Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 10
RICHARD: Is beauty solely the product of thought?RESPONDENT: Yes it is and must be thought first then exclaimed. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Well Richard, K is not my guru. RICHARD: Well, No. 10 ... I never said he was. RESPONDENT: Nor do all of his words mean anything to me, most do, however. RICHARD: Could it be that this is why I posted this quote – and the other quotes – to find out where you stand and what you know and what you do not know? I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information. RESPONDENT: When he says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling. RICHARD: Okay ... you have already told me this three E-mails ago. Vis.:
What I am endeavouring to ascertain is if Love is not affective ... what is its disposition? If Love is not cognitive ... what is its constitution? If Love is not sensate ... what is its nature? Do you not see why I wish to put love and compassion and beauty and truth and so on under the same scrutiny that this Mailing List gives to thought? It is because there is quite some cloudiness around this issue which needs clarifying and, seeing that you are channelling this miraculous cure-all through to a benighted humanity, to remain ignorant of the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth would indicate that you actually do not care about your fellow human. And surely you do care, eh? RESPONDENT: The rest of the above is true. RICHARD: When I delete all references to where he obviously does not support your ‘beauty is of thought and love has no feeling’ stance, so as to ascertain what you see as true, what is left is him bagging the intellect and praising sensitivity. Vis.:
So, may I ask why you, too, bag the intellect and yet praise an (as yet unexplained) non-affective sensitivity? I already know that you are anti-thought (like all enlightened people) but they are anti-thought because they favour the affective faculty over the cognitive faculty. As you do not, what do you favour over the cognitive faculty if it be not the affective faculty? Speaking personally, I extol the virtues of both the sensate faculty and cognitive faculty ... and consign the affective faculty to the trash bin (disposing of the entire psyche) by eliminating the instinctual passions all sentient beings are born with ... which means the extinction of self in it’s entirety. What is sensitivity (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a vulnerable mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a defenceless mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? RESPONDENT: To see the truth in what K says is important, equally important is to see where he missed just a bit. RICHARD: Indeed so. May I ask? How come you are allowed to have idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, whereas you tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said? In fact, you go so far as to say that I ‘just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed’. Yet here you are telling me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ... but if I am silly enough to do just this what you tell me to do you will tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said! Do I have to raise my hand if I wish to leave the room? RESPONDENT: I was speaking as I speak and doing as I do long before ever reading something K said. RICHARD: I never said that you were not ... in fact, I remember it well from when you told me this last year. RESPONDENT: To me he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet! RICHARD: Arguably he was, yes ... but as he is physically dead he is not now. Where you say ‘was/is’ is it because you had not heard about his demise or do you consider he is still present in bodiless spirit? * RICHARD: The reason that I ask is that he seems to be saying ‘it is essential to have that deep feeling for life’ and that it ‘is essential to appreciate beauty’ because beauty ‘is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth’. Furthermore, it is because ‘we do not have that feeling for beauty’ that ‘there is no love’ because ‘love is really the very essence of beauty’. In fact, he says again, ‘it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ and that you must have a ‘sensitive mind’, which is a ‘defenceless mind’, because it is such a ‘vulnerable mind’ that can allow ‘truth to enter’. Yet you say that beauty is solely the product of thought ... and you ought to know because you have oft-times explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through. Now, as you also say that ‘love has no feelings’, because ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’, and that ‘truth cannot be found in beauty nor thought for both are thought’ I therefore take it that you are thoughtless when this ‘empty vessel’ business is happening? If so, what is the difference between your thoughtless mind and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s defenceless mind? He obviously has deep feelings (of love and beauty) and you do not ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. RESPONDENT: The difference Richard, is where he stopped I passed by. RICHARD: Yes, you told me this last year too. Where he stopped (Enlightenment) you passed by (Transformation) and ... and ... then what? You give no more information to show what is the difference betwixt ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Transformation’ ... and you promote being an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to pass through’ (the same-same as enlightened people do). You say that ‘Love has no feelings and that Truth is not of thought or beauty’, right? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that he has ‘deep feelings (of love and beauty)’ and you say that ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’ ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment? If you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate, one can only take you to be a wanker. * RICHARD: Does it not have an affective component (as in ‘it was so beautiful it took my breath away’)? RESPONDENT: NO, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Are you holding Mr. J Krishnamurti as my leader, authority? If so please drop it. RICHARD: No ... I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric. RESPONDENT: You have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said; you just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... whereas you do have an idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, eh? I take it that you do not just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed? What is your secret? Do you have psychic access to the disembodied spirit of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti or something? * RICHARD: And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought?’ RESPONDENT: Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’. (‘Freedom From The Known’, ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). RESPONDENT: He was speaking to a large number of people and used words to appeal to them all, for they do not speak in distinctions: they generalize. RICHARD: Okay ... given that you know what he meant by the words that he used (and that you know that to see the truth in what K says is as equally important as it is to see where he missed just a bit), will you make the distinctions for those who do ‘not speak in distinctions’ so as to clear up this mess that he left behind? You see, peoples like me take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, so it would be of great assistance if you could point out which is which. * RICHARD: The reason that I ask is that he is definitely saying that ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ are all one and the same thing ... with no ifs, buts or maybes. RESPONDENT: To you, yes! RICHARD: Maybe you have psychic access to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s secret ‘Teachings’ whilst I have only the recorded books to go by. What I see, and not only in this quote but in many, many others I have, that he is not so secretive about the nature, disposition or character of ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ as you are and responded to questioners honestly and openly. I see that he cared about the plight of humankind. * RICHARD: Silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all? (...) Upon closer examination, yet another shining light of the K-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. Oh well, c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: What is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect). RICHARD: It means ‘such is life’ as in ‘what else could one expect’ (I use it to ‘note’ that what is happening now is the same-same as what has always been happening and will continue to happen like it has already been happening unless someone does something radical so as to subvert the status quo). Basically I ‘noted’ that you are merely repeating the past. RESPONDENT: Thanks, perhaps the past can only see the past, and then note it? No. 10, being radical. RICHARD: No ... it is all very simple: I sit here now, at this moment in time and have great fun scrolling back through all yours and my correspondence that I keep in a long document in my word processor. Thus no taxing of the memory banks are required ... I freshen my recollection each time I write and discover anew how much you repeat the past. For example, you have written:
Oops ... that was you talking about the past – and 19 years into the past at that – was it not? And to think that you were just saying to me that ‘perhaps the past can only see the past’ , eh? Or were you merely throwing something puerile at me again so that you could ‘note’ my response? RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, perhaps if we can sort all of this out we could find a mental meeting place for actual conversation. RICHARD: Good. My part of the conversation has been actual all along and I have been enjoying myself immensely. I guess it will be good for you, too, when it becomes mutual. As for a ‘mental meeting place’ , I would suggest setting anything that stands in the way of peace on earth on the agenda for exploration, examination and discovery. Who knows, maybe another 160,000,000 million peoples will not have to be killed in wars by their fellow human beings in this coming century? It is possible. RESPONDENT: I wonder if you could clean this mess up before you (if you do) respond. Whatever software you use I know nothing about and it is hard to find the new messages inside the clutter of the old. RICHARD: Hmm ... I manage to wade through your posts (like the exchange you are having with ‘No. 00’, for example) without complaining. Different software programmes make for different formats and sometimes strange effects result in the change-over. It sure beats using postal mail or carrier pigeon, though. As for software, I use Microsoft Office 2000 (supposedly the solution to the differing formats) and always indicate my new message with the ‘number’ symbol. * RICHARD: I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information. RESPONDENT: When he says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling. RICHARD: Okay ... you have already told me this three E-mails ago. Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘Love: has no feelings’. [Respondent]: ‘Beauty: It is of thought that beauty is born’. [endquotes]. What I am endeavouring to ascertain is if Love is not affective ... what is its disposition? If Love is not cognitive ... what is its constitution? If Love is not sensate ... what is its nature? Do you not see why I wish to put love and compassion and beauty and truth and so on under the same scrutiny that this Mailing List gives to thought? It is because there is quite some cloudiness around this issue which needs clarifying and, seeing that you are channelling this miraculous cure-all through to a benighted humanity, to remain ignorant of the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth would indicate that you actually do not care about your fellow human. And surely you do care, eh? RESPONDENT: The rest of the above is true. RICHARD: When I delete all references to where he obviously does not support your ‘beauty is of thought and love has no feeling’ stance, so as to ascertain what you see as true, what is left is him bagging the intellect and praising sensitivity. Vis.:
So, may I ask why you, too, bag the intellect and yet praise an (as yet unexplained) non-affective sensitivity? I already know that you are anti-thought (like all enlightened people) but they are anti-thought because they favour the affective faculty over the cognitive faculty. As you do not, what do you favour over the cognitive faculty if it be not the affective faculty? Speaking personally, I extol the virtues of both the sensate faculty and cognitive faculty ... and consign the affective faculty to the trash bin (disposing of the entire psyche) by eliminating the instinctual passions all sentient beings are born with ... which means the extinction of self in it’s entirety. What is sensitivity (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a vulnerable mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a defenceless mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? RESPONDENT: To see the truth in what K says is important, equally important is to see where he missed just a bit. RICHARD: Indeed so. May I ask? How come you are allowed to have idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, whereas you tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said? In fact, you go so far as to say that I just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. Yet here you are telling me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ... but if I am silly enough to do just this what you tell me to do you will tell me that I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said! RESPONDENT: I was speaking as I speak and doing as I do long before ever reading something K said. RICHARD: I never said that you were not ... in fact, I remember it well from when you told me this last year. RESPONDENT: To me he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet! RICHARD: Arguably he was, yes ... but as he is physically dead he is not now. Where you say ‘was/is’ is it because you had not heard about his demise or do you consider he is still present in bodiless spirit? RESPONDENT: No as I have been told he is dead, and yet the words he wrote are still here. RICHARD: Yet when I read the self-same words (and you tell me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ), and take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, you tell me I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said, and that I just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. What do you advise me to do? * RICHARD: The reason that I ask what you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP> is that he seems to be saying ‘it is essential to have that deep feeling for life’ and that it ‘is essential to appreciate beauty’ because beauty ‘is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth’. Furthermore, it is because ‘we do not have that feeling for beauty’ that ‘there is no love’ because ‘love is really the very essence of beauty’. In fact, he says again, ‘it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ and that you must have a ‘sensitive mind’ , which is a ‘defenceless mind’, because it is such a ‘vulnerable mind’ that can allow ‘truth to enter’. Yet you say that beauty is solely the product of thought ... and you ought to know because you have oft-times explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through. Now, as you also say that ‘love has no feelings’ , because ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’, and that ‘truth cannot be found in beauty nor thought for both are thought’. I therefore take it that you are thoughtless when this ‘empty vessel’ business is happening? If so, what is the difference between your thoughtless mind and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s defenceless mind? He obviously has deep feelings (of love and beauty) and you do not ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. RESPONDENT: The difference Richard, is where he stopped I passed by. RICHARD: Yes, you told me this last year too. Where he stopped (Enlightenment) you passed by (Transformation) and ... and ... then what? You give no more information to show what is the difference betwixt ‘Enlightenment’ and ‘Transformation’ ... and you promote being an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to pass through (the same-same as enlightened people do). You say that Love has no feelings and that Truth is not of thought or beauty, right? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that he has ‘deep feelings (of love and beauty)’ and you say that ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’ ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment? RESPONDENT: Richard I have explained this to you before, and yet you do not hear, so what good would it be for me to explain anew? RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking the fact that I keep all of your and my E-Mails in a long document in my word processor and it is a simple task to type <transformation> into the search function, refreshing my recollection of what we have conversed about. Upon reading this response of yours I have revisited everything we have covered and nowhere at all have you ‘explained this to Richard before’ ... thus making your response an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do . Vis.:
If you have bothered to read this far, it will have become obvious that if you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is, then there is no substance in what you promote. RESPONDENT: I have never been enlightened, nor do I care to be. RICHARD: Good. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? * RICHARD: Does beauty not have an affective component (as in ‘it was so beautiful it took my breath away’)? RESPONDENT: NO, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: <SNIP> RESPONDENT: Are you holding Mr. J Krishnamurti as my leader, authority? If so please drop it. RICHARD: No ... I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? RESPONDENT: You have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said; you just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. RICHARD: Hokey-dokey ... whereas you do have an idea of what he said, or what he did in order to say what he said, eh? I take it that you do not just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed? Given that you know what he meant by the words that he used (and that you know that to see the truth in what K says is as equally important as it is to see where he missed just a bit), will you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate just what it was that he did in order to say what he said? * RICHARD: And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought?’ RESPONDENT: Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. RICHARD: Okay ... what do you make of this statement: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘That state of mind which is no longer capable of striving is the true religious mind, and in that state of mind you may come upon this thing called truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’. (‘Freedom From The Known’, ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). RESPONDENT: He was speaking to a large number of people and used words to appeal to them all, for they do not speak in distinctions: they generalize. RICHARD: Okay ... given that you know what he meant by the words that he used (and that you know that to see the truth in what K says is as equally important as it is to see where he missed just a bit), will you make the distinctions for those who do ‘not speak in distinctions’ so as to clear up this mess that he left behind? You see, peoples like me take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, so it would be of great assistance if you could point out which is which. * RICHARD: The reason that I ask is that he is definitely saying that ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ are all one and the same thing ... with no ifs, buts or maybes. RESPONDENT: To you, yes! RICHARD: Maybe you have psychic access to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s secret ‘Teachings’ whilst I have only the recorded books to go by. What I see, and not only in this quote but in many, many others I have, that he is not so secretive about the nature, disposition or character of ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ as you are and responded to questioners honestly and openly. I see that he cared about the plight of humankind. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? * RICHARD: Silly me kind of assumed, because you were writing on a Mailing List purporting to be dedicated to the exploration of the appalling mess that is the human condition, that you might actually participate in an exploration. I guess not, eh? Are love and compassion and beauty sacrosanct after all? (...) Upon closer examination, yet another shining light of the K-List shows his true colours and scurries for cover. Oh well, c’est la vie, I guess. RESPONDENT: What is c’est la vie, (just a short answer would be perfect). RICHARD: It means ‘such is life’ as in ‘what else could one expect’ (I use it to ‘note’ that what is happening now is the same-same as what has always been happening and will continue to happen like it has already been happening unless someone does something radical so as to subvert the status quo). Basically I ‘noted’ that you are merely repeating the past. RESPONDENT: Thanks, perhaps the past can only see the past, and then note it? No. 10, being radical. RICHARD: No ... it is all very simple: I sit here now, at this moment in time and have great fun scrolling back through all yours and my correspondence that I keep in a long document in my word processor. Thus no taxing of the memory banks are required ... I freshen my recollection each time I write and discover anew how much you repeat the past. For example, you have written:
Oops ... that was you talking about the past – and 19 years into the past at that – was it not? And to think that you were just saying to me that ‘perhaps the past can only see the past’, eh? Or were you merely throwing something puerile at me again so that you could ‘note’ my response? RESPONDENT: No, and I always note my own and others response, no matter! RICHARD: But instead of merely ‘noting’ , could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? RESPONDENT: There is a collective past and an individual past my reference was to the collective. RICHARD: Yet my explanation of what I meant by c’est la vie was a reference to you repeating the past ... not the collective. Why did you try to change the subject and deflect it away from yourself and onto the collective? Is it because you will not or cannot explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? RESPONDENT: Thanks Richard, perhaps if we can sort all of this out we could find a mental meeting place for actual conversation. RICHARD: Good. My part of the conversation has been actual all along and I have been enjoying myself immensely. I guess it will be good for you, too, when it becomes mutual. As for a ‘mental meeting place’ , I would suggest setting anything that stands in the way of peace on earth on the agenda for exploration, examination and discovery. Who knows, maybe another 160,000,000 million peoples will not have to be killed in wars by their fellow human beings in this coming century? It is possible. RESPONDENT: I would suggest that we place peace with ourselves first, for without that no peace on earth will ever happen. We, given our selfish petty minds destroy ourselves first then the destruction of others becomes easy. It is out of our own violence that the collective violence is born. RICHARD: I am proposing, from my own direct experience, that it is out of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression that the individual violence is born. The collective violence is but individuals gathering together for support so as to be as big – if not bigger – than the collection of individuals that they are fighting. RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves? RICHARD: The instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... which give rise to malice and sorrow and thence all the other cultivated feelings and emotions are the result of socialisation. What do you propose as being the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’ ? RICHARD: I have no interest in guessing what is going on in your mind ... and your responses in this thread so far have contained infinitesimal amounts of information. RESPONDENT: What are some of the ‘infinitesimal amounts of information’? RICHARD: Oh ... allow me to re-post all that you have contributed, to this exploration into the Love and/or Truth that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for, so that you can see for yourself. Vis.:
So, stripping out all that is not information about Love and/or Truth, I see that you are saying: ‘Feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie! Love: has no feelings; is eternal; cannot be ‘perfectly’ described. Compassion: something a person needs for themself to themself 100% of the day. Beauty: it is of thought that beauty is born. Beauty must be thought first then exclaimed, the claim ‘it took my breath away’ is from thought. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. When K says ‘for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ he has missed the mark, beauty is of thought and love has no feeling. Truth cannot be found in beauty, nor thought for both are thought. Love is none of the three, they (sensate, cognitive, affective) they are all of thought which is and confusion in action’. I do not know what you make of it all, but what I understand is that this Love and/or Truth, that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for so as to transform ‘all of NATURE’, is not sensate, not affective and not cognitive ... which means that it is an immaterial, eternal (bodiless) Love and/or Truth, eh? A metaphysical Love and/or Truth, in other words ... and the nature, character, constitution or disposition of which either you are ignorant of or are being secretive about. Which is it? * RICHARD: What I am endeavouring to ascertain is if Love is not affective ... what is its disposition? If Love is not cognitive ... what is its constitution? If Love is not sensate ... what is its nature? RESPONDENT: Love is none of the three, they (sensate, cognitive, affective) they are all of thought which is and confusion in action. RICHARD: Okay ... is the physical (this body and that body and the mountains and streams and planets and stars) actual or ‘all of thought’ too? * RICHARD: May I ask why you, too, bag the intellect and yet praise an (as yet unexplained) non-affective sensitivity? I already know that you are anti-thought (like all enlightened people) but they are anti-thought because they favour the affective faculty over the cognitive faculty. As you do not, what do you favour over the cognitive faculty if it be not the affective faculty? What is sensitivity (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a vulnerable mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? What is a defenceless mind (for you)? What is its nature, its character, its disposition? RESPONDENT: Sensitivity: 100% sensitive to our universe, world, self and ALL of the people on this planet (not in this order it has no pecking order with me). RICHARD: If I may point out? This is a tautological answer and conveys no information about the nature, character, constitution or disposition of sensitivity. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s sensitivity was affective (deep feeling) ... what is yours? RESPONDENT: Nature: the thing we live with on this planet and it is a violent as we are, if we Transform, all of NATURE will as well! RICHARD: Hmm ... an unsolicited statement, completely out of context, but ... okay: will all the animals transform in this ‘if we Transform, all of NATURE will as well!’ scenario of yours? RESPONDENT: Vulnerable mind: A mind that is 100% open, there is no way to hurt it for the open mind has no ego, has no need to be right, has no pain, has no anger, has no argument, has no reason, has no justification, has no explanation for it’s action. A vulnerable mind is a mind of Love, Intelligence and insight. Transformed! RICHARD: Ahh ... good. Could you explain or describe what this ‘Love’ and ‘Intelligence’, that your vulnerable mind is host to, is made up of? * RESPONDENT: The words K wrote are still here (...) he was/is a quantum beyond the people of this planet. RICHARD: Yet when I read the self-same words (and you tell me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’ ), and take his words literally, instead of interpreting them, you tell me I have no idea of what he said nor what he did in order to say what he said, and that I just ‘study’ his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed. What do you advise me to do? RESPONDENT: Hum don’t know, perhaps: do not take advice! Damn now I have advised, my mistake. RICHARD: Then why tell me that it is important that I ‘see the truth in what K says’ and that it is ‘equally important is to see where he missed just a bit’? Am I to just ignore you? Why do you write to this Mailing List (purportedly set up to explore the appalling mess that is the human condition) if you advise people not to take any notice of what you say, even though you tell me I have ‘no idea of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said nor what he did in order to say what he said’ , and that I just ‘study his words and use them to be ‘right’ when needed’ as if I should listen to you? * RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti seems to be saying ‘it is essential to have that deep feeling for life’ and that it ‘is essential to appreciate beauty’ because beauty ‘is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth’. Furthermore, it is because ‘we do not have that feeling for beauty’ that ‘there is no love’ because ‘love is really the very essence of beauty’. In fact, he says again, ‘it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’ and that you must have a ‘sensitive mind’ , which is a ‘defenceless mind’, because it is such a ‘vulnerable mind’ that can allow ‘truth to enter’. Yet you say that beauty is solely the product of thought ... and you ought to know because you have oft-times explained how you are an ‘empty vessel’ for Love and/or Truth to come through. Now, as you also say that ‘love has no feelings’, because ‘feelings are not real, they are like knowledge, a lie’, and that ‘truth cannot be found in beauty nor thought for both are thought’ what is the difference between your thoughtless mind and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s defenceless mind? He obviously has deep feelings (of love and beauty) and you do not ... yet you are both channelling love and truth through to a benighted humanity. So, what I am endeavouring to ascertain is, if Love and Truth are not affective ... what is their disposition? If Love and Truth are not cognitive ... what is their constitution? If Love and Truth are not sensate ... what is their nature? Do you not see why I wish to have you explain the constitution, disposition or nature of Love and Truth so that I will understand what it is that you passed on by to after enlightenment? RESPONDENT: Richard I have explained this to you before, and yet you do not hear, so what good would it be for me to explain anew? RICHARD: You do seem to be overlooking the fact that I keep all of your and my E-Mails in a long document in my word processor and it is a simple task to type <transformation> into the search function, refreshing my recollection of what we have conversed about. Upon reading this response of yours I have revisited everything we have covered and nowhere at all have you ‘explained this to Richard before’ ... thus making your response an out-and-out avoidance of answering honestly ... and by saying that, because Richard ‘does not hear then what good would it be for you to explain anew’, you are making yourself look silly by accusing me of something I just do not do. It is obvious that if you will not explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is, then there is no substance in what you promote. RESPONDENT: Richard, the error message I get with all of your messages is Java script error line 27 document classes. Mso Normal P. Margin is missing! RICHARD: Yeah ... unlike yourself though, Microsoft is addressing the situation, and will be providing ‘fixes’ and ‘patches’ on their ‘live update’ web site. Will you acknowledge that you have never ‘explained this to Richard before’ and, so as to show that there is substance in what you promote, will you provide an update also? Are all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides just a joke to you? * RICHARD: I am poking around so as to somehow or another have you give forth of something more substantial than empty rhetoric. Could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? RESPONDENT: Yes, Transformation is the Possibility of a new world. RICHARD: Not at the rate you are going ... what is ‘Transformation’ and in what way is it different from ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’? * RESPONDENT: I always note my own and others response, no matter! RICHARD: But instead of merely ‘noting’, could you explain, expand, expound, explore or in some way explicate what the nature, character and disposition of ‘Transformation’ is? RESPONDENT: Yes, Transformation is the ending of the old and the beginning of new simultaneously for sure! RICHARD: And what is this ‘new’ made up of? What does it look like, taste like, feel like, seem like or whatever description you can come up with. You say that you had this ‘Transformation’ happen 19 years ago ... how much longer do you need to have before you can explain what it is? * RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves? RICHARD: The instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... which give rise to malice and sorrow and thence all the other cultivated feelings and emotions are the result of socialisation. What do you propose as being the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’ ? RESPONDENT: The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans. RICHARD: Okay ... why do all peoples (6.0 billion living and perhaps 4.0 billion that have lived) ‘give themselves up’ at such a young age? Is this the result of physical causes (genetic inheritance) or metaphysical causes (like the Christian ‘born in sin’ or the Buddhist ‘born of samsara’ and so on)? Such a mass result must have a mass cause (and not be each very young infant’s personal failing) surely? RESPONDENT: Now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away for reality, that of being Human. RICHARD: Okay, ‘just people’ are characterised by malice and sorrow (affective drives and impulses) ... what is ‘being Human’ characterised by (what is the character of Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence)? And perhaps a more useful answer than what Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence are not, this time? What are they? RICHARD: I would suggest setting anything that stands in the way of peace on earth on the agenda for exploration, examination and discovery. RESPONDENT: I would suggest that we place peace with ourselves first, for without that no peace on earth will ever happen. We, given our selfish petty minds destroy ourselves first then the destruction of others becomes easy. It is out of our own violence that the collective violence is born. RICHARD: I am proposing, from my own direct experience, that it is out of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression that the individual violence is born. The collective violence is but individuals gathering together for support so as to be as big – if not bigger – than the collection of individuals that they are fighting. RESPONDENT: What causes our own personal violence towards ourselves? RICHARD: The instinctual passions of fear and aggression and nurture and desire ... which give rise to malice and sorrow and thence all the other cultivated feelings and emotions are the result of socialisation. What do you propose as being the cause of ‘our own personal violence towards ourselves’ ? RESPONDENT: The fact that we as a child (before the age of four) gave ourselves up and became robots rather than humans. RICHARD: Okay ... why do all peoples (6.0 billion living and perhaps 4.0 billion that have lived) ‘give themselves up’ at such a young age? Is this the result of physical causes (genetic inheritance) or metaphysical causes (like the Christian ‘born in sin’ or the Buddhist ‘born of samsara’ and so on)? Such a mass result must have a mass cause (and not be each very young infant’s personal failing) surely? RESPONDENT: No Richard it is caused by each parent or whoever cares for the child at and after birth, they begin the process of ‘conditioning’ based on there own conditioning, we have never known what to do to actually join our children we just control them just as we are controlled, this has been going on since the first children only now it is FAR worse and so are the products. RICHARD: An immediate question springs to mind (where you say ‘this has been going on since the first children’) which is: who conditioned ‘the first children’? RESPONDENT: Our children will soon be us, given forever we (and all of the we’s before us) did not know what to do to be Parents, we ‘thought’ that they would learn only what we taught them, but no, they learned ALL of what we were and then emulated us, this began thousands of years ago. RICHARD: Again the question arises: how did all this ‘learning and emulating’ that ‘began thousands of years ago’ begin all those thousands of years ago? RESPONDENT: And now we have the ‘fruits of our labour to view’ how did we do? To me it comes down to this as to our children (and our self) we are a totally failed people who do not ‘see’ the ignorance of our self. RICHARD: What is the cause of this ‘ignorance of our self’ that human beings do not ‘see’ ? What was the initial cause of ‘the first children’ having the malice and sorrow that set off all the ensuing wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides that has rolled down through the aeons? RESPONDENT: So we blame others and raise our children to be idiots ‘just like us’. Then to be even a BIGGER idiot we look everywhere for the solution, except we do not look to our self and our total ignorance. Hum. No. 10, for whom ignorance is the place to start, by not knowing (it is the unknown). RICHARD: Do I understand this correctly so far? You say that:
Perhaps you could add a little more before you proceed (I put the question [??] marks in only as a suggestion for where something seems to be somewhat missing)? Also, where you say ‘to actually join our children’ are you saying, that before the age of four, children are already in the same state as you are in your ‘Transformed’ state and that to join them there will be beneficial? If they are not, why would it be of benefit to ‘actually join our children’ given that it is a well-known fact that children can be – and oft-times are – quite malicious brats and somewhat sorrowful types before the age of four? Also, are you familiar with the ‘Tabula Rasa’ philosophy? * RESPONDENT: Now we are just people, which is 3 million years (miles) away from reality, that of being Human. RICHARD: Okay, ‘just people’ are characterised by malice and sorrow (affective drives and impulses) ... what is ‘being Human’ characterised by (what is the character of Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence)? And perhaps a more useful answer than what Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence are not, this time? What are they? RESPONDENT: They are: energy filled, with the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light, there Intelligence is millions of miles (years) beyond the non intelligence of this world, for this world is just knowledge filled, confusion being added to confusion for thousands of years, and they speak the truth with themselves impeccably, with a 100% Love for every person on this planet. Damn Richard, this explaining stuff is hard for a 90% illiterate person. RESPONDENT No. 19: Is there a ‘being’ that transcends time and space within the organism of the human being? RESPONDENT: Yes. RICHARD: Have I understood this so far? Vis.:
Please correct me where I am in error. [This post is off-topic.] RESPONDENT: Damn Richard, why does my computer have a problem getting your messages. If I see it is from you I just delete it, given I get about 3 or 4 Java errors each time. However sometimes I delete an already read message and one form you is next, then the problem begins. Do you know why? It only happens with your messages? RICHARD: Different software programmes make for different formats and sometimes strange effects result in the digital translation from one format to another. I had a similar situation to what you describe last year when E-Mails from one correspondent on this Mailing List persistently came through as size 16 font in ‘bold’ ... and then somehow made every other E-Mail that followed the same. The solution? I disabled the ‘consider as read within 5 seconds’ command and would delete the offending headers as they appeared in the preview pane without opening them (I could read them later in the archives). Eventually I unsubscribed (for other reasons) and these days I access all posts via the archives. As for the software I use, I am running Microsoft Office Suite 2000 Pro (supposedly the solution to the differing formats but not so) and send my E-Mails from ‘FrontPage 2000 through ‘Outlook 2000’ (as sending them from ‘Word 2000’ or direct from ‘Outlook 2000’ resulted in hieroglyphics instead of the higher ᴀsᴄɪɪ characters). Microsoft say they are ‘working on the problem’ ... I have tried some other programmes but unless I were to learn ᴜɴɪx or ʟɪɴᴜx they are not particularly better than Microsoft. This personal computer business is still in its ‘early days’ and maybe these issues will be resolved eventually ... or maybe not: look at the incompatibility of nuts and bolts (British Standard Fine (ʙsғ); British Standard Whitworth (ʙsᴡ); Unified Thread Standard (ᴜᴛs); Metric; and so on). In Australia, each state had differing rail gauges (width) in its early years which made for laborious change-overs of bogies in order to cross over the dotted lines! The same with plumbing, HiFi equipment; currency and so on and so on. It is a global village in name only yet. Despite its shortcomings it sure beats using postal mail or carrier pigeon, though. The almost instantaneous multiple feed-back capacity of a Mailing List is second to none. RICHARD: What I understand is that this Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, that you are an ‘empty vessel’ for so as to transform ‘all of NATURE’ , is not sensate, not affective and not cognitive ... which means that it is an immaterial, eternal (bodiless) Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, eh? A metaphysical Love and/or Truth and/or Intelligence, in other words ... and the nature, character, constitution or disposition of which either you are ignorant of or are being secretive about. Which is it? RESPONDENT: Well Richard it is given so far I am ‘ignorant of’ knowing what to say about Transformation, that I have not said and still you do not see that it cannot be understood, it can only be ‘seen’ for to understand means to fragment the context (or whole meaning). RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that you are ‘ignorant of knowing what to say’ because this that will ‘transform all of NATURE’ cannot be understood as it ‘can only be ‘seen’’ and to understand would ‘fragment the context (or whole meaning)’ ... which throws the word ‘intelligence’ (the ability to comprehend, understand and know) into meaning something similar to ignorance (non-comprehending, non-understanding and not-knowing, eh? Can you throw any light onto why peoples who have ‘the ability to move mentally at speeds faster than light’ would make such a crass mistake as to use the word ‘intelligence’ to describe this state of not-knowing, not-understanding and not-comprehending what it is that will bring about peace on earth? RESPONDENT: I will give it another go, huh? There is a possibility for the end of suffering, misery, killing, child molestation, robbery, murder, wife beating etc. This possibility is HUGE for it is real, Transformation is the ending of the consciousness that allows all of the above and of course much more, for it means the end of the family, church, government, all of what now brings forth only more suffering and misery. This Transformation leaves a ‘void’ where violence was in the human brain and allows a ‘clear’ view of the internal working of and for each human. RICHARD: Okay ... what I get by now is that by using the word ‘clear’ you do not actually mean clear (as in distinct, unambiguous, unmistakeable) do you? You probably mean ‘unclear’ (indistinguishable, ambiguous, indefinite), eh? RESPONDENT: Out of the happening I call Transformation comes a new human with a new consciousness, one that cannot return to the old one for he/she will be new and simultaneously be able to ‘see’ all of the old consciousness. RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that by putting ‘see’ in quotes you do not actually mean perceive, grasp, establish, and ensure anything distinctly, unambiguously and unmistakeably definite about ‘all of the old consciousness’ as in comprehending, understanding and knowing why all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides happen in the first place, do you? You probably mean ‘see’ as in ‘I don’t know’? RESPONDENT: There will be for each Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth not like what the current ‘consciousness’ it is for this one is real real. RICHARD: Okay ... what I get by you using ‘real’ twice is that you do not mean a real love, compassion, intelligence and truth (as in cognitive, affective or sensate) but the ‘real real’ Love, Compassion, Intelligence and Truth of a metaphysical, eternal (bodiless) transcendent ‘being’ that takes the place of the ‘old consciousness’ when a happening born out of ignorance occurs. In other words, you allowed an unknown bodiless entity to possess you 19 years ago. RESPONDENT: The cause of this Transformation will be people who speak the truth to themselves 100% no matter and those who speak the truth will be able to see that all of what they have done has been a 100% failure, this will set up a dynamic so Huge it simply burns the old and out of the ashes, the new will be born. No. 10, explaining, fragmenting and creating at the same time! RICHARD: Okay ... what I get is that your ‘Transformation’ is the same-same as the ‘Tried and Failed’ mystical ‘Enlightenment’ with its ever unfulfillable pledge of a peace on earth ... unfulfillable because its ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ is a bodiless peace. Were you sucked in by the promise of a spurious post-mortem reward too? CORRESPONDENT No. 10 (Part Three) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one. Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity |