Richard’s Selected Correspondence
On Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
RESPONDENT: Some thought, some self-interest, some memory, some recording, etc. are necessary for living in the modern world. Mr. Krishnamurti was clear on that. His message went far beyond all that. If ‘living the teachings’ is viewed as some idyllic oceanic blissful way of being, then perhaps it is time to re-examine the ‘what is’ of what he really said. Not in one quote, but the essence that emerges from looking at the whole of his work.
RICHARD: The essence that emerges is the same essence that all the Saints and Sages have been saying for millennia: ‘I am everything and everything is Me’. How many quotes would satisfy? I have about 40,000 of his transcribed words on my hard disk.
RESPONDENT: While you reset the humour dial, the ‘claims’ dial could also do with a little going over.
RICHARD: Are you of that school of thought that says ‘you can’t change human nature’?
RESPONDENT: I really don’t know much about it – K sounds very sensible to me when he says ‘you’ can’t change even yourself, let alone ‘human nature’, whatever that is.
RICHARD: The phrase ‘human nature’ is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun.
Otherwise known as ‘the human condition’.
As you find Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to be ‘very sensible’ when he says ‘‘you’ can’t change even yourself, let alone ‘human nature’’ then it is no wonder that you consider that my ‘‘claims’ dial could also do with a little going over’. Hence also your need for me to ‘reset the humour dial’.
RESPONDENT No. 20: 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: For me it sure takes away from the validity of what he said if he didn’t live it.
RICHARD: Indeed. What is the point of listening to ‘Teachings’ if they cannot be lived? Is it not a case of ‘listening’ and ‘listening’ ... and never being able to be living fully because the ‘Teachings’ get in the way of an actual freedom? Can the ‘Teachings’, in fact, be ever lived by anyone? If Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti cannot live the ‘Teachings’, then who can? Who on earth is living the ‘Teachings’?
It is so great to be living in modern times with the technology of mass communication ... the printed word; the audio-taped word and the video-taped word. People have been getting away with dissimulation for centuries with the inaccuracies of the ‘sacred scriptures’ – being not verbatim transcripts – never being able to be questioned. I am so pleased to be born in this era where we can compare the experience of all peoples from all cultures and all philosophies and from all traditions ... and put the ‘seers’ under public scrutiny. After all, they profess to know the answer.
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 [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:
RESPONDENT: So what is it in the quote that you find to be specious?
RICHARD: The blanket dismissal of the validity of anybody’s experience other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s for starters (whereas, realistically, spiritual enlightenment has a global occurrence).
RESPONDENT: But K also includes himself in his dismissal of authority.
RICHARD: What he says and what he does are two different things ... if he had actually meant that then he would have retired from public speaking right after this very paragraph. Instead he travelled the world imploring people to ‘listen’ ... and he means ‘listen’ as in ‘drink the water’ (which ‘water’ he is the living embodiment of – the ‘supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or the ‘otherness’ – which is what the words point to) rather than the ordinary way of listening to words. Which ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
I have read that he said, just before his death, that when he died that ‘supreme intelligence’ would not manifest itself again for ‘many hundred years’. And he reportedly followed this ‘supreme intelligence’ statement with words to the effect ‘if people would live the teachings they would live it somewhat’ ... if that does not make him, not only ‘an authority’ but ‘the authority’ (and for many hundreds of years to come), I do not know what does.
RICHARD: Then he even paraphrases Mr. Lao Tzu (‘the man who says he knows, he does not know; the moment you say you know, you don’t know’) which, apart from being in direct contradiction to his own ‘Teachings’ (‘do not quote anybody – including the speaker’) implies acknowledgement of the authority of someone revered as having attained that which he is currently condemning (enlightenment).
RESPONDENT: You are reaching now Richard. You may take K’s remark to be borrowed from Lao Tzu, but there is no necessity in this. As you would probably admit, the same or a similar discovery can be made by many different people.
RICHARD: Where am I ‘reaching’? Speaking personally, people can quote another to their heart’s content (it gives me the opportunity to question their borrowed wisdom) ... it was Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti who made a big thing out of not doing this. Yet here he is doing this very thing. Now what I have found is that it is all too easy to stop one’s investigation dead in its tracks by finding endorsement of one’s own experience in the words of another who is acknowledged to be speaking from experience ... but does this corroboration necessarily make the joint discovery valid? As far as I am concerned, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made an excellent contribution to the advancement of human knowledge with his ‘question everything – even the speaker’ advice ... yet to my recollection he never questioned this ‘the man who says he knows, he does not know; the moment you say you know, you don’t know’ ... um ... truism that has its antecedents in Taoism. Why?
Is it not because his experience showed him that when what he called the ‘new’ (or ‘otherness’ or ‘that which is scared, holy’ and so on) appeared, thought played no part ... and in fact made the ‘new’ old when thought touched it? Vis.:
There are literally hundreds of examples like this among the millions of words – it is a common theme – thus when someone says that ‘they know’ they cannot possibly be knowing the ‘otherness’ because it takes thought to know something ... and when thought is operating that ‘otherness’ is not.
RICHARD: He lays that adage down as an edict (as if it were carved-in-stone-ancient-wisdom) instead of examining it for veracity (and it has no veracity upon examination).
RESPONDENT: What I understand from the quote is that there is no reason to accept anything as carved in stone, as edict, we need to examine every comment for its veracity. Which is what I take you to be saying as well.
RICHARD: Aye, that is what I am doing ... but Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not ‘examine every comment for its veracity’ in this paragraph because he blatantly fudges the point by failing to distinguish between enlightenment itself (‘I say such a thing [God or truth] does exist, I have realised it’) and an enlightenment episode (‘some experience which you have had, some kind of vision, some kind of enlightenment’). Thus what he presents are not relevant reasons to ‘reject authority ... on inward matters’ at all. An example of a relevant reason would be a demonstrable incompetence on the part of the author ... as in an inability to ‘practice what one preaches’.
RICHARD: He travelled the world imploring people to ‘listen’ ... and he means ‘listen’ as in ‘drink the water’ (which ‘water’ he is the living embodiment of – the ‘supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or the ‘otherness’ – which is what the words point to) rather than the ordinary way of listening to words. Which ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RESPONDENT No. 31: That listening is of a different order than ‘satsang’. Satsang has got in it the inherent motive: the company of good people ...
RICHARD: I only have one language (and rely upon translations via dictionaries and scholarly debate for my understanding of other languages) so by all means correct me if I have misunderstood a word’s cultural or contextual meaning. Until then, I meant the word ‘satsang’ in its ‘in the company of truth’ meaning (which usually implies a living master) rather than ‘the company of good people’ meaning which, when there is no ‘living master’, is also known as ‘sangama’ (‘association’ or ‘fellowship’) ... but of course it can be taken either way (the word ‘satsang’ is derived from ‘satsanhga’ or ‘satsanga’ which is a combination of two Sanskrit words, ‘satya’ which means ‘truth’ and ‘sangha’ which means ‘spiritual community’). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RESPONDENT No. 31: ... to attain God-consciousness in the midst of ‘holy’ men.
RICHARD: Aye ... that is the way I meant it too. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is a ‘holy man’ who urged those in his company to attain ‘God-consciousness’. Vis.:
Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RESPONDENT No. 31: Listening has nothing to do with all this. Satsang is ‘exclusive’, listening is not.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti 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’. I do not know about you, but that sounds absolutely ‘exclusive’ to me. In fact, according to him, the listener is not to compare, evaluate or judge in any way, shape or form. Vis.:
I see that he is clearly and unambiguously ‘exclusive’ ... 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 is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RICHARD: Good. When one’s plan is to be the divine (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) the method one uses to be ‘That’ is vital. As the divine cannot be when the thinker is ... then it behoves one to listen to the living master in a state of ‘not knowing’ (and it is really not different when the master has quit the body because one then reads the master’s words with the same identical ignorance).
RESPONDENT: Look at the above statement. It is merely an expression of opinion, criticism of what differs from your ideas and experience. That is what fills most of your lengthy posts. There is no openness to connect or commune but rather eagerness to debate and compete. And that is the very movement that is a block to hearing and feeling what is behind another’s words.
RICHARD: I must acknowledge being somewhat bemused at your response ... I am, indeed ‘looking at the above statement’ and for the life of me I cannot see where it is ‘merely an expression of opinion, criticism of what differs from my ideas and experience’ at all. Where am I showing ‘eagerness to debate and compete’ in that statement you ask me to ‘look at above’? I am endorsing the most effective method to bring about the state of being enlightened (‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’) which is to be in the presence of a living master (being ‘in the company of the truth’) which is what ‘satsang’ is all about. I then detail how vital it is to listen to the living master in a thoughtless state ... because that which is sacred, holy, cannot be when the thinker is. I even went on to stress how important it is to read the words of the dead master with the same total lack of knowledge. And even when I look back at all I wrote before in response to another correspondent (to which you wrote ‘agreed’ ), I do not see a single trace of an ‘eagerness to debate and compete’ whatsoever (I have not snipped any of it so that you can check for yourself).
RICHARD: If I may point out? That is not ‘listening’ ... that is misunderstanding a very clear exposition by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti on how to listen to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. He explains this many, many times throughout the millions of words. Vis.:
Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
RESPONDENT: I will try to keep it simple. Listening, as I understand it to mean is something similar to an intuitive grasping of truth of what is being said. For example, if I hear someone say: ‘ego causes trouble’ and I understand the truth of that statement, I have listened to the person. No Guru or God-man is needed; I can listen to anyone and learn.
RICHARD: Of course you can ‘listen to anyone and learn’ – everyone I meet knows things that I do not know – but that ordinary way of listening to an ordinary person not what is being discussed. What is being discussed is ‘listening’ as described by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in reference to listening to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Vis.:
You have indicated before that you certainly thought that by being in his presence something could happen (as compared with being in anybody else’s presence) thus he certainly set up that expectation for you ... as well as many, many other people. Vis.:
Presumably ‘shaking his hand’ did not do the trick but, then again, he never advocated that method ... he said to ‘listen’ to him.
RESPONDENT: Are the normal cognitive faculties of the brain active in listening? I don’t know and it doesn’t matter either (at least to me). For me listening is synonymous with learning. I really don’t care which faculties of my brain get involved. This is how I learn everything.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also lays special emphasis upon the word ‘learn’ and talks of a ‘learning’ that differs from the normal way of learning (which is the accumulation of knowledge over time) and this ‘learning’ occurs when ‘I’ am not.
RESPONDENT: I see some similarities between what the gestaltists call the ‘aha’ experience and Krishnamurti’s ‘learning’. Somewhere in the learning process there is a click and an ‘aha!’.
RICHARD: The ‘aha! experience’ is when one ‘gets’ something one has not properly understood before ... it is a ‘seeing’ of something important to understanding, somewhat akin to an insight. Once again, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘learning’ is not this ‘gestalt learning’.
RESPONDENT: From my personal experience, this is how learning occurs: 1. Interest in the matter that is being communicated is a pre-requisite; without interest, I doubt if there will be any learning.
RICHARD: There is something much, much more involved than ‘interest in the matter’ ... it is an interest that is of a ‘life or death’ importance, to use that term, as in it is a once-in-a-lifetime type of ‘listening’. When one is ‘listening’ one only ‘listens’ that once ... then it is all over and the ‘learning’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talks of comes into being.
RESPONDENT: 2. The listener has to be active, i.e., the listener must pay attention to what is being said, be attentive to the words, the tones, the nuances, the subtleties in communication.
RICHARD: No ... the ‘listener’ is in a state of suspension, dormancy, latency (otherwise it is not ‘listening’).
RESPONDENT: 3. Listener can possibly not pay attention to what s/he is listening to if her mind is wandering and distracted. Hence a relaxed mental attitude, where one is free from anxieties and pressing immediate matters is necessary.
RICHARD: As every single brain cell – and every single one of the trillions of synapses – are quivering and shivering and shaking themselves loose with the alert vitality of the import of this once-in-a-lifetime ‘listening’ I would be hard-pressed to describe it as ‘a relaxed mental attitude’.
RESPONDENT: 4. Most importantly, the listener needs to see that s/he is listening to the /other/ and not to his own mentation. For example, while reading your posts, I try to find out what you are saying, and not what I think about what you say. That thinking/judging etc. needs to be suspended, at least for a while.
RICHARD: Ahh ... when it comes to reading what I have to say I advocate making full use of one’s ability for remembrance, appraisal and decision (which is to compare, evaluate and judge) whilst being fully aware of the activity of cognitive dissonance. I do not request a suspension of disbelief ... I encourage anyone to examine the supporting evidence that is presented with the purport so as to determine whether what is being said is substantiated, thus making a critical examination of all the words I advance so as to ascertain if they be intrinsically self-explanatory ... and only when they are all seen to be inherently consistent with what is being spoken about do the facts speak for themselves. Then one will have reason to remember a pure conscious experience (PCE), which all peoples I have spoken to at length have had, and thus verify by direct experience the facticity of what is written because the PCE occurs globally ... across cultures and down through the ages irregardless of gender, race or age.
However, it is usually interpreted according to cultural beliefs – created and reinforced by the persistence of identity – and devolves into an altered state of consciousness (ASC). Then ‘I’ as ego – sublimated and transcended as ‘me’ as soul – manifest as a god or a goddess (that which is ‘timeless and spaceless and formless’) otherwise known as an embodiment of the ‘supreme intelligence’ ... and insist that you ‘listen’ to them in a thoughtless state with a total lack of knowledge.
RESPONDENT: K once said: ‘If you label me; you negate me’ (substitute any noun for ‘me’).
RICHARD: Hmm ... I did not realise how touchy he was. When I was but a lad in grade-school I quickly learnt the lesson of that doggerel ‘sticks and stones may break my bones but names can never hurt me’. These days, nobody – nobody whatsoever – can negate me or diminish me in any way, shape or form.
RESPONDENT: Are you trying to read with your intelligence awake, or are you only trying to be intelligent with your responses?
RICHARD: No ... I am remarkably sincere. Nobody – nobody whatsoever – can negate me (substitute an actual freedom for <me>) or diminish me in any way, shape or form. This freedom is actual ... not a fantasy.
RESPONDENT: K was not being touchy.
RICHARD: Are you for real?
Speaking personally, I have found:
I call this an actual freedom and yes, I was ‘astonished to find it’ but I am exceedingly happy to talk about it because the very talking cannot destroy an actual freedom. I communicate it very freely, to whomsoever is vitally interested in peace-on-earth in this life-time, and have no qualms whatsoever about it being organised. I have labelled it ‘actual freedom’ myself; I personally chose the labels ‘actualism’ and ‘actualist’ out of the dictionary as being the most apt words to describe what I experience twenty four hours a day and it is of no consequence whatsoever what other peoples label it as. Nobody – nobody whatsoever – can negate me and/or an actual freedom or diminish me and/or an actual freedom in any way, shape or form. This freedom is actual ... not a fantasy.
And I will never be sorry that I ever told anyone about it.
RESPONDENT: He was using ‘me’ as a universal example to show that labelling things can give the impression of wisdom if one is not aware of the superficial nature of the wisdom so held.
RICHARD: Yet enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion.
RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti must have had a deep experience in 1922 and maybe for years he clung to and related that experience to others, but by 1927/28 he relates in his speech rejecting the role others had designed for him, that his decision was the result of many years consideration, not some flash in the pan experience.
RICHARD: Because you objected to my repetitious words I stopped bothering you some months ago ... especially when you had closed the door on the possibility of perfection and peace-on-earth by writing to me that: [Respondent]: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’. You have endeavoured to get a response from me since then on a few occasions ... and now you try again. Do you genuinely want to find out for yourself just what is going on? Or is this just another attempt to push the line that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was but a normal man who had some outstanding insights into living? Because with only a little more than a cursory glance at that 1929 speech – which you kindly sent to me – the following sentences catch the discerning eye. Vis.:
The most outstanding statement is this one:
That is quite clear and unambiguous: ‘I am the Truth’ ... with a capital ‘T’ to designate divinity. And just in case it is not clear there is the follow-up statement: ‘me, the embodiment of Truth’ ... which easily translates in Western terminology as: ‘I am God made flesh’. And to forestall any attempt to lump 1928 into the ‘immature’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basket ... may I introduce a quote from the ‘mature’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Vis.:
Therefore the ‘Truth or God’ amounts to nothing more than narcissistic self-aggrandisement. The ‘self’ that causes all the atrocious animosity and anguish in this otherwise delightful world transmogrifies itself into a grand ‘Self’ (by whatever name) ... and otherwise intelligent people speak in hushed tones about it! It is generally capitalised, you will notice, and some people go to great lengths to deny that Mr Jiddu Krishnamurti and his ilk – enlightened masters – have surrendered their will to this spurious divinity.
The trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the West have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the Western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the East.
It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking Divine Immortality ... to the detriment of peace-on-earth. ‘The Truth’ for example, is simply the Eastern term for ‘God’ (‘Brahman’ or ‘Buddha’); thus any ‘comments on life’ designated [quote] ‘Teachings’ [end quote] translates easily as ‘God’s Word’ ... in Western terminology. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous.
If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing.
RESPONDENT: Others continued to give great importance to that 1922 experience, but the following answer to a question asked in 1945 states his thoughts on such remembered experiences:
RICHARD: When he says ‘most of us’ do you really think that he includes himself in that category?
RICHARD: It is important to notice that his definitive experience in 1922 was most definitely invited ... and was not too great for his ‘mind/heart’.
RICHARD: Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not ‘reduce it to his own level’ ... he kept it at the mountain-top where it belonged.
RICHARD: Now Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s description of his own mind does not fit this description at all ... does it?
RICHARD: And do you really think that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not ‘know how to sing it’ himself?
RICHARD: And, of course Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti considered himself to be ‘mature’ ... did he not?
RICHARD: Do you really think that he lumped himself in with those people he calls ‘with many’?
RICHARD: Now here is the cruncher that has led many a Krishnamurtiite astray: do you really think that when he says ‘we’ that he includes himself? If you do, then you are sucked in badly. Another one that draws in the undiscerning is this one: [quote]: ‘I hope you are not merely listening to the speaker; that has no value at all because the speaker is not teaching you a thing’. [end quote]. Yet he consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’. As these words came from a source that he described as [quote]: ‘that which is sacred, holy’, [end quote] it is clear that he was bringing some god’s wisdom to earth. Does no one not think that a person bringing ‘Teachings’ is being somewhat disingenuous when they say that they are not ‘teaching you anything’?
RESPONDENT No. 42: In order to come into contact with nothingness wouldn’t you first have to become nothing? (Becoming not as a goal, but as necessity).
RESPONDENT: Well, you already are nothing, you only think you are something. Just drop this whole idea – if you dare!
RESPONDENT No. 42: After you, please.
RESPONDENT: Dropping the idea of being something is a great bliss, and will dissolve this web of duality. So I was just asking: where are you waiting for ? And please, do not follow me, because I’m not on a path, I leave no trail ...
RESPONDENT No. 42: That’s a good thing, otherwise you might be spotted by the enlightenment brigade which seeks to eliminate aware people from this list.
RESPONDENT: That’s a good one, the enlightenment brigade ... I must have triggered you a lot, isn’t it? Is it because I’ve told you that you already are nothing? The last thing I would do is to attack someone: I would then attack myself equally. I am the angry in angry people, just as I am the love in loving people. So please let your brigade bring in their verdict of guilty, and eliminate me from this list for being aware, but please realize you eliminate also a part of yourself if you do so. Yes, I know I can be sharp – my archetype is the bald eagle. And we are the same – just like you I have to admit that I have certain expectations of this list (I joined the list only yesterday ...). About 25 years ago I met Krishnamurti a couple of times, and I was just curious what happened in the mean time ...
RICHARD: You have caught my interest ... and the term ‘the enlightenment brigade’ is a misnomer because the appellation generally represents ‘the failure brigade’ (you will find that failure is highly revered on this Mailing List and success is dismissively belittled under some bizarre rationale that hails such disparagement of accomplishment as being the hallmark of humility). I find your words transparently revealing – as in attacking another is to attack oneself – inasmuch as you clearly say ‘I am the angry in angry people, just as I am the love in loving people’ . I read with equal interest where you wrote, in another thread (Message #00104 of Archive 00/12), ‘I am sinless, and the root of sin derives from me’ and ‘I am peace and war has come because of me’ ... which is also so totally unambiguous as to leave no room to quibble over what you mean.
You have a way of explaining/ describing which is crystal clear to those who are listening ... in yet another thread (Message #00073 of Archive 00/12) you explained that this comes about ‘only when my mind gets tired of its own merry-go-round’. You say that only then is there ‘the possibility that I can enter the window, the vortex, my soul’ and, in combination with your ‘you already are nothing, you only think you are something’ sentence, this ‘vortex’ – your ‘soul’ – is already nothing. In other words, you are saying you do not have to become it, you already are it (aka ‘being’ rather than ‘becoming’).
I appreciate you saying that, upon being this ‘vortex’ (your ‘soul’), it then appears ‘there has never been a question, or an answer – and what is left is just at-one-ment with the essence, pure and without words’ ... in other words, as ‘soul’ there is nothing that has to be done or achieved. I see that you expressly say that the mind ‘is nothing more then a movie, presented to me by my senses as something real and tangible. But there is no real thing out there – what evidence is there for something ‘real’, besides my reconstruction based on information coming from my senses ? Without an observer, there is no observed – aren’t we all co-creators in the process of observation?’. (Message #00073 of Archive 00/12).
Yes, indeed ‘there is no real thing out there’ when it is seen that the observer is the observed: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says, over and again, that when the observer is the observed there is only observation ... ‘there is only that’ (‘vortex’ or ‘soul’). Indeed you point this out in your first E-Mail: ‘I realized that there is no problem, only my way of dealing with it ... at the end, the mind slows down and eventually gives up, and at that point I realized that I am both the observer and the observed. I am the process, rather then the entity. I’m not the swimmer – I am the swimming, as well as the water I’m swimming in. I experienced that the restless susceptibility of my senses creates all questions and problems, and that there is no need to solve anything, which is a great bliss’. (Message #00024 of Archive 00/12).
Once again you are saying, in other words, there is nothing that has to be done or achieved ... there is only ‘great bliss’. What particularly caught my attention (seeing that you also explained in the other thread (Message #00104 of Archive 00/12) ‘I am the substance and the one who has no substance, for I am the one who alone exists, and I have no one who will judge me’), is your comment further above about meeting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti a couple of times 25 years ago. My question is whether you credit your current dissociated and solipsistic state of consciousness to having listened to him all those years ago? I also ask because this Mailing List is predicated upon ‘listening’ with the totality of your being ... and it would appear that you certainly have. If this is so, then what you have to say is of the utmost importance to this list.
RESPONDENT: Richard, it warms my heart to read that I have touched upon another soul. I can unsubscribe now from the list with peace of mind. Be blessed.
RICHARD: Oh? Leaving so soon? When you have so much to contribute? But, then again, maybe you have already said enough ... those who are listening with both ears will understand anyway without the need for yet more words. Also, you have satisfied my query, re listening to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in another post (‘Re: In The Meantime’; Mon 4/12/2000’) , wherein you report what it was you listened to with all of your being. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: I guess I must separate the teaching from the teacher ...
RICHARD: If I may interject? I do not either have a ‘teaching’ nor am I a ‘teacher’ ... what I do is offer a do-it-yourself method with a proven track-record, plus an unambiguous report of my experience, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world, lucid explanations of how and why, and clarifications of misunderstandings.
For an example: I always make it clear that I am a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’.
What another does with the method, my report, my descriptions, my explanations, and my clarifications is their business, of course, yet it goes almost without saying, surely, that if what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site is indeed read as being yet another unliveable ‘teaching’ from yet another bodiless ‘teacher’ then that person will be but pissing into the wind each and every time they write to me.
RESPONDENT: ... just like your oft criticized punching bag, Jiddu Krishnamurti, said to his followers after screwing his best friends wife.
RICHARD: So, just because you experienced your worthless opinion being knocked down a peg or two by a worthless opinion, or your neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement being knocked down a peg or two by a neither-correct-nor-incorrect statement, or your preposterous statement being knocked down a peg or two by a preposterous statement, and despite not putting yourself on a plane with me nor putting me above or below you or another, still experienced being knocked down a peg or two by a person you do not put yourself on a plane with nor put above or below you or another, you somehow manage to liken me to a bodiless ‘teacher’ notorious for distancing themselves from their unliveable ‘teaching’ wherever and whenever the tyre met the road, eh?
O what a tangled web they weave when first they practise to deceive.
RESPONDENT: And thus does all the games and gamesmanship of the supposedly Enlightened or those in a ‘state vastly superior to Enlightenment’ amongst us mere mortals, continue unabated.
RICHARD: Ha ... you will find this to be of interest then:
When I typed ‘I am mortal’ into my search engine and sent it through all my correspondence it returned 71 hits ... which can only mean we are on the same plane after all and that I am, in fact, a fellow human being (albeit sans identity/affections in toto) providing a report of what I have discovered and not some latter-day ‘teacher’ (aka sage or seer, god-man or guru, master or messiah, saviour or saint, and so on) with yet another bodiless ‘teaching’.
RESPONDENT: Yes, there is no comprehension ‘of’ non-material consciousness.
RICHARD: And with this conclusion do you thus firmly close the door on investigation ... and so all the animosity and anguish keeps rolling on down through the millennia.
RESPONDENT: The mind that is not obstructed by selfishness, that is, the mind that does not think it ‘knows’, is already itself that comprehension.
RICHARD: Hmm ... I will take this opportunity to provide a quote that may – just may – prise that firmly-shut door open a trifle:
RESPONDENT: You only need one enlightened master to get the idea.
RICHARD: I very much doubt that any enlightened master would be interested in noticing that that the standard degree of fineness of the timeless wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’. As I have already remarked, the few that I have had contact with have, more or less, spoken of perdition rather than comparing notes: there was one ‘Spiritual Teacher’ who reportedly made me the subject of his nightly discourse whereupon he declared me insane ... and gravely warned his ‘students’ against Richard’s example.
Perhaps it is concerns about job security that makes them unable to listen?
RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti was an enlightened master.
RICHARD: What I appreciated about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was his ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’ advice. Vis.:
Might I ask whether you ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’?
RESPONDENT: You don’t need to search farther than that.
RICHARD: Surely you are not saying that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti noticed that that the standard degree of fineness of the timeless wisdom set by 10,000 enlightened masters is very, very ‘sick, and wrong, and stupid, and ugly’? If so, where did he say it? 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; I have discussed these matters before with ‘K-readers’ both face-to-face and via the written word ... and nowhere have I found him to be even the slightest bit aware of this.
I would be very interested to hear of your sources.
RESPONDENT: You can become enlightened right now. Just stop thinking while remaining wide awake.
RESPONDENT: I also recall that we differed on our interpretations of K. You presented a few texts in support of our interpretation, which I felt were not representative of what I took to be K’s mature period. And this you rejected. So we did somewhat get into interpreting K after all. Does this correspond with what you recall?
RICHARD: No ... the quote you posted sans commentary was about authority. When you finally did delineate what you considered Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘mature period’ I provided a quote from that era wherein he clearly states what the only authority is (the ‘supreme intelligence’) which you attempted to explain away. This was that quote.:
When you read that last, short sentence (‘the only authority then is intelligence’) is he clearly designating ‘intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘god’ or ‘truth’ or ‘otherness’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on) as being ‘the only authority’ or not? Vis.:
After attempting to explain it away you wrote:
As nobody did ‘provide such examples’, and as I am not going to do your bidding in this thread either by providing what I have already detailed in the in-depth and detailed exchange, then once again nothing gets to be really examined.
RICHARD: Recently there has been some critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – and an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. As methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique ... especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’.
RESPONDENT: You have concluded this, because you misinterpret the passages.
RICHARD: Do you realise that the validity of your conclusion that I ‘have concluded this’ because I ‘misinterpret the passages’ has to be based upon you having not misinterpreted the passages? Which means that you are saying that you interpret correctly and Richard interprets incorrectly?
RESPONDENT: Yes, I do realize this. I do not feel there is only one valid interpretation, but I do feel that there are invalid ones.
RICHARD: Okay ... that explains a lot. When I read the ‘passages’ (further below for example) the fact speaks for itself and obviates having to interpret in the first place ... let alone having to ‘feel’ which interpretations are valid and ‘feel’ which interpretations are invalid.
RESPONDENT: K explicitly and repeatedly writes about the problem with paths, methods, authority, experience, etc.
RICHARD: As I said, I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am equally aware that he taught that there was no method to practice (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am also aware that he taught that there was no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); as well as that I am aware that he taught that experiences of truth were not truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means).
RESPONDENT: So to say that his writings are ‘rife’ with them, is to say that you know what K meant better than what he himself says.
RICHARD: I am not only aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth, no method to practice, no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth and that experiences of truth were not truth but I am also aware that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. Therefore I am aware that there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught.
I have said before, on this Mailing List, that what I appreciated about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti when I first read him was his ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’ advice. Vis.:
Might I ask whether you ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’?
RESPONDENT: Or that you feel that K was not aware that what he did, was contrary to what he taught, which would render his life’s work, nonsense.
RICHARD: It is not a matter of what I ‘feel’.
RESPONDENT: K clearly taught that there is no method or path or authority.
RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am equally aware that he taught that there was no method to practice (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am also aware that he taught that there was no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); as well as that I am aware that he taught that experiences of truth were not truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means). Yet, as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught.
RESPONDENT: So you are saying that your interpretation of K is correct, and K’s interpretation of his own life’s teaching is wrong.
RICHARD: No. It is not a matter of any ‘interpretation’ (let alone being either ‘correct’ or ‘wrong’) ... the fact speaks for itself.
RESPONDENT: Understanding why K taught this, and why he rejected the role of World Teacher, is of value.
RICHARD: It is indeed. Seeing that you interpret ‘the passages’ correctly – because it is your conclusion that Richard ‘misinterprets the passages’ – then I am sure that you will be only too happy to put your ‘understanding’ of ‘why K taught this’ into clear and unambiguous terms for my edification? Especially as it is ‘of value’ to understand ‘why he rejected the role of World Teacher’ in relation to the ‘truth is a pathless land’ teaching? If you cannot, or will not, do this then your conclusion that ‘[I] have concluded this because [I] misinterpret the passages’ has no validity whatsoever ... and amounts to grandstanding instead of an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition.
RESPONDENT: The man who wants to learn has a very different attitude.
RICHARD: What kind of ‘very different attitude’? Pretending that I do not already know, perchance? Shall we look at a quote you recently provided? Vis.:
Do you see the question ‘is there a meditation which is not determined, practiced’? Do you see the two words which immediately follow it (‘there is’ )? Is this not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly and unambiguously saying that he already knows the answer to the ‘question’ he poses to the listeners under the guise of walking together, investigating together, looking together? After all, he does start these ‘Washington, D.C., April 1985’ talks with:
He then concludes (in the paragraph you quoted) that ‘when you are completely attentive there is no self’ ... is this the kind of ‘very different attitude’ you are talking about? Because in the paragraph following that which you quoted he goes even further:
Again: is this the kind of ‘very different attitude’ you are talking about?
RESPONDENT: The answer depends on what K meant by ‘that truth which is most holy, most sacred, that which man has sought from time immemorial’. If he meant by this the same thing as that complete freedom, space, immense energy, then this again is simply the energy of attention, the energy of learning. The answer is ‘openness’, and that is a very different attitude indeed.
RICHARD: Again: discussing what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti specifically meant by ‘that truth which is most holy, most sacred, that which man has sought from time immemorial’ is not going to clarify the issue because you will go on telling me, whatever I say, that it is my interpretation.
Can we keep this simple? Where is his ‘very different attitude’ that you set as a criterion for these discussions? Vis.:
I have posted this quote to you before:
Where is the evidence, then, of his ‘willingness to learn’ that you set as a criterion for these discussions? Incidentally, if your ‘paths=ways of expressing truth’ observation was valid then what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is saying here is this:
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.