or commitment.
RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘loyalty’ (allegiance of any kind) vanishes along with anger and fear.
RESPONDENT: Fear cannot provide the energy of doing what is right and good.
RICHARD: Sure ... no emotion, passion or calenture can.
RESPONDENT: They can kill, and attempt to kill all the opposition, but that only alienates others. These regimes crumble, whether from external forces, or from internal ones.
RICHARD: Aye ... the evidence of history shows that all empires eventually tumble.
RESPONDENT: And so in the willingness to die so as not to take part in an unjust war, or policy, there is a direct action against bully boys everywhere.
RICHARD: And thus the way is willingly made clear for the bully-boys and feisty-femmes to rule the world.
RICHARD: A person sans commitment to any pre-formulated attitude is free to act as is applicable to whatever the current situation and circumstances are. And as the situation and circumstances are ever-changing it would be silly to have a fixed attitude. Of course only a person that is happy and harmless is able to salubriously live such an unprincipled life.
RESPONDENT: What you are saying here is not substantially different from what K has said, you simply don’t see that K is also saying it.
RICHARD: If you can produce the quotes wherein he says the equivalent opposite to the quote I provided I will be most interested to read it ... if not then what you say here is nothing but rhetoric.
RESPONDENT: This conclusion is the rhetoric.
RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness ... 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.
RESPONDENT: Producing quotes requires a certain amount of time, and that time may be deemed as better allocated elsewhere.
RICHARD: And what better way of spending one’s time, other than enabling peace-on-earth, do you have in mind?
RESPONDENT: And there is as well the question of motive in looking for these quotes.
RICHARD: How about the motive of backing your rhetoric with substance?
RESPONDENT: I have no interest in proving to you that you are wrong, though you have interest in proving that you are right.
RICHARD: And my motive for that is the well-being of my fellow human being ... what is your motive?
RESPONDENT: And that is where your one interest in ending wars, etc., crashes into the wall of your enormous ego.
RICHARD: Hmm ... so Richard has an ‘enormous ego’ as well as the other attributes you have ascribed to him in a previous e-mail? Vis.:
May I ask? What other things do you know about me that I am so ignorant of?
RESPONDENT: K speaks often about the nature of the conditioned mind, and the way in which listening and seeing what is actual, is blocked by beliefs, methods and formulas.
RICHARD: If only he had listened to his own advice, eh?
RESPONDENT: He also speaks often about listening to the actuality in this moment, an actuality that is ever changing.
RICHARD: But this moment never changes .... it is already always this moment.
RESPONDENT: There are no blueprints here. If you need some quote, or quotes, then perhaps you can begin to read K with that extensive care and remarkable responsiveness, for it is blatantly obvious that you have not.
RICHARD: I do not need any quotes as I have indeed read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness ... it is you who is making unsubstantiated claims about what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said (‘what you are saying here is not substantially different from what K has said’ ) so it is up to you as to whether you want me to take any notice of what you want me to see or not (‘you simply don’t see that K is also saying it’).
It is your call.
RESPONDENT NO. 42: On the issue of k’s anger. Well, it’s o.k. with me if you want to express that opinion and try to gain other adherents, but I think it is based on a confusion of language. Of course k may use angry language, but look at the context and you will find the language expresses exasperation of the moment.
RICHARD: It is this simple: if there is ‘exasperation’ (synonyms: frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, anger) then there has been no eradication of anger.
RESPONDENT: What problem do you see with that sort of anger?
RICHARD: A difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... all gradations of anger cloud an accurate appraisal and thus a truthful (in accord with the fact) response to whatever the current situation and circumstances are.
RESPONDENT: But not all that is referred to anger is a difference of degree, there are also differences in kind.
RICHARD: This is news to me.
RESPONDENT: What can be called anger covers many different sorts of behaviour, though they might look alike. If I use a knife to cut out a tumour, that is not the same use of the knife as when it is used as a weapon. Anger can be a mode of passionate expression, it can be an expression of caring, and not an expression of wanting to harm.
RICHARD: I am glad that I am not your children (or your wife).
RESPONDENT: So am I.
RICHARD: If you are answering in jest then you are ducking the issue ... if you are answering sincerely then why do you persist in making a case for the validity of ‘feelings that enable perceiving’ (next paragraph below) then?
RESPONDENT: Similarly, not all that is called ‘anger’ clouds perception.
RICHARD: Any feeling clouds perception.
RESPONDENT: False. There are feelings that cloud, just as there are feelings that enable perceiving. Your inability to feel, renders you blind to all that is there.
RICHARD: As ‘all that is there’ is other people’s precious feelings then I am well-pleased to be out of that mess.
RESPONDENT: This appears to reflect a larger picture of all emotion, of all passion, and the way that influences perception, whether it is anger or compassion, enthusiasm or benevolence.
RICHARD: Exactly ... as I said: any feeling clouds perception.
RESPONDENT: You agree with this, because it is my view of what you are assuming.
RICHARD: I am not ‘assuming’ anything ... I know from direct experience that any feeling clouds perception.
RESPONDENT: And as you can observe, it is wrong.
RICHARD: Not so ... I can observe, each moment again, a remarkable clarity and purity of perception.
RESPONDENT: Compassion enables understanding, it does not block it.
RICHARD: Compassion enables understanding of one’s own and other people’s feelings – that I will not dispute – but it never has, does not, and never will, enable understanding of this actual world.
RESPONDENT: Whereas the inability to be compassionate is a block.
RICHARD: Simultaneous with the eradication of malice and sorrow is the eradication of their antidotal opposites ... love and compassion.
Here lies a clear, clean and pure perception.
RESPONDENT NO. 42: K’s discussion of ‘anger’, refers to stored up emotion that hasn’t been exposed to the light of day. It derives from stored hurt, which k describes as the most disastrous handicap to carry through life. That kind of anger I think you will not find in k.
RICHARD: So ‘stored up emotion’ has been eradicated but being prone to ‘exasperation of the moment’ has not been, eh?
RESPONDENT: What is the problem with that?
RICHARD: In the context of the thread it is at odds with the basic premise that was being proposed which I initially responded to (eradicating anger). In the context of my agenda (peace-on-earth) it amounts to copping-out of eradicating the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself).
RESPONDENT: But you are assuming that eradicating all that you call anger is the root cause of the wars and murders, when it may not be so.
RICHARD: I specifically said ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (the eradication of all emotions and passions are a by-product of such altruistic ‘self’-immolation).
RESPONDENT: Yes, but again, why does an impassioned expression, which may be taken as ‘anger’, at seeing the senseless cruelty, insensitivity, hatred, malevolence, ignorance, contribute to wars human suffering, and all that which is being pointed at?
RICHARD: Because ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) is the spanner in the works ... ‘impassioned expression’ – even of the good kind – is but ‘my’ defence from being exposed for the shyster that ‘I’ am.
RESPONDENT: That assumption is what requires exploration, prior to looking at K’s anger.
RICHARD: If what I write is read with both eyes it will be seen that there is no such ‘assumption’ to be explored.
RESPONDENT: You mean, because you take it to be an unquestionable fact?
RICHARD: It is a fact that there is no ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body ... you may question it as much as you wish, of course.
RESPONDENT NO. 42: The matter of the court case surely is more complicated that that it could be used as evidence of anger.
RICHARD: I have never let something being ‘complicated’ cause me to not investigate and uncover, explore and discover.
RESPONDENT: What do you see in that court case, that is an example of anger?
RICHARD: Just for starters ... the clouding of judgement such as to motivate initiating an un-winnable litigation in the first place (and then persisting in it for a number of years).
RESPONDENT: What evidence do you have that the litigation was not winnable?
RICHARD: The outcome showed that they were legally Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s documents all along ... here is the relevant text of the final settlement of the lawsuits (written in legalese language): [quote]: ‘... the Krishnamurti Parties acknowledge that the documents they sought to recover from the Rajagopal Parties in the prior lawsuits are, in fact, Rajagopal’s documents and may be kept by Rajagopal’. (Case No. 79918, D. Rajagopal, et al. v. J Krishnamurti et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura).
RESPONDENT: Certainly it requires more than reproducing a copy of the judgement, you would need at least the correspondence between K’s lawyers and K.
RICHARD: You may ... I do not.
RESPONDENT: That you do not, is a reflection of a closed mind at work, a mind that cannot question its own conclusions and assumptions, a mind that is quick to judge and draw conclusions based on inadequate and insufficient evidence.
RICHARD: If you think that I have to read lawyer’s briefs in order to come to a conclusion that would satisfy you then you will be waiting forever ... in other words this is nonsense what you are proposing.
RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system.
RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case.
RESPONDENT: That is like saying that all food is alike, disregarding the effects that food has on the body.
RICHARD: No ... it is like saying that there is only a difference in degree between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case.
RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose.
RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force.
RESPONDENT: Yes, as one aspect.
RICHARD: It sits as a back-up, in an ultimate sense, behind every ‘aspect’ .
RESPONDENT: But that is not what lends that law its justice and legitimacy.
RICHARD: Just pause for a moment and consider this notion: if there was ‘justice and legitimacy’ in each and every human being there would be no need for law.
RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose.
RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason.
RESPONDENT: That depends on the nature of those emotions. Usually it is the case that people can listen to reasoning, even when emotions are heightened.
RICHARD: You are way out there on your own with this observation.
RESPONDENT: And emotion is not the only block, self-interested motives and agendas, as well as beliefs and prejudice, not only block reasons, but manipulate and shape the reasoning.
RICHARD: Of course ... ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) is the culprit behind all the problems that ail humankind.
RESPONDENT NO. 42: But thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k.
RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000: [Richard]: ‘The evidence of history shows that the saints and sages and seers have been unable to extricate or isolate love and compassion out from malice and sorrow and vice versa ... innocence is totally new to human experience. No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent. All the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers) despite preaching peace and harmony. [endquote]. As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion.
RESPONDENT: I don’t see how you can know whether love and compassion was not free of malice and sorrow in some person that is still alive, let alone lived forty years, five hundred, or two thousand.
RICHARD: Speaking personally, I lived that/was that ‘love and compassion’ , night and day for eleven years, thus I have intimate experience/knowledge of all its nooks and crannies.
RESPONDENT: I am familiar with your claim. I see no need here to enter into the basis of that claim. And I do not see that your experience, whatever it is, can resolve this question for another.
RICHARD: Then why do you ask me how I can know what I know?
RESPONDENT: I asked how you can know what another has experienced.
RICHARD: And my answer was – and still is – by experiencing it for myself.
RESPONDENT: You call it by the same words, but that does not equate with being the same thing.
RICHARD: It does when you experience it for yourself ... spiritual enlightenment has a global occurrence spanning all cultures, all races, all ages and both genders with only differences in detail.
It is a common human experience (common to any human who accesses it).
RICHARD: Speaking generally, I need only point out that there are numerous accounts of many and varied saints, sages and seers displaying malice and sorrow in one form or another (usually disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers).
RESPONDENT: The image of these words may be preventing hearing that they are not the same as what is ordinarily referred to.
RICHARD: There are no images happening here.
RESPONDENT: Which is another image.
RICHARD: This reply is a complete waste of a sentence.
RESPONDENT: And your claim that all these accounts display malice and sorrow in one form or another, appears false.
RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as I intimately know the state of being in question (popularly known as spiritual enlightenment).
RESPONDENT: You only know what you have made it out to be.
RICHARD: Not so ... I read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness and was able to readily ascertain that it was an experience in common.
RESPONDENT: Perhaps part of the difference is in the way ‘compassion’ is viewed. (and even then, not all accounts have a place for ‘compassion’).
RESPONDENT: That may reflect what you understand by compassion, and it may be used to refer to a sorrow for another, but this is not the compassion that arises when all sorrow and suffering ends. That is something else entirely.
RICHARD: When ‘all’ sorrow and suffering ends so does compassion ... they are complimentary opposites. Furthermore, do you see how you say that ‘all sorrow’ ends, and not a type of sorrow or some watered down version of sorrow, just as my previous co-respondent (initially) said, unambiguously, look into your heart and eradicate anger there ... only to back away from that unambiguous statement upon discussion? If you do see it then here is my question:
Why will you allow that all sorrow can end (aka eradicate sorrow) ... but not have all anger end (aka eradicate anger)?
RESPONDENT: How are you defining innocence?
RICHARD: I am, of course, using ‘innocence’ in its ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by evil’ dictionary meaning ... as in a complete absence of malice and sorrow which comes about when the identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates in its entirety for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.
RESPONDENT: Absence of sorrow is where I think your definition parts company with the common dictionary meaning.
RICHARD: Yet guilt and sorrow are inseparably linked.
RESPONDENT: Guilt does result in a form of sorrow, but sorrow does not result in guilt.
RICHARD: Then what is the sorrow about (the sorrow which ‘ends’ anyway according to you further above)?
RESPONDENT: There can be innocence in feelings of guiltless sorrow, and that clearly follows dictionary usage.
RICHARD: There is no innocence whatsoever whilst there are feelings – because ‘I’ am the feelings and the feelings are ‘me’ – and an identity (‘I’/‘me’) can never, ever be innocent.
RESPONDENT: For K freedom from the known is innocence, that is something else than the absence of recognizable emotional reactions.
RICHARD: Yes ... I am suggesting going further: freedom from the unknown as well (the absence of ‘being’).
RESPONDENT: As the unknown is not known, what is it that you are saying that there is freedom from?
RICHARD: From what is popularly called the unknown (which entails the eradication of ‘being’ and not just the end of ‘becoming’).
RESPONDENT: But that is a known.
RICHARD: I beg to differ ... the many and varied saints, sage and seers report that ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’) cannot be known. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for example, said that [quote]: ‘water can never know what water is’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: It is only confusion to call it unknown.
RICHARD: Then take your case up with the mystics ... I am simply using the conventional words (aka ‘pointers’).
RESPONDENT NO. 42: I didn’t respond because there is nothing there that I can respond to. You’re making assertions that have no meaning for me. They don’t resonate. I’m not interested in a shouting match.
RICHARD: I am not asking you to shout ... I am pointing out that it is a strange type of innocence that has within it anger and sorrow (even if it be the ‘anger of the moment’ that you approve of in a previous e-mail). And as a follow-on question ... would sorrow of the moment be acceptable to you also?
RESPONDENT NO. 42: Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind ...
RICHARD: How is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s plan of action somehow exempt from ‘a rigid formulaic response’ then? Vis.: [quote]: ‘You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight ...’. [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Why not read it as a concrete example of peaceful fearlessness, K did not say that you must refuse, or you must refuse to join.
RICHARD: I prefer to read it as it is written ... after all, he did emphasise that it was [quote] ‘extraordinarily important to understand this’ [endquote].
RESPONDENT: Let us look again at what K said: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. Where is the rigid formulisation here?
RICHARD: In the words ‘you will be shot’ (it is couched as an imperative statement).
RESPONDENT: I detect no imperative.
RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps if I were to say that it is couched as a ‘categorical’ statement then that word might work for you?
RESPONDENT: Aren’t you reading into this the additional statement that joining the army is always an action that is against peacefulness, or that fighting is always an action that is against peacefulness?
RICHARD: No ... I prefer to read it as it is written.
RESPONDENT: Then where is the moral principle, where is the exhortation?
RICHARD: There may be some confusion here: I was saying ‘no’ to your ‘aren’t you reading into ...’ question and not necessarily saying no to the substance of what you wanted to ask (‘that joining the army is always an action that is against peacefulness’ and ‘that fighting is always an action that is against peacefulness’) ... and I still prefer to read it as it is written rather than become bogged down in trying to make it something other than what it is.
The ‘moral principle’ is implicit in the ‘it is extraordinarily important to understand this’ style of ‘exhortation’ ... couched as an imperative statement ‘you will be shot’.
RICHARD: If being imprisoned or being shot is not a problem to you then what you say is true ... howsoever if all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples likewise find it not to be a problem to be imprisoned or being shot then the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world.
RESPONDENT: Only if these two categories is taken for exhaustive of the world’s population.
RICHARD: I am endeavouring to keep this simple ... you have commented before on the [quote] ‘complexities’ [endquote] of my posts.
RESPONDENT: Obviously, if everyone but bully boys and feisty femmes is shot, then they have a fait accompli.
RICHARD: Exactly ... which brings me to a question I have often asked of religious/ spiritual people without them ever being able to explain satisfactorily: the implications and ramifications of a pacifistic moral system that kills off otherwise intelligent and decent peoples but not the bully-boys and feisty-femmes.
Which means that those who ‘refuse to join the army’ and those who ‘refuse to fight’ are going to get eliminated by those who seek to rule by brute force (‘you will be shot’) ... like those martyrs at any given point in time in history. Therefore, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is promoting a system that drives the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples to extinction and populates the planet with bully-boys and feisty-femmes.
RESPONDENT: Living peacefully is not judged from ‘outside’, but is an inner quality.
RICHARD: If it does not work in moment-to-moment action the ‘inner quality’ is not worth anything.
RESPONDENT: I would say that the inner quality detached from action in the world is fragmentary, and when there is a principle behind that detachment, it only strengthens divisiveness and isolation.
RICHARD: Yet you go on to say (next paragraph below) that ‘given that inner quality, even if you are shot, it is not a problem’ .
RESPONDENT: Given that inner quality, even if you are shot, it is not a problem.
RICHARD: And therein lies the whole point ... a guaranteed one-way ticket to the after-death realm of one’s choice by earning one’s chosen god’s good graces.
RESPONDENT: I don’t read that into it.
RICHARD: Neither do I ... and I do not have to as it is in it.
RESPONDENT: It need not be so encumbered with religious belief.
RICHARD: What other motive could there be for killing yourself off through devious means (having someone else do it for you) than a religio-spiritual belief that praises bodily sacrifice (straight to the after-death realm where all is bright and beautiful) whilst condemning suicide.
Other than the Jehovah’s Witnesses I cannot recall, off-hand, any religio-spiritual teaching that promises peace-on-earth as the flesh and blood body.
RESPONDENT: It is the state of not being in conflict or resisting anything that may happen, even death.
RICHARD: I can easily agree with this to the point that I have no resistance to death ... it is the pointless dying that I questioned.
RESPONDENT: And the only reward here, are the results and quality of that conflict free state.
RICHARD: Of course ... but one does not have to ‘refuse to join the army’ and ‘refuse to fight’ to have that/be that. This is the same-same point I am making here on this issue as you made (near the top of the page) on another issue. I will copy the exchange down here for your perusal in this context:
Do you see the parallel? Paradise is here-on-earth at this moment whether one joins the army and fights or not (provided anger is eradicated in this instance) ... and not in some nebulous after-life whose entrance ticket requires adherence to a pacifistic moral system which entails passive bodily sacrifice. And further to the point of this here-on-earth paradise: shall we populate this verdant and azure planet with happy and harmless people and their fortunate children?
Or shall we populate the planet with peoples of a (currently) brute nature and their hapless children.
RICHARD: That clearly reads of a pre-planned response to any future event ... not a living response in the moment.
RESPONDENT: Only if you read that into it.
RICHARD: The words ‘refuse to join the army’ and the words ‘refuse to fight’ are unambiguous ... your variation on the thou shalt not interpret theme has no valid application in the face of such precise words.
RESPONDENT: But K did not say ‘refuse to join the army’ or ‘refuse to fight’. He used a conditional, ‘if you ... then’, or ‘you may ... because’.
RICHARD: Aye ... but followed by the imperative ‘you will be shot’.
RESPONDENT: I detect no imperative.
RICHARD: Again ... all I can suggest is that you try the word ‘categorical’ instead.
RESPONDENT: And by the way, I do not have any rule that ‘thou shalt not interpret’.
RICHARD: Hmm ... what is ‘only if you read that into it’ meant to convey then?
RESPONDENT: It means that what you are interpreting is not to be taken as the only possibly valid interpretation.
RICHARD: Okay ... let us run with this ‘you are interpreting’ business and see where it leads to: what this means is that your interpretation that my words are an interpretation of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words (which interpretation of mine is not to be taken as the only valid interpretation) should not be taken by you as the only valid interpretation of what my words point to.
Now can we get back to having a sensible discussion?
RESPONDENT: Interpreting is an unavoidable aspect of using language, symbols, signs or concepts.
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who read what I have to say without interpreting.
RESPONDENT: They interpret ...
RICHARD: They do not ... look, you do not even know who I am referring to and yet all you care about is to immediately say ‘they interpret’.
RESPONDENT: ... it is just that the coordination between that interpretation and your intended meaning is so close, that the interpretation is not obvious.
RICHARD: No ... in the instances I am referring to it is one and the same (which is a delight to experience).
RESPONDENT: It can sometimes take very detailed examination of what a person thinks you said, for discrepancies to emerge.
RICHARD: Aye ... it is something I have checked out thoroughly.
RESPONDENT: Interpretation is an unavoidable part of reading, of language comprehension.
RICHARD: Not necessarily ... as I said (above) there are peoples who read what I have to say without interpreting.
RESPONDENT: But of course, interpretations substantially differ as to accuracy, comprehensiveness, and depth.
RICHARD: Of course ... if it be an interpretation.
RESPONDENT: At times the interpretation can be so insightful, that it extends the intended meaning in a clearer, deeper way.
RICHARD: Then it is no longer an interpretation ... this is sometimes called building upon another’s discoveries (standing on the shoulders of those who have gone before).
Thus advances human knowledge.
RESPONDENT: That is to bring a greater understanding to the reading, than what is intended as the reading.
RICHARD: If it is greater than intended then you first have to know what was intended (and thus not interpret what was intended) which means that you have just confounded your own argument by extending it beyond its fit.
RESPONDENT NO. 42: [Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind], not the living energy of the exasperation of the moment or the understanding of violence.
RICHARD: If I may point out? If there is indeed a ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ then all the careful ‘understanding of violence’ (with its pacifistic conclusion) has been a total waste of time ... it has amounted to nothing. Zilch.
RESPONDENT: Are these ‘angry’ responses violence?
RICHARD: As there is only ever this moment then the ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ is certainly not living this moment peacefully by any criteria.
RESPONDENT: You mean by your criteria, not any criteria.
RICHARD: Just ask around and see what response you get.
RESPONDENT: Are you asking your fellow human beings to be the arbiters as to what is true?
RICHARD: No, I am quite capable of ascertaining that myself ... it is just that you will not allow me that capacity so I suggested that you ask around.
RESPONDENT: What would these same judges say about the actuality of that peace on earth paradise that you claim to be living?
RICHARD: Those that read with both eyes see it for themselves ... those that do not read with both eyes tend to argue with me on the intellectual level.
RESPONDENT: What I am saying is that what is called ‘anger’ or ‘exasperation’ may not be the anger and exasperation that is an expression of conflict, frustration, resistance.
RICHARD: Sure ... there are all manner of gradations and nuances: I am simply saying anger, period (no ifs and buts).
RESPONDENT: That may have its roots elsewhere, though it looks like that behaviour. That is what I meant by your criteria, may not be the only criteria.
RICHARD: And this reply is what I mean by ‘tend to argue with me on the intellectual level’.
RESPONDENT: Certainly, conflict, frustration, resistance is not full blown peacefulness ...
RICHARD: I want to stop you right here, if I may, for this is it ... that it is ‘not full blown peacefulness’ is the only point I am making.
All the rest is quibbling.
RESPONDENT: ... but even here, there can be peacefulness in not being conflicted, frustrated, resisting being conflicted, frustrated, resisting. That is no small thing, though it may seem like not much.
RICHARD: I will pass on this codicil ... anything short of the total eradication of anger holds no interest for me whatsoever.
RESPONDENT: I am suggesting that this so called ‘anger’ may be a natural reflection of caring.
RICHARD: It is natural ... yes: I am proposing something unnatural.
RESPONDENT: Yes, you are.
RICHARD: Good ... if nothing else lingers, after this e-mail exchange is over and done with, if this one statement stays in place it will be sufficient.
RESPONDENT: So I think this comes down to the question whether compassionate caring for the pain and suffering, the ignorance and confusion, the laziness and hatred, is to be regarded as ‘wasted’, or whether that compassionate caring is simply the natural expression of a vital heart and open mind that is not caught up in the divisiveness of self-interested agendas and images.
RICHARD: ‘Tis cute how the discussion about the anger in ‘eradicating anger’ was first shifted to ‘exasperation’ ... and now it has all-of-a-sudden turned into a discussion about ‘compassionate caring’.
RESPONDENT: Not all of a sudden, this was the reason for my entry into the discussion.
RICHARD: Really? You entered this discussion so as to turn a discussion about ‘eradicating anger’ into a discussion about ‘compassionate caring’ ?
RESPONDENT: But I am not saying that this is what K’s behaviour came down to.
RICHARD: It came down to anger ... no ifs and buts.
RESPONDENT: I don’t know what it came down to, as I was not there, and I am not K.
RICHARD: This is a cop-out.
RESPONDENT: I am saying that not all that is called ‘anger’ is rooted in the same psychological make up, and that this may have some relevance in looking at K.
RICHARD: Whereas I am saying that it is all rooted in the instinctual passions (such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire).
RICHARD: And thus peace-on-earth is still nowhere in sight.
RESPONDENT: Why do you say this, is peace-on-earth being treated as an idea?
RICHARD: No, rather that the subject of this thread (‘eradicating anger’) was shifted away from eradication towards a watered-down or trimmed-off version of momentary or mild anger ... with some fancy talk about some variety of anger being ‘compassionate caring’ thrown in for good measure.
Yet all this while peace-on-earth is just here right now for the living of it ... and anger is standing in the way.
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.