|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 5
RICHARD: Konrad, I read your story with rapidly mounting interest, and only for the sake of brevity have I cut out all but the most important part in order to paste it above. But all of what you wrote has that ring of truth that is impossible to not recognise. And as you have been living with this enlightenment for seventeen years, you have had ample time to live it through and through in all and varied circumstances. That is ample time to discover if enlightenment itself is the genuine article for freeing oneself from the Human Condition ... or a delusion. I would be interested to hear your views. RESPONDENT No. 28: Our friend Konrad needed assurance from Krishnamurti that what he went through was not a mental disorder: ‘Only after I had read a number of books about J. Krishnamurti, and had learnt that he had gone through the same hell, I knew I did not have some mental disorder, but that this process was, in fact, the greatest discovery the East has made’. Please feel free to fill in the blanks. Richard, are you really as gullible as you appear to be? RICHARD: Me? Gullible? No, not at all ... it is called being open. I would not dream of being so quick as to judge just from the few E-Mails as have come through this list. Konrad’s story has indeed that ring of truth that is impossible to not recognise. I, for one, wish to explore this fascinating experience further ... but I can do it via private E-Mail, if it offends your sensibilities. By the way: did you know that the word ‘gullible’ is not to be found in any dictionary? Not the Webster’s, nor the Oxford ... it is not even in the Funk and Wagnall’s! GARY: From the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language: ‘gullible’: adj. able to be gulled; easily deceived or duped; credulous. (From ‘gull’ (dupe.) RESPONDENT: Ah, I do declare you’ve been soundly ‘gulled’ – and by an Aussie no less! KONRAD: Better get a new dictionary Richard. Webster’s desk dictionary of the English language; ‘gullible’: adj., easily deceived or cheated. (gullibility, n.) RESPONDENT: That makes two ‘gulled’ yanks. RESPONDENT No. 28: From Webster’s Revised Unabridged Dictionary (1913) ‘gullible’ a. Easily gulled; that may be duped; ‘gullibility’, n. From Word Net ® 1.6 ‘gullible’ adj. 1: easily deceived or tricked; ‘at that early age she had been gullible and in love’ [synonym: ‘fleeceable’, ‘green’] 2: easily tricked because of being too trusting; ‘gullible tourists taken in by the shell game’. RESPONDENT: Another (‘gulled’) one bites the dust. I’m rotflmao, Richard. RICHARD: I am game for anything crazy. What, may I ask, is ‘rotflmao’ when it is at home? RESPONDENT: It’s a popular Internet acronym for ‘rolling on the floor, laughing my ass off’.
RESPONDENT No. 27: If you are really interested in what Krishnamurti was on about, it may be of interest to read the whole speech from the KFA site. It is in the following post. RICHARD: You really should not give me more fuel for my fire, you know, because I will only go through it and pick out the damning evidence that he was, in fact, spiritual to the bootstraps. RESPONDENT No. 27: What he said then is equally valid today. RICHARD: Okay, then what did he say then that is equally valid today? [quote] ‘Because I am ...
the Truth that is eternal ... why have false, hypocritical people following me, the embodiment of Truth?’ [end quote] That
seems to be 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’. Now ... what else did he say then that ‘is equally valid today’:
[quote] ‘My purpose is to make men unconditionally free, for I maintain that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of
the self which is eternal, is the harmony between reason and love. This is the absolute, unconditioned Truth which is Life itself’.
[end quote] I see the word ‘spirituality’ in there ... followed by a ‘self which is eternal’ ... which
translates as ‘immortal soul’ in Western parlance. Methinks you just shot yourself in the foot. RESPONDENT: I see No. 27’s feet as quite intact. Your translation reflects a common ‘Western’ assumption that may not apply to (the very young) Krishnamurti’s pronouncement. RICHARD: No, they are not at all intact ... they are thoroughly scattered with buckshot. No. 30 was claiming that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not spiritual and merely made ‘comments’ on life ... and produced a long quote to demonstrate his point. I observed that the word ‘spirituality’ was in the speech in the context of: ‘that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which is eternal’. As No. 27 had already clearly indicated to me in previous posts that he, No. 27, was not spiritually inclined at all, I therefore had no recourse but to provide a simplistic translation of ‘self which is eternal’ into a Sunday-School type of terminology to establish the fact that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not only spiritual but held the view that something metaphysical survived the death of the body. Hence my descriptive – and accurate – phrase: ‘methinks you just shot yourself in the foot’. Your usage of ‘the very young’ in referring to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – which even if it is correct that he can be excused by virtue of immaturity – is not valid in the context in which No. 27 used this long [quote]: as he posted: ‘what he said then is equally valid today’. I was merely taking him at his word to demonstrate the fact that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a spiritual man. But, by all means, shall we discuss the finer points of Advaita Vedanta ... or even Buddhist essentials? RESPONDENT: Both the Western ‘soul’ and Eastern ‘atman’ are commonly seen as pertaining to individuals, but a serious study of Advaita Vedanta or Buddhist essentials points toward another view, as does any but the most superficial and/or narrow exposure to Krishnamurti RICHARD: Just in case you consider that I have had ‘the most superficial and/or narrow exposure to Krishnamurti’ ... let me assure you that 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 ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. I have approximately 40,000 words of his on my hard disk and can copy and paste ad infinitum to demonstrate a fact that I am pointing out. For example:
Sounds like a divine source to me. Almost a creator god ... but maybe Brahman? According to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, Advaita, being the Sanskrit word for Non-dualism, was one of the most influential of the schools of Vedanta ... the then orthodox spiritual philosophy of India ... from about the seventh century on. (Non-Dualism, of course, being the school of spiritual thought that believes that there is only one kind of ultimate substance. It is the view that reality is one unitary organic whole with no independent parts ... a viewpoint or theory that reduces all phenomena to one principle). Advaita was built on the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of Sunyata (‘Emptiness’) and maintains that there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through Maya (‘illusion’); and only non-duality (Advaita) is the final truth. This truth is concealed by the ignorance of the illusion of Maya. There is no becoming, either of a thing by itself or of a thing out of some other thing. There is ultimately no individual self or soul (jiva), only the atman (‘all-soul’), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated ... just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space. Mr. Shankara does not start from the empirical world with logical analysis but, rather, directly from The Absolute (Brahman). If interpreted correctly, he argues, the Upanishads teach the nature of Brahman. In making this argument, he develops a complete epistemology to account for the human error in taking the phenomenal world for real. Fundamental for Mr. Shankara is the tenet that the Brahman is real and the world is unreal. (Nevertheless, the empirical world is not totally unreal, for it is a misapprehension of the real Brahman). Any change, duality or plurality is an illusion. The self is nothing but Brahman. Insight into this identity results in spiritual release. Brahman is outside time, space, and causality, which are simply forms of empirical experience. No distinction in Brahman or from Brahman is possible. Mr. Shankara points to scriptural texts, either stating identity (‘Thou art that’) or denying difference (‘There is no duality here’), as declaring the true meaning of a Brahman as Nirguna (without qualities). Other texts that ascribe qualities (Saguna) to Brahman refer not to the true nature of Brahman but to its personality as Ishvara (God). Human perception of the unitary and infinite Brahman as the plural and infinite is due to human beings’ innate habit of adhyasa (superimposition), by which a thou is ascribed to the I (I am tired; I am happy; I am perceiving). The habit stems from human ignorance which can be avoided only by the realisation of the identity of Brahman. Which brings us to your point about the Sanskrit word atman. Atman is one of the most basic concepts in Hindu spiritual philosophy, describing that eternal core of the personality that survives after death and that transmigrates to a new life or is released from the bonds of existence. Atman is that which makes the organs and faculties function and for which indeed they function; atman underlies all the activities of a person, as Brahman (The Absolute) underlies the workings of the universe; to know it brings bliss; it is part of the universal Brahman, with which it can commune or even fuse. So fundamental was the atman deemed to be that certain circles identified it with Brahman. So, all this discussion now revolves around Brahman, the Absolute or Supreme Existence ... the font of all things. Brahman is the eternal, conscious, irreducible, infinite, omnipresent, spiritual source of the universe of finiteness and change. According to the non-dualist school of Advaita Vedanta, Brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal, and human perceptions of differentiation are illusively projected on this reality ... whereas the Dvaita (Dualist) school refuses to accept the identity of Brahman and world, maintaining the ontological separateness of the supreme, which it also identifies with a personal god. (Of course, in early Hindu mythology, Brahman is personified as the creator god Brahma and placed in a triad of divine functions: Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer.) I suppose we ought to touch on Nirguna ... just to finish this off: it is to do with the question of whether the supreme being, Brahman, is to be characterised as Nirguna (without qualities) or as Saguna (possessing qualities). The Non-dualist school of Advaita Vedanta states that Brahman is beyond all polarity and therefore cannot be characterised in the normal terms of human discursive thought. This being the case, Brahman cannot possess qualities that distinguish it from all other magnitudes, as Brahman is not a magnitude but is all. The scriptural texts that ascribe qualities to Brahman, leading to the conception of a qualified Brahman (Saguna) are, according to the Advaita school, merely preparatory aids to meditation. The fundamental text of this tenet is the Upanishad definition of Brahman as neti-neti (‘not this! not that!’) Others, notably the theistic schools of Vedanta argue that God (Brahman) is possessed of all perfections and that the scriptural passages denying qualities deny only imperfect ones. If you link Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ to Advaita Vedanta ... then I would say – and rather complacently – that he is most definitely spiritual and he believed in something metaphysical surviving the body. This is a point I made in another post recently:
My question remains: Why is that everyone who writes to me is so busy defending the indefensible?
RICHARD: My question remains: Why is it that everyone who writes to me is so busy defending the indefensible? Why? RESPONDENT: My question for you is simple ... tell me what it is, the impetus
that infuses your quite formidable intellect with such RICHARD: My questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in June 1966, whilst dressed in a green uniform and aged nineteen, and a Buddhist monk killed himself in a most ghastly way. There was I, a youth with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in religious robes and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the spiritual way to peace. I was aghast ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’. Twenty six years later I found the third alternative ... and it is my delight to share this discovery with my fellow humans. What they do with this is entirely up to them.
RICHARD (to No. 10): I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was
already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect
that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: Richard, did it ever occur to you that you are simply pointing to coals in Newcastle and called them ‘black fuel chunks?’ RICHARD: No it never occurred to me ... and never will. Only someone firmly locked-into a Hindu/Buddhist religious belief system could make such an blinkered observation. RESPONDENT: That said, I very much look forward to your interchange with No. 23. Very promising entertainment indeed. RICHARD: Oh, entertainment is our game ... it sure beats having to strive for peace on earth, does it not? And we probably will still be being entertaining you as the bombs begin to fall, at this rate of progress. RESPONDENT: And thank you for informing me of my previously unsuspected ‘Hindu/Buddhist belief system’, this will be astonishing news to Hindus and Buddhists everywhere! RICHARD: Yeah, well you could be right, you know ... it has already astonished No. 20, for example. He never suspected it for a moment. It must be all those Buddhist tracts that he reads that made him blind to the obvious.
RICHARD: My question remains: Why is it that everyone who writes to me is so busy defending the indefensible? Why? RESPONDENT:
My question for you is simple ... tell me what it is, the impetus
that infuses your quite formidable intellect with such RICHARD: My questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in June 1966, whilst dressed in a green uniform and aged nineteen, and a Buddhist monk killed himself in a most ghastly way. There was I, a youth with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. There was a fellow human being, dressed in religious robes and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the spiritual way to peace. I was aghast ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’. Twenty six years later I found the third alternative ... and it is my delight to share this discovery with my fellow humans. What they do with this is entirely up to them. RESPONDENT: I notice little or no ‘delight’ in your presentation, I see determination, persistence. RICHARD: You obviously have no idea of how much fun I am having composing my posts. I have been
talking with people about these matters for eighteen years now and I have had every conceivable objection presented to me. No one
has been able to come up with something new; with some original criticism for many years ... all I hear is cavilling I can only assume that people do not actually want peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: The next time you quote me kindly refrain from gratuitous editing. RICHARD: Why? So that you can put words into my mouth? If you arrange a question so that it makes me say something that is patently incorrect, I will again simply make the question correct before answering it. I did not deceive ... I followed the accepted convention of putting squared brackets around an inserted word when I struck-through the word ‘passion’, which you had so adroitly written there, and placed the square-bracketed word [delight] immediately after it. It is either that or ask a stupid question and get a stupid answer. RESPONDENT: I’d also respectfully suggest omitting HTML and file attachments in mailing list dialogues. RICHARD: I am not a Luddite so I will continue using HTML.
RESPONDENT: You’ve missed the thrust of the question completely, as your answer demonstrates. RICHARD: Not at all. You asked me what provided the impetus to keep me writing as I do in the face of such opposition. I answered. Just because I did not give the answer you wanted to hear does not mean that I missed the ‘thrust of your question’. The thrust of your question was to winkle out the passion that you are convinced is still there. It did not work. * RICHARD: My questioning of life, the universe and what it is to be a human being all started in a war-torn country in June 1966, whilst dressed in a green uniform and aged nineteen, and a Buddhist monk killed himself in a most ghastly way. There was I, a youth with a loaded rifle in my hand, representing the secular way to peace. RESPONDENT: You represented no such thing other than in your mind – you represented a naive young man with a weapon who had ceded his personal sovereignty to a government. RICHARD: I did not represent that at all. Given that all human beings are driven by instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire, then war is an essential facility for obtaining an imitation of peace – an uneasy truce called ‘law and order’ – at the point of a gun. This will continue to be the situation until every last man, woman and child on earth is free of the human condition. It does not make war any less ghastly ... but it is a fact that whilst humans are as they are, then war is here to stay. * RICHARD: There was a fellow human being, dressed in religious robes and with a cigarette lighter in hand, representing the spiritual way to peace. RESPONDENT: The flaming monk also represented nothing other than himself, a man who had ceded his personal sovereignty to a religious order. RICHARD: Is this a case of ‘while I have got a good theory running I will stick to it’? Once again, you fail to understand human nature. It is sovereignty that is the problem ... not a case of either ceding or not ceding it. For it is being a sovereign in the first place that is the cause of all the ills of humankind ... it is called being the ‘self’. * RICHARD: I was aghast ... and I sought to find a third alternative to being either ‘human’ or ‘divine’. Twenty six years later I found the third alternative ... and it is my delight to share this discovery with my fellow human. RESPONDENT: For all your copious verbiage, it is quite clear that you’ve discovered nothing other than some eccentric nomenclature. RICHARD: You have obviously missed most of my posts. I have made it quite clear that none of us are to blame, for we are all victims of blind nature’s rather clumsy software package of instincts. However, once realised where the root cause of all the anguish and animosity lies, one can hit the ‘delete’ button and erase the lot, for it is software and not hardware. If one does not then one is a fool. Of course, both ‘I’ and ‘me’ will be what is deleted ... for ‘I’ am the passions and the passions are ‘me’. RESPONDENT: Your ‘humanity’ (and, for that matter, ‘divinity’) is quite obviously still around and rather vigorously operative. RICHARD: There is another alternative to being either secular or spiritual ... which is long overdue as neither of them have produced peace-on-earth. This third alternative I call an actual freedom. The Buddhist monk, who burnt himself to death as a protest against the war in his country, broke one of the
cardinal precepts of ‘ahimsa’ ... he killed someone. This points to the startlingly obvious fatal flaw in the creed of ‘non-violence’ And it is not just Buddhism, of course. Mr. Yeshua the Nazarene, with his ‘turn the other cheek’ homily advocates and promotes martyrdom ... an apparently ‘noble virtue’ that permits the bully-boys to run rampant. So much for the ‘wisdom’ of the Sages. It is all about failing to face up to the facts and actuality squarely. It comes out of a failure to understand human nature ... which is quite understandable as all the ‘Great Beings’ throughout history have remained stuck in the Human Condition and seek to resolve problems instead of dissolving the cause of them. They merely add to the confusion ... and suck otherwise intelligent people into following them blindly into heroic self-sacrifice. All the while they weep crocodile tears at the abominable slaughter and misery that they actively promote and perpetuate out of their abject ignorance. All religious and spiritual thought – being mystical in origin – is nothing but an extremely complex and complicated metaphysics that does nothing to eliminate the self – the ego and soul – in its entirety. In fact, when one applies these eastern-derived religious and spiritual systems, one’s primal self is endorsed, enhanced, glorified and rewarded for staying in existence. And this is a monumental blunder. All the wars, murders, tortures, rapes and destruction that have eventually followed the emergence of any specially hallowed religiosity or spirituality attests to this. Also, all the sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide that has ensued as a result of following any specifically revered religious or spiritual teaching renders its mute testimony to anyone with the eyes to see. Culpability for the continuation of animosity and anguish lies squarely at the feet of the Master and the
Messiahs; the Saints and the Sages; the Avatars and the Saviours; the Gurus and the God-men. And their feet – upon close
inspection – are feet of clay Then there is peace-on-earth. If one is not at all alert, then one will conveniently over-look the strange goings-on that are the consequences of the strangle-hold that divinity has upon one who has surrendered their will – romantically believing that they have surrendered their ego – to the ‘Unmanifest Power’ that inhabits the psychic world. In order to feel that one has arrived one can not afford to know the ‘Unknowable’ because the ‘Authority and Power’ that makes up the ‘Cosmic Energy’ is dependent upon mystique for its perpetuation, its strength and its survival. Its apparitions – either godly or devilish – rely entirely upon remaining a mysterious and intuitive sense of ‘Being’ ... that which is ‘sacred, holy’ ... that which is beyond thought. Such an inscrutable ‘otherness’ can not endure exposure as it crumples like a leaky balloon when faced up to squarely ... the success of all esotericism depends upon the maintenance of an enigmatic ‘Presence’ which thus preserves a cryptic ‘Essence’ or ‘Source’. The psychic world is hatched from the intuitive faculties which, coupled with a feverish imagination, rules the human psyche with the extrasensory powers born of awe and dread. Knowing all this is the beginning of the extinction of the psyche and all its contents. The second ‘I’ – of Mr. Venkataraman Aiyer (aka Ramana) fame – is a difficult one to shake, maybe more difficult than the first; for who is brave enough to voluntarily give up fame and fortune, reverence and worship, status and security? One has to be scrupulously honest to go all the way. The reward for going to the very end of illusion and delusion is to emerge, unscathed, as the actual. The benefits of doing so are beyond price; to remove oneself from the invidious position of being betwixt sycophants and traducers, being one among many. The immediate bestowal of universal peace upon oneself is the benefit worthiest of acknowledgment. Yet, rewards and benefits notwithstanding, to have reached one’s destiny is to be of the ultimate service possible ... the universe has been able to fulfil itself as a human being. Finally there is an intelligence operating unimpeded ... blind nature has been superseded. There is, most assuredly, not an ‘Intelligence’ behind the universe, as is commonly supposed. To entertain such a notion is to commit the vulgar intellectual error of anthropomorphism. Intelligence abides only in humans ... and the free operation of this intelligence is constantly being thwarted by the parasitical psychic entity known as ‘me’. To take a journey through the human psyche is the adventure of a lifetime.
RESPONDENT No. 30: Why belittle another if not to reinforce the conflict? RESPONDENT: There is no belittling involved, there is a noting of hypocrisy. RESPONDENT No. 30: It seems we carry this conflict on when we begin projecting these images. Is this not clear to you? RESPONDENT: Quite. RICHARD: Copied and pasted below are examples of No. 5 ‘noting hypocrisy’ rather than being ‘belittling’:
KONRAD: You are criticising others. RESPONDENT: Criticism is in the eye of the beholder, I am merely offering observations that diverge somewhat (...) I am interested in mutual enquiry, not argument (...) This is an opening of the door of dialogue. RICHARD: I think what they are saying is: ‘Try opening another door, this one you are holding open does not have a ‘Welcome’ mat in front of it’. Speaking personally, you can name-call me to your heart’s content ... and I can dish out as good as what I get. To me it is all par for the course, because what I am presenting strikes at the very heart of all philosophy ... be it spiritual or otherwise. In other words, I expect – and give – a vigorous and rigorous debate on all these issues. Once we get this mandatory intellectual sparring (as per standard Internet protocol) out of the way, we can get down to the issues at hand. Namely: How to be free of the Human Condition and live in peace ... here on earth.
RICHARD (to Respondent No. 10): I did not devise, concoct or contrive this peace-on-earth ... it was
already here ... as it always has been and always will be. I just happened to discover it, that is all ... and it being so perfect
that I wished to inform my fellow human beings of its existence. What they do with this information is their business. RESPONDENT: Richard, did it ever occur to you that you are simply pointing to coals in Newcastle and called them ‘black fuel chunks?’ RICHARD: No it never occurred to me ... and never will. Only someone firmly locked-into a Hindu/Buddhist religious belief system could make such an blinkered observation. RESPONDENT: You ... infer a ‘religious belief system’ on my part. RICHARD: Maybe I can draw your attention to a recent post of yours: ‘For those of us interested in investigating Advaita Vedanta, (a philosophical system the quite closely parallels what Krishnamurti pointed to in his less formal manner), I’ve turned up the following very intriguing and carefully designed WWW site: www.cco.caltech.edu/~vidya/advaita/ Even yours truly, he of the rather obviously impaired scholarship, found it very informative’. Is Advaita Vedanta really a ‘philosophical system’? It is a sect of Hinduism after all ... and Hinduism is a religion. If a case can be made that it is not a religion but a philosophy, then is it not a spiritual philosophy? For central to Advaita Vedanta is Brahman ... which is derived from a Hindu god, after all is said and done. You may recall me submitting the following:
As you link Advaita Vedanta to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’, could it be that what he called ‘that which is sacred, holy’, from whence the ‘Teachings’ came, is in fact, none other than the Hindu religious god Brahma ... now called Brahman to make it into a spiritual philosophy? This is not a ‘scholarly debate’ ... I am very interested to hear your answer, as you said that: ‘I experience what little I have read of the Great Dead Guys[tm] not with the picayune eye of a practiced philosopher, but with the same sensorium you describe with reference to the ‘ambrosial’ nature of what most see as ordinary, ‘beans & wieners’ existence’. I take particular note that you stress ‘I experience (...) not with the picayune eye of a practiced philosopher’. If you do not experience what you call a philosophy with the petty and small-minded eye of a philosopher, then how do you experience it? As a reality in your daily life? After all, is not that what a philosophy is? A way of living? I am, of course, ‘inferring’ that you are living this ‘philosophy’ that has an ancient Hindu god central to it. After all, you did say:
As ‘sensorium’ means the parts of the brain concerned with the reception and interpretation of sensory stimuli – or more broadly the entire sensory apparatus – then are you are proclaiming yourself to be a Hindu Pantheist? That is, ‘God is everything and everything is God? Advaita Vedanta is not pantheistic by a long shot, because Advaitists maintain that everyday reality is an illusion projected onto Brahman (Brahman is categorically different from anything phenomenal) and that, realising this, one knows that ‘I am That’ (of course, ‘That’ is none other than Brahman ... and thence Brahma. Therefore, this translates as: ‘I am God and God is Me’). And if all the above is not enough, you did say: ‘Richard, I am not looking for a scholarly debate, but for deep, passionate seeing past the letter of the what Krishnamurti (or Shankara or Buddha) wrote or said’. A ‘deep, passionate seeing’? And ‘past the letter’ of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words, Mr. Shankara’s words and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words? You must mean one is to live what they talk about, surely ... or am I ‘inferring’ again? It all sounds rather metaphysical to me, whichever way you are going to jump.
RESPONDENT No. 31: As has been previously stated by others in this list a few utterances and actions do not make one locked into so and so belief system. RICHARD: Would you really call that which No. 5 wrote merely a ‘few utterances’? Are you
seriously suggesting that he is just wasting my time and yours by talking about something that he has not the slightest interest
in? Do you read his other posts to this List? RESPONDENT: I admitted to finding a some superficial introductory material on Advaita Vedanta ‘very informative’. My cursory reading of a small fraction of said material revealed some parallels with what K often wrote of. Your inference of this as comprising a belief system is a clear example of ‘intermittent rigour’, since it equates interest with belief. QED. RICHARD: So ‘very intriguing and carefully designed’ has suddenly become ‘some superficial introductory material’? May I call this back-pedalling? And ‘even yours truly, he of the rather obviously impaired scholarship, found it very informative’ has now become ‘my cursory reading of a small fraction’? Back-pedalling again? As for it being merely my ‘inference’ that ‘interest equates to belief’ ... I simply go by what you write. And a ‘deep passionate seeing past the words’ indicates belief ... given that, etymologically, belief means: ‘fervently wish to be true’. You did use the word ‘passionate’, did you not? And ‘deep’ passion into the bargain? Not just an ‘inference’, methinks. * RICHARD: If that lot is a secular philosophy then I would like to know what is a spiritual philosophy ... you say a ‘deep, passionate seeing’? And ‘past the letter’ of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words, Mr. Shankara’s words and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words? You must mean one is to live what they talk about, surely ... or am I ‘inferring’ again? RESPONDENT: You are inferring again. To receive the uttered or written words with other than strictly literal or inferred meaning of words themselves says nothing about living ‘what they talk about’ at all, it means seeing past the words to the impetus behind them and encountering that impetus for oneself. Again, ‘intermittent rigour’, QED. RICHARD: Oh ... there is that word ‘infer’ again. It is used somewhat like ‘impute’, I notice ... and ‘interpretation’. Not much intellectual rigour going on here, is there? A question for you: What is ‘the impetus behind’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words, Mr. Shankara’s words and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words? And also: if one ‘encounters that impetus for oneself’ ... what happens then? If one does not live that ‘impetus’ in one’s daily life – which means that one does not change at all – then what is the point of encountering them? And is ‘Intermittent rigour, QED’ going to be your stock-standard way of conducting a discussion with a fellow human about peace-on-earth? May I remind you of the following exchange:
Are you genuinely interested, or is this Mailing List merely a social club for you to display your linguistic rhetoric? And this List is a forum which, being under the auspices of the teachings that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti bought into the world, is a place to converse deeply together with the avowed aim of setting ‘humanity’ free, surely. As ‘I’ am ‘humanity’ and ‘humanity’ is ‘me’, then this entails sincere and candid conversation, otherwise discussion devolves into being intellectual masturbation. That is my position, anyway. * RICHARD (to No. 31): It all sounds rather metaphysical to me, whichever way No. 5 is going
to jump. RESPONDENT No. 31: Yes. Only a sound after all. The ‘sound’ of ‘metaphysical’. And you seem to be concerned about this. RESPONDENT: Redundant diatribe about metaphysics and the suffering millions snipped. RICHARD: It is entirely permissible to snip without comment ... but since you have commented, shall we look at what your comment reveals? You said ‘diatribe about (...) the suffering millions’ ... do you not care about your fellow human? Does it not sink in that 100,000,000 people have been killed in wars this century alone? Not to mention the desolation and grief engendered among the survivors? And ‘diatribe about metaphysics’? At the very moment that I am writing this, many people, somewhere on this fair earth of ours, are being killed or suffering badly because of the ‘metaphysical’. This is actually happening; it is not an illusion, a dream, a play of the imagination or a fantasy. It is physically happening. You may very well say: ‘redundant diatribe about metaphysics and the suffering millions’ But try saying that to the Buddhist woman who is being raped by a Christian soldier; try saying that to the Hindu mother whose son has been brutally tortured by Muslim terrorists; try saying that to a Jewish grandmother whose entire family has been wiped out by pious people fervently believing in ‘certain words and symbols’; try saying that to a Taoist girl whose life has been violated and ruined by Shinto soldiers; try saying that a Zen monk whose whole city has been razed by an atomic explosion! After my experience in a war-torn foreign country I wished to do something constructive with my life; I wished to rid myself, personally, of the ‘human nature’ which all people say can not be changed ... which I did successfully eliminate ... and facilitate the self-same removal in anyone else dedicated to a genuine peace on earth. To become happy and harmless one must extirpate both malice and sorrow, which stem from the entity within ... sense of identity and self that has a parasitical life inside the flesh and blood body. Beliefs, and the act of believing itself, sustains and feeds this monstrous psychic entity within that seeks the ‘something’ that is metaphysical. And those people who somehow accomplish the attainment of ‘that which is sacred, holy’ then go around propagating a specious belief system that can only perpetuate all the abominable suffering that humankind has had to endure up until now. RESPONDENT: For starters, I am no metaphysician (I’m not sure there is anything that will ever be shown to be entirely beyond the purview of physicists), and I am no advocate of extended forays into so-called astral realms. I don’t live in anything resembling a trance state, nor do I follow a formal yoga or meditation practice. RICHARD: Am I take it then, where you say ‘I am no advocate of extended forays into so-called astral realms’, that you are an advocate of ‘extended forays into the real astral realms’? RESPONDENT: Am I a cinder yet? RICHARD: How would I know? It is you who feels the heat ... or not.
RESPONDENT No. 12: When there is no self-centred activity, awareness has a sensitivity that is loving, even ecstatic by its very nature. That is the beauty, the wonder of it. RESPONDENT: Nicely put, that’s the essential miracle of what is when ‘I’ am not. RICHARD: This is a very pertinent and profound observation ... and would be a credit to your ability if you had not also written in another post: ‘No. 9, forgive the repetition, but ego is unavoidable, it will arise and there is no preventing that, the issue is not its existence but rather its place and/or role in consciousness. Thanks for your input, and good luck in your apparent quest for egolessness – once you’ve tagged ego as bad and/or the root of conflict, that quest seems inevitable, doesn’t it?’ My question for you is: In this ‘the essential miracle of what is when ‘I’ am not’, just what, exactly, is this ‘I’ that is not? If it is not the ego that is the ‘I’ that is not ... then what is it? And remember, all ‘the Great Dead Guys[tm]’ say it is the ego that goes ... and goes permanently. Do you remember them? They are the ones you say that you experience what they write of with ‘not with the picayune eye of a practiced philosopher’. * RESPONDENT No. 9: This reminds of this computer simulation game played by graduate students where one tries to manipulate the world for the better ... the more one interferes the more chaos is created – for one man’s peace is another’s injustice. A ‘healthy ego’ is an excuse, a denial, a justification for one’s gravitation to judge, to be God. RESPONDENT: A healthy ego does not foment conflict that isn’t already there, although it may make apparent what was previously hidden. It serves and seeks not mastery. RICHARD: Yet, although on the one hand you say ‘that’s the essential miracle of what is when ‘I’ am not’ ... on the other hand here you are saying ‘a healthy ego does not foment conflict that isn’t already there, although it may make apparent what was previously hidden’. Apparently you know all this ‘with the same sensorium you describe with reference to the ‘ambrosial’ nature of what most see as ordinary, ‘beans & wieners’ existence’ ... so I am to take it that this is your understanding born out of your personal experience? Otherwise, to say ‘a healthy ego serves and seeks not mastery’ smacks of intellectual masturbation ... and startlingly similar to what psychologists state about a ‘well-adjusted personality’. Would you say that the 160,000,000 million people killed in wars this century alone were killed by people with healthy egos or unhealthy egos?
RICHARD: I think what they are saying is: ‘Try opening another door, this one you are holding open does not have a ‘Welcome’ mat in front of it’. RESPONDENT: Bravissimo (or should it be ‘Alas?’), I have been indicted by a master prosecutor! I will leave it to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury as to whether the assembled evidence comprises ‘Criticism’ or simply observed disagreement expressed in a sarcastic manner. As for ‘Welcome’, anyone who finds that essential to their idea of appropriate dialogue and absent in my presentation can do as Konrad has done and simply disengage. RICHARD: Why leave it to public opinion ... are you incapable of self-appraisal? Besides, as consensus is already not possible, you would be guided by the ‘majority rules’ principle so prized by the proponents of democracy. That is, policy is set by the lowest common denominator ... or, in other words: Mob rule. And I would hazard a guess that Konrad will not be able to stay disengaged. * RICHARD: Speaking personally, you can name-call me to your heart’s content ... and I can dish out as good as what I get. RESPONDENT: So I’ve noticed and hereby acknowledge. RICHARD: Personally, I like to be rude in as polite a way as is possible with the English language ... it is much more fun that way. Being facetious beats sarcasm hands down, any day. Besides, sarcasm is a subtle form of abuse ... verbal violence. To be sarcastic is to obtain amusement at another’s expense ... it is a particularly cutting form of teasing, with malicious undertones, and thus qualifies for the lowest rating on the humour scale. So too with irony ... just as sarcasm is designed to make the recipient feel ridiculed, irony is designed to make the recipient feel rueful. They are thus both pathetic wit, by definition. As the word ‘pathetic’ is derived from the root ‘pathos’ – which indicates sorrow – then the giver of either sarcasm or irony wishes the recipient to feel the incipient sorrow that is endemic among humans. Sorrow is a sickness that can lead, in extreme cases, to depression and suicide ... which I would not wish upon anyone. Thus sarcasm and irony are not what I, for one, consider fun. Whereas facetiousness is waggish ... a non-serious jesting. * RICHARD: To me it is all par for the course, because what I am presenting strikes at the very heart of all philosophy ... be it spiritual or otherwise. RESPONDENT: Actually, what you are presenting is a philosophy and only ‘strikes’ at a common misunderstanding of what comprises the ‘spiritual’. RICHARD: A ‘common misunderstanding’? Am I to take it that your misunderstanding is not the common or garden variety, then? I had an intriguing exchange with a man of logic – a self-confessed logician who said he believed in ‘The
Truth’ – on another Mailing List last year who repeatedly told me that I was only criticising ‘Popular Buddhism’ So much for logic. I am not presenting a philosophy ... it is an actuality that has to be lived to be believed. (Only then it is not necessary to believe it, of course). What I am saying is that it is virtually inconceivable, so therefore it cannot be made into a philosophy. * RICHARD: In other words, I expect – and give – a vigorous and rigorous debate on all these issues. RESPONDENT: Vigour acknowledged, rigour intermittent at best. RICHARD: ‘Rigour intermittent’? Is this some more of your ‘noting of hypocrisy’? I consider precision to be essential but rigour taken to the point of logical exactitude leads nowhere useful ... useful as in removing sorrow and malice, that is. Logic has never made anyone happy and harmless. * RICHARD: Once we get this mandatory intellectual sparring (as per standard Internet protocol) out of the way, we can get down to the issues at hand. Namely: How to be free of the Human Condition and live in peace ... here on earth. RESPONDENT: Feel free to get down to the ‘How to’ aspect at your earliest convenience. RICHARD: Okay. First off: Do you mean, by a ‘deep passionate seeing past the letter of the words’, (Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words, Mr. Shankara’s words and Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s words) that one is to live that as a reality in one’s daily life. Not the words ... the reality that the words point to. For if that is the case, then one is indeed locked into a Hindu/Buddhist belief system. I am curious as to just what your ‘sensorium’ was ‘sensing’.
RESPONDENT No. 14: I have, in reviewing some Krishnamurti material, come across on odd quote: ‘God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists. Your wanting something that does not exist is the root of your problems. Transformation, Moksha, Liberation, and all that stuff, are just variations of the same theme: permanent happiness. The body can’t take uninterrupted pleasure for long; it would be destroyed. Wanting to impose a fictitious permanent state of happiness on the body is a serious neurological problem’. Two aspects of this statement strike me as odd. The first is that Krishnamurti equates happiness with pleasure (physical pleasure). Second, he make the very broad insistence that permanent happiness is impossible. As one who is consistently happy I am left wondering, what have I done wrong? More, why would anyone wish to equate happiness with physical pleasure? It is easy for me to say it is my pleasure to be happy, yet I would not say that it is my pleasure that is my happiness. It seems to me, that generally, Krishnamurti was more careful than to propose absolutes. What about this particular subject brought him to a point where he felt he could decide what was possible or not in the most broad and conclusive sense. I look forward, happily, to your comments. RESPONDENT No. 20: Without knowing the talk or context of this quote, this task of interpretation is quite difficult. But perhaps a few remarks might be helpful: That Krishnamurti uses happiness in this way here, does not mean that this is how he normally defines happiness. He may just be using the term here to make a point to the audience about their cherished beliefs, and that they want what does not exist, which is the source of much of man’s inner conflicts and disorder. Pleasure as a neurological matter cannot be sustained for long. That is quite factual. Permanent happiness is a goal that many people do have, and that motivates them to believe in all sorts of spiritual and religious nonsense. This is the a sweet prison that encloses the mind and blocks looking for oneself at one’s unhappiness, or looking at whatever the actual conditions are. Permanent happiness is only an idea because it involves a prediction into the future. It is a misunderstanding for it takes happiness to be a fixed state, when it is a movement. And so the continuity of this movement is not secured or promised, but involves moment to moment living experience and relationship. RESPONDENT No. 14: Hmm. Your input is interesting, yet I must decline from making such a generally conclusive posit. I am wondering, however, does ‘quite factual’ represent ‘completely factual’ in this instance? But what if these beliefs are their happiness? I think this gets back to the assertion that ‘thought is your enemy’. What relegates a belief, if in fact that belief results in happiness, to the category of nonsense? As you probably remember, I do not support the contention that there are actual conditions to examine. The examination, in fact, is the actual conditions. But then again so does the assertion that permanent happiness is impossible. I do not think that this is conclusively demonstrated by the statement. Whether happiness is a stream as it were, or a fixed state of existence, really has little to do with whether it is sustainable or permanent, yes? This also raises in my thoughts a broader problem of the fixed/non-fixed dilemma. What would movement mean, if in fact all was movement? What in fact would be the non-movement through which movement could be defined? Perhaps this is fodder for another discussion, eh? However this does not address the crux of the statement, which has less to do with the promise as with the assertion that promised or continuously revealed, permanent happiness is impossible. Thank you. The quickness of your response is surprising considering the wisdom communicated. May our further conversation more sweetly distil the subject at hand. RESPONDENT No. 20: In that I am not able to explain to you the neurological evidence, I will have to remain with ‘quite factual’. I can then upgrade after doing some research. Thought is not anyone’s enemy, that sounds rather foolish. Whether or not belief in nonsense or foolishness can be called anyone’s happiness, depends on how you are defining happiness. In that happiness which is based on foolishness is based on shaky ground, it does seem that this happiness cannot be deep or lasting. That sort of happiness cannot rest on illusion. That is just one of the consequences of believing in illusions. Belief in illusions are not necessarily nonsense, to be nonsense they have little support in factual evidence, experience or common sense. A belief that results in happiness can therefore be nonsense. Are you rejecting the difference between what is actually going psychologically and what a person believes is going on psychologically? That is, are you saying that a person is never wrong about what they think they feel? Is there not self-deception? Is there not ignorance of who we are, of what is going on? Permanence in movement, quite poetic. It does however stretch the meaning of permanence. We contrast permanence with change. Its root means ‘to remain’. But the point is understood. In that it moves it is an ongoing continuum. The non movement is conceptual, but is reflected in the patterns or structure that is revealed in movement. To someone who believes that all is in movement, we normally conclude that nothing is permanent. Could this then be the problem in understanding K, that you are giving a non standard meaning to permanent to mean ‘continuously ongoing’? If the point above is correct, concerning the non standard use, then what you are asking is whether Krishnamurti is saying that happiness as this movement will not continue indefinitely. The answer to this is that he is not saying this. He himself seems to be rather concerned with positing a continuous ongoing moment to moment happiness. It is a happiness not based on thought or wish or illusion, as this ‘permanent happiness’ is. So perhaps the gap is not as large between you and Krishnamurti as once perceived? Yes in the sweetness of that paradox of permanent movement. RESPONDENT No. 28: This is the way I see it. Krishnamurti used the word ‘happiness’ in the sense it is conventionally used. Lets say he was using the colloquially accepted meaning behind the word ‘happiness’. Just see the qualifier ‘uninterrupted’ in front of it. In that there is a demand for an interval of time which must not end. Anything seen in that temporal projection is always a desire, always a demand, always a becoming. I would take the word pleasure without splitting it into physical, mental. All pleasures are mental, there is none which is otherwise. When we seek God for our ‘ultimate’ pleasure we leave the equation incomplete. How else pleasure could be known if not in contrast to pain? So an ‘ultimate pleasure’ is like a barren-woman’s pregnancy. The question you raised is: Is ultimate ‘happiness’ possible? How do we tackle this question? Do we speculate on it or do we look into it by looking into the much used word ‘happiness’, the word ‘possibility’? Mighty waves rise up from the ocean and then fall back on the surface only to yield to other waves. All these dynamics enhance only the beauty that the ocean is. There is no single ‘consistently mighty’ wave that does exist apart from the ocean. Every rising wave would carry along with it the very depression, the trough, onto which it would coalesce. Who is then this ‘I’ that is ‘consistently’ happy, unhappy, sad, depressed, or joyous? Who is this ‘I’ that wonders ‘What have I done wrong?’ separate from the totality? The person who is ‘consistently happy’ is equating happiness with ‘pleasure’ because time is now introduced, because there is now an introduction of a measure to compare. Krishnamurti in a subtle manner tried to seduce his listeners by sneaking in arbitrary conclusions. Why should we fall for it? Why can we not transcend all conclusions unless it is necessary? RESPONDENT No. 00: Krishnamurti wrote: ‘God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness’. To which one would add ... that is why all of you are on this list ... seeking God, enlightenment or uninterrupted pleasure. This is the way of the world. Krishnamurti wrote next: ‘No such thing exists’. Stop seeking God, enlightenment and ultimate pleasure. Anything that ‘you’ find is a product of you own mind (thoughts ... conditioning). Seeking ultimate pleasure and God is the death of you ... even though it looks like life. RESPONDENT No. 20: I take note of the expression ‘all of you’, and not ‘all of us’. Meaning that No. 00 is not on this list seeking this. Is he excluding himself from this uninformed fallacious generality, that is meant to be provocative rather than accurate? Your wish is but another command. A ‘should be’ acting as a switch to knout a few fools with. Learning does not lend itself to exhortations and the imperative mode. RESPONDENT: This reflects a common equation in both the secular and religious realms – the secular anthem is found in the U.S. Declaration Of Independence: ‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’, while so many intentional ‘seekers’ in the so-called religious/ spiritual milieu look forward to uninterrupted bliss, a permanent trip to la-la land, e.g. ‘I am dancing at the feet of my Lord, all is bliss, all is bliss’. Permanent happiness in the sense of (‘secular’) pleasure or (‘spiritual’) bliss is impossible. You are showing every sign of having a mature definition of ‘happiness’, one that does not imply continuous pleasure or bliss. He was, as far as can be seen from here, correct given the consensus, immature ideas of what comprises happiness found in both the commercial/ secular and religious/ spiritual marketplaces. In both spheres, there is a futile quest for an ongoing, permanent sense of personal gratification, it seems to me that the ‘transformation’ or ‘mutation’ that Krishnamurti so often spoke of is something else entirely, something quite apart from a drive or hope for personal gratification, and that a person with a mature understanding of happiness (a ‘healthy ego’, perhaps) experiences not ongoing gratification, but rather a sense of gratitude related to the miracle of conscious existence itself. This meta-gratitude is what endures, whether the contents of consciousness in the moment include intense sensory enjoyment, abject sorrow and/or physical pain, astonishing natural beauty, or the purely blissful void – it is all received effortlessly, without resistance, as ‘what is’. Thanks for bringing up the issue. RICHARD: Some people appear to be quite ready to explain anything at all about what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – who some maintain is not their mentor – meant by anything at all he said. This includes the ability to insist that he did not say he was god made manifest where he did say just that. What was written above is indicative of the approach of virtually everyone on this List who – while professing to be conducting a genuine inquiry – actually do not budge one iota from their adopted position. Perhaps the following dialogue might throw some light on the relevance of the quote that started this thread for anyone who would like to begin a genuine discussion – a discussion free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence – for the very first time.
Given that no one on this List has – so far – wanted to sincerely explore the issues I have raised, it is rather pointless to respond to the nugatory objections raised in the twenty or so posts that are awaiting my attention. I consider that what No. 5 wrote a few short weeks ago is very relevant and worth re-posting:
Maybe I will just stay quiet for awhile and see which way the wind blows ... but I will not be holding my breath whilst watching.
RICHARD: Some people appear to be quite ready to explain anything at all about what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – who some maintain is not their mentor – meant by anything at all he said. RESPONDENT: It’s called sharing one’s view of what Krishnamurti said in response to the expressed concern of the initial poster. What this has to do with mentoring eludes me. RICHARD: It probably eludes you because the whole reason for me posting at all eludes you. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not make the quote that the ‘initial poster expressed concern’ about ... Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti was the author. I immediately noticed that when No. 14 first made his initial post ... and I am not a ‘Krishnamurtiite’ nor a ‘U.G. fan’! Yet half-a-dozen of the intelligentsia of this List seriously pontificated upon ‘what Krishnamurti was really saying’ ... and you still do not get it even after I pointed out that it was said by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s self-appointed arch-rival Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. I am rotflmao! * RICHARD: This includes the ability to insist that he did not say he was god made manifest where he did say just that. RESPONDENT: Non sequitur to this thread, and quite meaningless without a workable consensus definition of ‘god’ even if it was. RICHARD: And so pontificates No. 5 ... it is very ‘sequitur’ given that the initial paragraph – purportedly spoken by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – said: ‘God or enlightenment is the ultimate pleasure, uninterrupted happiness. No such thing exists’. You really don’t get it, do you? And: ‘a workable consensus definition of ‘god’ ? Are you for real? God is ... um ... you surely know about ‘god’ don’t you ... that mythical entity common to all cultures? The dictionary says: ‘God: 1. (capitalised): the supreme or ultimate reality. (a): the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe, (b) the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit: infinite Mind. 2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality. 3: a person or thing of supreme value 4: a powerful ruler. (Copyright © 1994 Merriam-Webster, Inc. All Rights Reserved). * RICHARD: What was written above is indicative of the approach of virtually everyone on this List who – while professing to be conducting a genuine inquiry – actually do not budge one iota from their adopted position. RESPONDENT: This is not a debating society and to ‘budge’ or not has nothing to do with enquiry. Views were shared and No. 14 did not find No. 20’s response quite satisfactory, so far No. 14 has not commented on the many other responses. RICHARD: It is indeed a ‘debating society’ ... that is all that this List is. Nobody is sincerely wanting to rid themselves of whatever it is that ails humankind. And of course ‘No. 14 did not find No. 20’s response quite satisfactory’ ... who does? * RICHARD: Perhaps the following dialogue might throw some light on the relevance of the quote that started this thread for anyone who would like to begin a genuine discussion – a discussion free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence – for the very first time.
RESPONDENT: The interesting thing about U.G. is that Krishnamurti was the centre of most of U.G.’s adult life. Far from being ‘free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence’ his entire position seems to be a rather extreme reaction to ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence’. RICHARD: And so pontificates No. 5 ... I never said he was ‘free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence’ ... you just assumed that I did. I basically said that if you lot could see in the following dialogue ‘the relevance of the quote that started this thread’, then it might be possible ‘for anyone who would like to begin a genuine discussion – a discussion free of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s influence – for the very first time’ to have one. Apparently not, as you still do not get it ... even when something is pointed out. RESPONDENT: One item of guru gossip (to be taken with a massive chunk of salt) is that U.G. embarked on his odd quasi-guru ship after Krishnamurti refused to acknowledge U.G.’s self-assessed enlightened state. Apparently U.G. had in mind to be K’s designated successor in a typical Indian-style lineage and Krishnamurti would have none of it. U.G.’s adherents (two of them were on the list for a short while a couple of years back) tend to be a rather morose and unpleasant lot, that much I do remember. You’ve picked one of his more coherent assertions, one that doesn’t in essence actually contradict Krishnamurti RICHARD: I am sure that, by now, even you are beginning to become dimly aware that I did not pick the Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti quote – I am about as enamoured of his pronouncements as I am of those of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – but that No. 14 did the picking. I was simply correcting an error. No wonder that you think that the quote ‘doesn’t in essence actually contradict Krishnamurti’ ... it was the identical self-same quote! * RICHARD: Given that no one on this List has – so far – wanted to sincerely explore the issues I have raised, it is rather pointless to respond to the nugatory objections raised in the twenty or so posts that are awaiting my attention. I consider that what No. 5 wrote a few short weeks ago is very relevant and worth re-posting: ‘Krishnamurti bid us look at both western materialism and eastern spiritualism with a clear eye and a questioning mind. Richard wants to include Krishnamurti himself in the enquiry and I see little to argue with in that particular aspect of his presentation’. RESPONDENT: I still find nothing wrong with this aspect of your presentation in concept, but nitpicking particular Krishnamurti statements without some discussion of such key terminology as ‘god’ does not comprise enquiry, it is the stuff of sophomoric, palaverous debate. RICHARD: It is not ‘nit-picking’ ... it is a very sincere and valid line of questioning and is fundamental to any investigation into the Human Condition. How many people have been killed and tortured and ... oh, I forgot ... you do not approve of me saying that kind of thing, do you? You think that that is ‘the stuff of sophomoric, palaverous debate’ don’t you? RESPONDENT: You seem to have some attachment to tagging Krishnamurti as an Indian spiritualist of the usual ilk and getting the agreement of others on that position. RICHARD: Me? Tagging? Not so ... I am trying to get others to stop looking through reverential eyes and see that – in fact – he is indeed ‘an Indian spiritualist of the usual ilk’. Do you see this yet? RESPONDENT: I recommend letting go of such contentious piffle and getting on with your presentation as to how and why your personal position is so much more likely to bring about world peace than any other such position in the history of humanity. That is your thrust, isn’t it? RICHARD: No, not at all ... I am on about individual peace-on-earth. I am on record as saying, repeatedly: ‘Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace’. My ‘contentious piffle’ is all about achieving individual peace-on-earth in this lifetime, as this body, here on earth ... sound familiar? I have repeated that line ad infinitum. That is what you call my ‘presentation’ ... I have been doing my ‘presentation’ ever since I came onto this List ... hadn’t you noticed? Must be those reverential eyes that are obscuring your vision! * RICHARD: Maybe I will just stay quiet for awhile and see which way the wind blows ... but I will not be holding my breath whilst watching. RESPONDENT: A sound decision, and no doubt a comfort to your family. RICHARD: I do not have any family, actually. Being free of the Human Condition as I am, there is no one inside this body to be in relationship with anyone at all. I am a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one and no-thing. And I am rotflmao!
CORRESPONDENT No. 05: (Part Two) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
