|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: There is nothing new in the idea of using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening. If effort at self-mastery makes sense to you right now, so be it. The nondualistic approach is difficult to penetrate.RICHARD: I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because, first of all, I have explained to you that ‘to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming’ and that the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct and, secondly, ‘mindfulness’ is a Buddhist term that I never use and it involves a total withdrawal of self from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ which is another term I never use and, thirdly, I speak of ‘self-immolation’ and not ‘self mastery’. I have never, ever said anything whatsoever that could possibly persuade you to make such inaccurate and unsubstantiated comments about what Richard is on about ... leaving me no option but to consider you ignorant (as in ignoring what I write) or ignorant (as in stupid). RESPONDENT: To ask and stay aware of what I am experiencing now is mindfulness. RICHARD: The word ‘mindfulness’ is an English word that means ‘taking heed or care; being conscious or aware; paying attention to, being heedful of, being watchful of, being regardful of, being cognizant of, being aware of, being conscious of, taking into account, being alert to, being alive to, being sensible of, being careful of, being wary of, being chary of’ and may be used, more or less, the same as ‘watchfulness’, ‘heedfulness’, ‘regardfulness’, ‘attentiveness’, and to a lesser extent ‘carefulness’, ‘sensibleness’, ‘wariness’. However, the word ‘mindfulness’ has taken-on the Buddhist meaning of the word for most seekers (the same as the word ‘meditation’ which used to mean ‘think over; ponder’), and no longer has the every-day meaning as per the dictionary. The Buddhist connotations come from the Pali ‘Bhavana’ (the English translation of the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ is ‘Insight Meditation’). ‘Bhavana’ comes from the root ‘Bhu’, which means ‘to grow’ or ‘to become’. There fore, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘to cultivate’, and, as the word is always used in reference to the mind, ‘Bhavana’ means ‘mental cultivation’. ‘Vipassana’ is derived from two roots: ‘Passana’, which means ‘seeing’ or ‘perceiving’ and ‘Vi’ (which is a prefix with the complex set of connotations) basically means ‘in a special way’ but there also is the connotation of both ‘into’ and ‘through’. The whole meaning of the word ‘Vipassana’, then, is looking into something with meticulousness discernment, seeing each component as distinct and separate, and piercing all the way through so as to perceive the most fundamental reality of that thing. This process leads to intuition into the basic reality of whatever is being inspected. Put it all together and ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life. They train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this special mode of perception: ‘mindfulness’. Which is why I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because ‘mindfulness’ is clearly a Buddhist term and involves a total withdrawal from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ (which is another term I never use), apart from which, to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming ... the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. And how to bring about extinction? By asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. Given that this is one’s only moment of being alive, if one is not experiencing the peace-on-earth that is already always here now, then one is wasting this moment of being alive by settling for second-best ... it means that the long evolutionary process that produced this flesh and blood human being has come to naught. But, here is another moment, another opportunity, to actually be here now – where one’s destiny is – and how is one experiencing this moment? More often than not one is experiencing this moment through a feeling – standing back and feeling it out like putting a toe into the water – instead of jumping-in boots and all. Thus one can find out what brought about this feeling that is preventing me from being here now and through this ‘hands-on’ examination have it vanish ... and the reward is immediate and direct. This actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... which is a further withdrawal from this actual world. RESPONDENT: If it is a technique to bring about a desired result such as self-immolation or freedom from conditioned reaction, it is effort at self-mastery in which the old me is gone and the desired state only remains, i.e.: attainment. RICHARD: Goodness me, no ... ‘self-mastery’ is all about imposing discipline, order, regulation, control, restraint, obedience and so on. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is self-sacrifice ... how can it be seen by you as ‘self-mastery’? You are stretching a long bow, here. RESPONDENT: Dualistic approach is effort to bring about a desired result of freedom for me. It starts with belief that I know what is and I know what I want, what should be, so I will work to get there. But that is like a fish trying to become water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect. RICHARD: Indeed ... you are, more or less acceptably, describing the Buddhist approach, although the Buddhist Bhikkhu and Bhikkhuni starts with the attitude that they cannot know in advance ‘what is’ (‘Isness’) or ‘what they want’ (‘Nirvana’) or ‘what should be’ (‘Deathless’) really is like, but that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan does. Hence the necessity of ‘taking refuge’ in the Buddha (the awakened one), in the ‘Dhamma’ (the timeless law) and in the ‘Sangha’ (the community of perfected people). I would agree with you that all this is a belief as in faith (and, further, that the word ‘refuge’ is but a code-word for ‘surrender’) but Buddhists will shake their heads knowingly and tell me that I just do not understand. RESPONDENT: I suspect they are right. RICHARD: Why? What does ‘I take refuge in the Buddha, the Dhamma, the Sangha’ mean to you? * RICHARD: The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless an spaceless and formless absolute’. RESPONDENT: The state of the man or woman determines the level of understanding and it is understanding that determines approach. Emptiness can not be understood conceptually. RICHARD: Then why talk to me about it? If you can say that ‘fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect’ then why can I not say that the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ is a ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute’? You do this quite often – introduce a topic giving your view on it – then when the discussion gets going you come out with your stock-standard response that grinds everything to a halt. If you will not discuss it then why start in the first place? * RESPONDENT: One does not become the other. They are two aspects of one actuality. So the interest in a non-dualistic approach is not becoming water or one with water but rather in understanding what is this fish that appears to be separate from the water? The issue is not how do I get what I want but rather, what is? RICHARD: Indeed ... you are, more or less acceptably, describing the Advaita Vedantist approach, (with ‘Brahma’ and ‘Maya’ being two aspects of ‘That’), and that the aim is not to ‘become’ but to ‘be’; to realise that one has never been separate from ‘what is’ (as ‘Brahma’) in the first place because ‘what is’ (as ‘Maya’) is seen to be the ‘what is’ known in Hinduism as being ‘That’ (as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti describes so well at the very end of seven dialogues over three days with Mr. David Bohm and Mr. David Shainburg). Viz.:
RESPONDENT: If there is ‘only that’ what K says may be understood. Otherwise they are only words. RICHARD: Another cop out ... why not engage yourself in the discussion and see what happens? * RICHARD: Funny how you described the ‘dualistic approach’ as ‘starting with a belief’ but were remarkably silent about the belief part of the ‘non-dualistic approach’ eh? Because ‘seeing in the false the truth’ is code-word for seeing in ‘what is’ as ‘Maya’ (the false) the ‘what is’ as ‘Brahma’ (the truth), and that ‘this seeing’ (that ‘Maya’ is ‘Brahma’) is a ‘state of meditation’ (which is another way of saying ‘one must start with freedom’) which is essential in order to come upon ‘the ultimate thing’ ... which is ‘That’ (the Hindu ‘timeless an spaceless and formless absolute). RESPONDENT: There is no choice but to study what is from direct observation. RICHARD: Aye, this is what I am doing. RESPONDENT: The truth liberates and philosophical knowledge is not truth. RICHARD: The truth that you are seeking (by pretending not to seek it) is otherwise known as ‘That’ ... even the man who you like to quote makes this explicitly clear. Or, to put it another way: that which the word ‘truth’ points to is the same-same as what the word ‘That’ points to. * RICHARD: It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description (‘supreme intelligence’), lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous. But, if it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing. Of course, it is possible to be actually free of the human condition ... but it is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the ‘tried and true’. RESPONDENT: As was suggested the issue is not how do I get what I want (e.g. an imagined immortality) but rather, what is? RICHARD: Aye ... but you want ‘what is’ to produce ‘the otherness’, which, ‘being not touched by thought’, is the ‘sacred’, eh? Otherwise why do you do all this? Why not take up stamp collecting instead? RESPONDENT: Looking from not knowing does not involve ideas of success or failure. RICHARD: Goodness me ... to be missing out on the peace-on-earth that is here right now is such a massive failure that it beggars description. Do you not care about what you are doing to your fellow human by continuing to nurse malice and sorrow to your bosom? Which do you fear most: failing ... or succeeding?
RICHARD (to No 25): I have only the recorded scriptures to go by. Those multitudinous
scriptures consistently point to a total withdrawal from this sensate physical world. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s advice is for a
total disassociation of self from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is
not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... as he so clearly enunciates to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’
Sutta (‘The Discourse on the Not-self Characteristic’, SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66) RESPONDENT: No, that is a misunderstanding. If there is no self in phenomenal existence there is no self to disassociate from it either. RICHARD: Upon closer examination, methinks you will find that it is not a ‘misunderstanding’ at all. Just look at the discourse quoted (above):
RESPONDENT: It is you that raise the question: what is what I am? RICHARD: I am responding to Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s statement ‘but precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease’ thus he raises the question, not me ... and he uses the word ‘precisely’ thus clearly pointing out that the self that is incorruptible is not subject to ‘dis-ease’ so therefore it cannot be the flesh and blood body. Indeed, he goes on and emphasises the point by saying ‘is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’ ... because it is not fitting that the constant, stressless and unchanging self be subject to change. How can you say that I raise the question? RESPONDENT: That calls for projecting and labelling. RICHARD: Why? What about seeing, insight, realisation? Why can one not have a direct perception into the nature of the self that does not ‘lend itself to dis-ease’ or is not ‘subject to change’? RESPONDENT: If the false is seen as false, there is only what is. RICHARD: Aye ... and ‘what is’ is the unchanging and incorruptible ... the ‘Timeless Self’. RESPONDENT: And there is no one that stands apart to observe and name. RICHARD: There is no ‘standing apart’, true ... but the less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’ ... and look towards physical death’s release into completion. Viz.:
Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear indication of a total withdrawal from this sensible material world into the senseless immaterial world I would like to know what is. * RICHARD: I have already posted Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s discourses RESPONDENT: To flog a dead horse is to keep attacking dead philosophy. RICHARD: Then why do it? I was having a correspondence with another poster and you chose to join in by saying:
When I respond you fizzle. RESPONDENT: Which is of course every scripture including the writings of K. RICHARD: Okay ... why not examine ‘what is’ with me, instead? What I talk of comes out of my direct experience ... and you dismiss it as ‘a concept, an image’. But if I use the recorded words of those that are acknowledged by some to have arrived ... you dismiss it as ‘dead philosophy’. How can one discuss with you? RESPONDENT: It can and does degenerate into dualistic concepts. RICHARD: Only if you will not lift your game and examine with me. RESPONDENT: ‘To Zen, time and eternity are one. This is open to misinterpretation, as most people interpret Zen as annihilating time and putting in its place eternity which to them seems to be a state of absolute quietness and do-nothing-ness. They forget that if time is eternity, eternity is time according to Zen. Zen has never espoused the cause of doing-nothing-ness; eternity is our every day experience in this world of sense-and-intellect, for there is no eternity outside this time-conditioned-ness. Eternity is possible only in the midst of birth and death, in the midst of the time process. If I raise a finger, this is time and eternity is dancing at the tip of it. When this is translated into terms of space, the one finger contains in it the three thousand chilocosms. This is not symbolism, to Zen it is an actual experience’. (from ‘Zen Buddhism’ – D. T. Suzuki) RICHARD: I am sure that this is a fascinating ‘dead philosophy’ that is well worthy of exploration and discovery ... but if I do you will only tell me that the discussion is of ‘dualistic concepts’ or some-such avoidance of an investigation. Besides which ... what has it to do with the subject under discussion?
RICHARD: And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought?’ RESPONDENT No. 10: 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. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘Freedom From The Known’,
© 1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). 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. Can all this
(truth and/or god) be nothing a product of thought (love and/or beauty) for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti then? Do you 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? 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: Truth or beauty or love that is scrutinized is known; which is image, not actuality. RICHARD: Yea verily ... but No. 10 says that the ‘Love and/or Truth’ that he is an ‘empty vessel’ for is not an image. Therefore, is this not a vital opportunity to ascertain just what the nature, character or disposition of Love and Truth is? Why are you not interested in finding out? Then peoples like me will not be able to point out that, if you do not know what the nature, character and disposition is of Love and Truth (what you call ‘the other’ which, being ‘not touched by thought’, is ‘the sacred’) then you are operating on blind faith and/or trust? RESPONDENT: Finding out means the central image of being in psychological time is gone. It can not be understood existentially through logical inquiry. RICHARD: This is another of your stock-standard evasions ... but it does not apply. No. 10 says that he is an ‘empty vessel’ (for ‘Love and/or Truth’) because of his ‘Transformation’ ... which can only happen when ‘the central image of being in psychological time is gone’ thus he is ‘understanding existentially’ and there is no need for ‘logical enquiry’, eh? Therefore, is this not a vital opportunity to ascertain just what the nature, character or disposition of Love and Truth is? Why are you not interested in finding out? Then peoples like me will not be able to point out, that if you do not know what the nature, character and disposition is of Love and Truth (what you call ‘the other’ or ‘the sacred’) then you are operating on blind faith and/or trust? Could you join in a discussion on this one? RESPONDENT: Truth is when I as observer am not. RICHARD: Yea verily ... truth is when ‘I as observer am not’ and the observer is the observed. Which is when the fragmented identity has stopped becoming and is being ... being a whole identity. The less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’. RESPONDENT: Saying there is only that does not imply a separate Being or God. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is dissimulation. There is no separation for them ... what they really mean is ‘I am God’ but because they are being super-humble they say ‘There is only That’ instead. RESPONDENT: I agree there is frequently the belief that the undivided observation of the phenomenal world is upheld by a separate being or God. That seems to be projection of thought. RICHARD: Aye ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti called that projection the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Why do you wish to point this out to me when I already am aware of it? Shall we start again? Viz.: Truth is when ‘I as observer am not’ and the observer is the observed. Which is when the fragmented identity has stopped becoming and is being ... being a whole identity. The less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’. Over to you for a genuine reply this time. * RESPONDENT: What is sacred is that which is incorruptible, not graspable by thought, not yours or mine. RICHARD: Yea verily ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that what is sacred, holy is not the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Viz.:
Note well that he clearly and unambiguously says ‘To discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’. RESPONDENT: Note that he does not say that God or truth is a separate controlling being in whose image we are fashioned into a separate ego-state. RICHARD: Aye ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti called that ‘separate controlling being’ the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Why do you wish to point this out to me when I already am aware of it? RESPONDENT: That is what you seem to read into the matter. RICHARD: Where? * RICHARD: Do you see where he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’? If so, can you stop this nonsense that you go on about such as ‘K said that to assert ‘I am free is an abomination’ or ‘isn’t it a religious nut that asserts that I have attained a state of perfection or sacredness?’ or ‘is there someone that seems to be there to take credit, to assert that I have attained?’ and so on? It would be more conducive to a mutual understanding – and less repetitive – if you could move past this ‘he who knows does not speak’ fixation. The man who you like to quote clearly made no secret that he knows ... and he spoke for sixty-plus years (as did the man who first penned that pithy aphorism). RESPONDENT: It is not an object of consciousness apart from me so how can it be known or described? It can be said that it is an attention in which there is no self-image and thus no striving to become in time. RICHARD: Indeed ... but do you see where he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’? If so, can you stop this nonsense that you go on about such as ‘K said that to assert ‘I am free is an abomination’ or ‘isn’t it a religious nut that asserts that I have attained a state of perfection or sacredness?’ or ‘is there someone that seems to be there to take credit, to assert that I have attained?’ and so on? * RICHARD: For the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: You can bring a garden (no me) into the world but you can’t bring the world (me) into the garden. RICHARD: Indeed ... but for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible?
RICHARD: And where is Truth to be found if not in beauty? Is Truth a product of thought?’ RESPONDENT No. 10: 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. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘Freedom From The Known’,
© 1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). 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. Can all this
(truth and/or god) be nothing a product of thought (love and/or beauty) for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti then? Do you 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? 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: Truth or beauty or love that is scrutinized is known; which is image, not actuality. RICHARD: But No. 10 says that the ‘Love and/or Truth’ that he is an ‘empty vessel’ for is not an image. Therefore, is this not a vital opportunity to ascertain just what the nature, character or disposition of Love and Truth is? Why are you not interested in finding out? Then peoples like me will not be able to point out that, if you do not know what the nature, character and disposition is of Love and Truth (what you call ‘the other’ which, being ‘not touched by thought’, is ‘the sacred’) then you are operating on blind faith and/or trust? RESPONDENT: Finding out means the central image of being in psychological time is gone. It can not be understood existentially through logical inquiry. RICHARD: But No. 10 says that he is an ‘empty vessel’ (for ‘Love and/or Truth’) because of his ‘Transformation’ ... which can only happen when ‘the central image of being in psychological time is gone’ thus he is ‘understanding existentially’ and there is no need for ‘logical enquiry’ , eh? Therefore, is this not a vital opportunity to ascertain just what the nature, character or disposition of Love and Truth is? Why are you not interested in finding out? Then peoples like me will not be able to point out, that if you do not know what the nature, character and disposition is of Love and Truth (what you call ‘the other’ or ‘the sacred’ ) then you are operating on blind faith and/or trust? This is another of your stock-standard evasions ... but it does not apply. RESPONDENT: ?? We say that I want to know it, to look at it, analyse it and thereby understand what it is. RICHARD: No ... you are the one who keeps saying that (and for the third time now in this thread). RESPONDENT: But self-knowledge can not be approached that way. RICHARD: What I keep saying (in this thread) is that No. 10 says that he is an ‘empty vessel’ (for ‘Love and/or Truth’) because of his ‘Transformation’ ... therefore the ‘Truth or beauty or love that is scrutinized’ by asking him what its character is, is not the ‘known which is image, not actuality’ as per your first stock-standard evasion (near the top of this post). Therefore, your second evasion (that Truth or beauty or love ‘can not be understood existentially through logical inquiry’) is also invalidated by No. 10 saying that he is an ‘empty vessel’ (for ‘Love and/or Truth’) because of his ‘Transformation’. Yet you still do not ‘get it’ as is evidenced by your third evasion (just above) where you say that ‘self-knowledge can not be approached [by] wanting to know it, to look at it, analyse it and thereby understand what it is’. All one has to do is ask him, enquire with him ... why is this so difficult to comprehend? RESPONDENT: The whole movement of me looking to find out is identification with thought which is to lose sight of the fact that the thinker is a thought. RICHARD: Golly ... you do go on. Look, there is even a precedent set for this course of enquiry ... the man you like to quote is reported by Ms. Mary Lutyens to have said:
Thus, if you do not enquire now it will be too late ... if you were to wait until the ‘observer is the observed’ (for you) you would not be able to enquire. Just like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘can’t look behind the curtain’, so too is No. 10 incapable of knowing ... this has been one of the main reasons for my dialogue with him in public. Can you see this which is being demonstrated in real life right under your nose? This is not ‘dead philosophy’ or a ‘conceptual debate’ ... this is actually happening in real time. If you wait until enlightenment to investigate then you will be an ‘Enlightened Being’ and you will be saying the same-same thing that all the Masters and Sages have been saying for millennia. Which is: ‘I don’t know’. * RESPONDENT: Truth is when I as observer am not. RICHARD: Yea verily ... truth is when ‘I as observer am not’ and the observer is the observed. Which is when the fragmented identity has stopped becoming and is being ... being a whole identity. The less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’. RESPONDENT: Saying there is only that does not imply a separate Being or God. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it is dissimulation. There is no separation for them ... what they really mean is ‘I am God’ but because they are being super-humble they say ‘there is only That’ instead. RESPONDENT: The reference is to a state that can not be conceived or pictured, because consciousness structured with me here and an image of wholeness there is not the actuality. RICHARD: Having a conversation with you is like listening to a record with its needle stuck in a groove ... except that when I reach out and shift the needle it jumps right back into the groove again. The reference (‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ or ‘There is only That’) is what is said – and put in print – by those peoples whose ‘fragmented identity’ has stopped becoming and is being a whole identity ... the reference is not said by a ‘consciousness structured with me here and an image of wholeness there’ at all. Do you not grasp this? Look, the man you like to quote said himself that ‘truth is when I as observer am not’ which is when ‘when the observer is the observed’. Thus, when the fragmented identity ceases becoming and is being whole (when the observer is the observed one is a holistic identity) then one is ‘the self that is eternal’ or then ‘I am God’ or then ‘there is only that’. I did not make these phrases up; I did not invent these statements; I did not conceive or picture these sentences ... I am solely using their words. This is an investigation, an enquiry into why the appalling mess that is the current situation has not altered one jot despite thousands of years of diligent application of the ancient wisdom. Why will you not join with this? Why do you wish to perpetuate the status-quo? RESPONDENT: I agree there is frequently the belief that the undivided observation of the phenomenal world is upheld by a separate being or God. That seems to be projection of thought. RICHARD: Aye ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti called that ‘projection’ the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Why do you wish to point this out to me when I already am aware of it? Shall we start again? Viz.: Truth is when ‘I as observer am not’ and the observer is the observed. Which is when the fragmented identity has stopped becoming and is being ... being a whole identity. The less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’. Over to you for a genuine reply this time. RESPONDENT: Are only the replies that agree with your conclusions fit to be judged as genuine? RICHARD: Goodness me ... can you not enter into a discussion and explore so as to ascertain whether my conclusions are fit or not? Why not? Why stand back and say that it cannot be enquired into so what is the point? You shut the door on an investigation ... and querulously reply that ‘only the replies that agree with your conclusions fit to be judged as genuine’? Why not find out if they are fit to be judged as genuine? RESPONDENT: A need for rhetorical whipping boys points to conceptual debate, not authentic exploration. RICHARD: What ‘rhetorical whipping boys’ are you talking about? I am exploring into the nature, character, disposition and quality of the altered state of consciousness known popularly as ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... how can we explore without examining the words of those who have declared their attainment? Are we to investigate in a vacuum? * RESPONDENT: What is sacred is that which is incorruptible, not graspable by thought, not yours or mine. RICHARD: Yea verily ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that what is sacred, holy is not the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Viz.:
Note well that he clearly and unambiguously says ‘To discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’. RESPONDENT: Note that he does not say that God or truth is a separate controlling being in whose image we are fashioned into a separate ego-state. RICHARD: Aye ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti called that ‘separate controlling being’ the god of the churches, the temples, the synagogues and the mosques. Why do you wish to point this out to me when I already am aware of it? RESPONDENT: That is what you seem to read into the matter. RICHARD: Where? * RICHARD: Do you see where he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’ ? If so, can you stop this nonsense that you go on about such as ‘K said that to assert ‘I am free is an abomination’ or ‘isn’t it a religious nut that asserts that I have attained a state of perfection or sacredness?’ or ‘is there someone that seems to be there to take credit, to assert that I have attained?’ and so on? It would be more conducive to a mutual understanding – and less repetitive – if you could move past this ‘he who knows does not speak’ fixation. The man who you like to quote clearly made no secret that he knows ... and he spoke for sixty-plus years (as did the man who first penned that pithy aphorism). RESPONDENT: It is not an object of consciousness apart from me so how can it be known or described? It can be said that it is an attention in which there is no self-image and thus no striving to become in time. RICHARD: Indeed ... but do you see where he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’? If so, can you stop this nonsense that you go on about such as ‘K said that to assert ‘I am free is an abomination’ or ‘isn’t it a religious nut that asserts that I have attained a state of perfection or sacredness?’ or ‘Is there someone that seems to be there to take credit, to assert that I have attained?’ and so on? * RICHARD: For the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: You can bring a garden (no me) into the world but you can’t bring the world (me) into the garden. RICHARD: Indeed ... but for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: If I think that I am separate from the world. RICHARD: No ... a normal person is indeed separate from the world ... there is no mere ‘think’ about it. Therefore, for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: There is effort to change it to what I want even if it means killing other people. RICHARD: Yes ... this has been going on for centuries. Therefore, for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: But in seeing that I am the world, is there the same divisive action? RICHARD: No ... there is holistic action ... and this holistic action too has been going on for centuries. Therefore, for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible? RESPONDENT: Or is there an attention of a different order with a sensitivity for the totality? RICHARD: There certainly is ... the less coy mystics call this ‘totality’ experience by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’ ... and look forward to physical death’s release into completion. Thus their peace is a bodiless peace (liveable only after death) and not a peace that is liveable here on earth. Their peace is a post-mortem reward born out of the instinctual desire to survive at any cost ... and this narcissistic self-aggrandisement has been going on for centuries. Which is why, for the sake of the 160,000,000 fellow human beings who may very well be going to be killed by their fellow human beings this coming century, can we have – you and I – an honest and sincere discussion? Is this possible?
RICHARD: Fundamentally, Buddhism does not deny the existence of self (nowhere in the Pali Canon is it denied) but what Buddhism does deny is everything else. Buddhism says: ‘absolute changeless permanent reality alone is’ and everything else has always been, is and always will be just make-believe fiction, a state of delusion worn like a costume with multiple fabricated points of view, and all that is created is impermanent, without essence and inherently a state of ill-being. But with perfect intuitive wisdom, it is realized that that which is ill it is not fitting to say that: ‘this is mine, this am I, this is my self’ because all sentient beings (and all worlds) are fiction and are without self, selfless. Thus, who ‘realises Nirvana’ is Nirvana itself realising itself. ‘Nirvana’, ‘Perfect Wisdom’, ‘The Deathless’, ‘The Unborn’, ‘The Uncreated’, ‘The Real’, ‘The Permanent’, ‘The Absolute Changeless Permanent Reality’ and ‘Self’ are all the same for Buddhists: that which is unfathomable, inconceivable, immutable, inscrutable, deep, boundless, unmeasurable, undefinable, incomprehensible and so on and so on. You really are flogging a dead horse with this one. RESPONDENT: To flog a dead horse is to keep attacking dead philosophy. RICHARD: Then why do it? I was having a correspondence with another poster and you chose to join in by saying:
When I respond you fizzle. RESPONDENT: It is just an observation that often what you assert as false in the teachings of others is what you are projecting into their teachings. RICHARD: So, when No 12 writes a sentence it is ‘just an observation’ whereas when Richard writes a sentence it is him ‘asserting’ or ‘boasting’, eh? Okay ... now that I know the rules of this dialogue, will you make ‘just an observation’ about where Richard is ‘projecting into their teachings’? Please look at the discourse quoted: [quote] ‘Form, monks, is not self. If form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease (...) But precisely because form is not self, form lends itself to dis-ease (...) ‘Feeling is not self (...) ‘Perception is not self (...) ‘Mental fabrications are not self (...) ‘Consciousness is not self. If consciousness were the self, this consciousness would not lend itself to dis-ease’. [endquote]. Note well it says ‘if form were the self, this form would not lend itself to dis-ease’ (and so on through feelings, perceptions, thoughts and consciousness), meaning that, as the self is not prone to dis-ease, then anything impermanent (this body and that body and the mountains and streams and stars and planets) cannot be the self. Then the discourse makes this point even clearer: [quote] ‘And is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’? Thus, any body whatsoever that is past, future, or present; internal or external; blatant or subtle; common or sublime; far or near: every body is to be seen as it actually is with right discernment as: ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’.’ [endquote]. Note well it says ‘This is not mine. This is not my self. This is not what I am’ regarding anything in or of the phenomenal world of the senses. Thus ‘What is mine, my self, what I am’ is to be found in ‘The Deathless’, accessible only upon ‘Parinirvana’, to an ‘Awakened One’ who has attained ‘Nirvana’ in this lifetime. If one does not achieve ‘Unbinding’ in this lifetime, one is going to be re-born again and again and again until one does. And to say that who is being re-born, as a personality again and again, is a ‘bundle of memories and desires’ and not a ‘self’ is to be disingenuous to say the least. This is Buddhism in a nutshell ... what is it (according to you) that am I ‘projecting’? Just an observation will do. RESPONDENT: A concern about winning versus fizzling arises from self-image. RICHARD: There is a concern about all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides ... the only ‘winning’ that I am interested in is the others’ winning of freedom from the human condition. Why do you see this dialogue as a ‘Richard versus No 12’ competition? Why not join in an exploration, an investigation, a discovery, a breakthrough? Just look at Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s statement without any concept of ‘Richard’ beating No 12’ in an on-line debate, eh?
See how he raises the question and not me ... and he uses the word ‘precisely’ thus clearly pointing out that the self that is incorruptible is not subject to ‘dis-ease’ so therefore it cannot be the flesh and blood body. Indeed, he goes on and emphasises the point by saying ‘is it fitting to regard what is inconstant, stressful, subject to change as: ‘This is mine. This is my self. This is what I am’?’ Do you see that he is making it crystal clear that is not fitting that the constant, stressless and unchanging self be subject to change? Now, the less coy mystics call this holistic identity by its given name: ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’. The more coy mystics say: ‘There is only That’ ... and look towards physical death’s release into completion. Viz.:
Note well it says ‘there is nothing further for this world’ ... if that is not a clear indication of a total withdrawal from this sensible material world into the senseless immaterial world I would like to know what is. So, the multitudinous scriptures consistently point to a total withdrawal from this sensate physical world. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s advice is for a total disassociation from the world of people, things and events. Mr. Gotama the Sakyan expressly states that the self is not to be found anywhere in phenomenal existence ... so it is up to you substantiate your ‘observation’ that:
Can you address the question directly without throwing in this smoke-screen of side issues? RESPONDENT: Images come and go freely without abiding so they are no problem. RICHARD: Good grief ... this is the trite comment I get on an almost daily basis here in Byron Bay, Australia (held by some to be the NDA ‘Mecca’). They say things like ‘anger comes and goes, or ‘sadness comes and goes’ and so on. They ‘merely observe’ the ‘rising and falling’ of feelings, images ... and the vicious, murderous impulses to blot the other person right out of existence! But ... okay then ... No 12’s images ‘come and go freely’ ... they are ‘not a problem’ ... and neither are all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides, eh? RESPONDENT: Why deny that they arise (when they obviously do) and boast that I am without image? RICHARD: Mainly because there is no identity whatsoever for them to ‘arise’ from ... why should the sharing of how this salubrious living came about, with my fellow human beings, have to be dismissed as ‘boasting’? Is it not something worth boasting about? Let us, by all means, turn this dialogue into a competition – No 12 versus Richard – and see who wins the contest: defending the spiritual title is:
And the upstart challenging the title is:
Do you really want to turn this dialogue into a competition? RESPONDENT: The very assertion is an expression of self-image. RICHARD: May I present a snippet of a discourse for your edification?
Do you see where he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’? If so, can you stop this nonsense that you go on about such as ‘the very assertion is an expression of self-image’ and so on? Or are you saying that he too was ‘asserting an expression of self-image’? * RESPONDENT: Which is of course every scripture including the writings of K. RICHARD: Okay ... why not examine ‘what is’ with me, instead? What I talk of comes out of my direct experience ... and you dismiss it as ‘a concept, an image’. But if I use the recorded words of those that are acknowledged by some to have arrived ... you dismiss it as ‘dead philosophy’. How can one discuss with you? RESPONDENT: Your experience is memory not actuality. RICHARD: How can you construe ‘your experience is memory not actuality’ out of a sentence that says ‘what I talk of comes out of my direct experience ... and you dismiss it as ‘a concept, an image’’? RESPONDENT: We (thought) are always one step removed from actuality which is why declaring that I know actuality is absurd. RICHARD: Are you saying that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is absurd when he says ‘I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it’? RESPONDENT: There can not be both the actual and someone separate to observe and know it. RICHARD: I never said there was ... this is a ‘straw man’ argument. RESPONDENT: Seeing is seeing because it cuts through that crap. RICHARD: Indeed ... I call this ‘seeing’ a ‘direct experiencing’ of the actual ... which experiencing you dismiss as being a ‘concept’ or an ‘image’ when someone other than yourself experiences ‘seeing’ (apart from the man you like to quote). Enough of this dilly-dallying ... I have already posted Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s discourses
Can you lift your game and examine with me?
RESPONDENT: There is nothing new in the idea of using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening. The nondualistic approach is difficult to penetrate. RICHARD: I have never advocated ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because to awake from a dream is but to be lucidly dreaming ... the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. RESPONDENT: If it is a technique to bring about a desired result such as self-immolation or freedom from conditioned reaction, it is effort at self-mastery in which the old me is gone and the desired state only remains, i.e. attainment. RICHARD: But ‘self-mastery’ is all about imposing discipline, order, regulation, control, restraint, obedience and so on. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is self-sacrifice ... how can it be seen by you as ‘self-mastery’? You are stretching a long bow, here. RESPONDENT: That which would end ‘self’ to arrive at a state of no suffering. i.e. employ a method, is thought of being in time. RICHARD: It is no mere ‘thought of being in time’ ... time is actual (as is this actual form that moves about in actual space). RESPONDENT: Through time I want to become some thing better or bring about an improved state in this actual flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Of course ... where else but in time (and space) can one psychologically and psychically self immolate (inside this form that is a flesh and blood body) so that all which remains after the event, inside this flesh and blood body, is heart and lungs and liver and kidneys and all the other physical organs? RESPONDENT: Indeed, that is effort at self-mastery. RICHARD: Indeed it is not ... ‘self-mastery’ is all about imposing discipline, order, regulation, control, restraint, obedience and so on. Psychological and psychic self-immolation is self-sacrifice ... how can it continue to be seen by you as ‘that is effort at self-mastery’? You are stretching your bow even longer, here. * RESPONDENT: To ask and stay aware of what I am experiencing now is mindfulness. RICHARD: The word ‘mindfulness’ is an English word that may be used, more or less, the same as ‘watchfulness’, ‘heedfulness’, ‘regardfulness’, ‘attentiveness’, and to a lesser extent ‘carefulness’, ‘sensibleness’, ‘wariness’. However, the word ‘mindfulness’ has taken-on the Buddhist meaning of the word for most seekers (the same as the word ‘meditation’ which used to mean ‘think over; ponder’), and no longer has the every-day meaning as per the dictionary. The Buddhist connotations come from the Pali ‘Vipassana Bhavana’ which means the cultivation of the mind, aimed at seeing in a special way that leads to intuitive discernment and to full understanding of Mr. Gotama the Sakyan’s basic precepts. In ‘Vipassana Bhavana’, Buddhists cultivate this special way of seeing life; they train themselves to see reality exactly as it is described by Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, and in the English-speaking world they call this special mode of perception: ‘mindfulness’. RESPONDENT: Method has meaning for a shift from guest within guest (inattentiveness) to host within guest (mindfulness). RICHARD: What you say may very well be true for mysticism ... but there is no ‘shift from guest within guest to host within guest’ in actualism. And it is for reasons such as you give here that I never advocate ‘using mindfulness as a methodical approach to awakening’ because ‘mindfulness’ (in Buddhist terminology) involves not only ‘a shift from (whatever name) in (whatever name) to (whatever name) within (whatever name)’ but a total withdrawal from the sensate world so as to realise the ‘timeless’ and ‘spaceless’ and ‘formless’ state. And because to but awake from a dream is to be lucidly dreaming (dreaming that one is ‘deathless’), the self, the ‘dreamer’ must become extinct. One can bring about this extinction by asking oneself, each moment again, how one is experiencing this moment of being alive. Given that this is one’s only moment of being alive, if one is not experiencing the peace-on-earth that is already always here now, then one is wasting this moment of being alive by settling for second-best ... it means that the long evolutionary process that produced this flesh and blood human being has come to naught. But, here is another moment, another opportunity, to actually be here now – where one’s destiny is – and how is one experiencing this moment? More often than not one is experiencing this moment through a feeling – standing back and feeling it out like putting a toe into the water – instead of jumping-in boots and all. Thus one can find out what brought about this feeling that is preventing me from being here now and through this ‘hands-on’ examination have it vanish ... and the reward is immediate and direct. This actualist method is a far cry from the Buddhist carefully cultivated ‘mindfulness’ ... the practice of ‘mindfulness’ is a further withdrawal from this actual world than what ‘normal’ people currently experience in the illusionary ‘reality’ of their ‘real world’. All Buddhists (just like Mr. Gotama the Sakyan) do not want to be here – now – as this flesh and blood form, walking and talking and eating and drinking and urinating and defecating and being the universes’ experience of its own infinitude as a reflective and sensate human being. They put immense effort into bringing ‘samsara’ (the endless round of birth and death and rebirth) to an end ... if they liked being here now they would welcome rebirth and delight in being able to be here now again and again as a human being. They just don’t wanna be here (not only not be here now but never, ever again) ... is it not so blatantly obvious (that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan just did not like being here) that you wonder why you never saw his anti-life stance before? How on earth can someone who hates being here so much ever be interested in bringing about peace-on-earth? In this respect he was just like all the Gurus and God-Men down through the ages ... the whole lot of them were/are anti-life to the core. RESPONDENT: Methods arise from guest (being in time) not host. No method can bring about a shift from guest to host. RICHARD: You are digging yourself deeper and deeper into the mire of your own making ... what is the name of the ‘host’ that ‘no method’ can ‘bring about a shift from guest to’, eh? Is it ‘that which is the sacred’ (as in ‘the otherness is when thought is not’) ... which is known by the less coy mystics as ‘God or Truth’? (Mystics such as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, who said: ‘To discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’). * RESPONDENT: Dualistic approach (...) is like a fish trying to become water. Fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect. RICHARD: The word ‘emptiness’ as you use it is the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ ... which is a ‘timeless an spaceless and formless absolute’. RESPONDENT: The state of the man or woman determines the level of understanding and it is understanding that determines approach. Emptiness can not be understood conceptually. RICHARD: Then why talk to me about it? If you can say that ‘fish or form is the time aspect and water or emptiness is the timeless aspect’ then why can I not say that the Buddhist ‘Sunyata’ is a ‘timeless and spaceless and formless absolute’? You do this quite often – introduce a topic giving your view on it – then when the discussion gets going you come out with your stock-standard response that grinds everything to a halt. If you will not discuss it then why start in the first place? RESPONDENT: I don’t see where through words we walk hand in hand into a state of clarity. RICHARD: I never said we could ‘walk hand in hand into a state of clarity’ ... I am on record as saying: ‘It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. I would not be where I am today if it were not for all those brave people who went before me ... and I am so pleased that they left a record of their ventures’. However, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next. RESPONDENT: That is an idea that K seemed to promote that has no basis in fact. RICHARD: Fair enough ... so why do you write to this Mailing List? And why introduce a topic, give your view on it, and then when the discussion gets going inevitably come out with your stock-standard response that grinds everything to a halt? If you will not discuss a topic then why start in the first place? RESPONDENT: Where words stop, clarity begins and there is no path to that state. RICHARD: But these are but a précis of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words ... you have just stated emphatically that ‘I don’t see where through words we [can] walk hand in hand into a state of clarity’ yet here you are doing that very hand-in-hand walking! If you genuinely meant that the ‘idea that K seemed to promote [walking hand-in-hand through words into a state of clarity] has no basis in fact’ then you would drop his hand in an instant and start thinking for yourself. It would appear that I am not having a discussion with a living human being called No. 12 ... but am carrying on a distorted conversation with the ghostly words that are all that is left of a now dead man. RESPONDENT: It is right here and now or not at all. RICHARD: What is ‘right here and now’ other than a grim and glum reality? Life in the ‘Land of Lament’ is a grumpy and gloomy business that is enlivened now and again with bickering, squabbling, arguing and fighting – with rare moments of truce (relative peace) in between – and some snatches of harmony (moments of relative happiness) which seem to hold a promise ... only to disappear again in a general discontent. This kind of living is ‘what is’ for 6.0 billion peoples, No. 12, and if you genuinely mean all your huff and puff about ‘no method’ and ‘no time-based effort’ and ‘no self-immolation’ and so on then all this animosity and anguish is all there was, is and ever will be for you. If one is not honest with oneself (let alone with others) then you have no chance of peace-on-earth. * RICHARD: It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description (‘supreme intelligence’), lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous. But, if it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing. Of course, it is possible to be actually free of the human condition ... but it is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the ‘tried and true’. RESPONDENT: As was suggested the issue is not how do I get what I want (e.g. an imagined immortality) but rather, what is? RICHARD: Aye ... but you want ‘what is’ to produce ‘the otherness’, which, ‘being not touched by thought’, is the ‘sacred’, eh? Otherwise why do you do all this? Why not take up stamp collecting instead? RESPONDENT: To use an analogy, if it is realized that I am daydreaming, inattentive, daydreaming stops. RICHARD: No. That is an idea that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘seemed to promote that has no basis in fact’. RESPONDENT: There is no effort to move from a state of day dreaming to one of wakefulness. RICHARD: No. That is an idea that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘seemed to promote that has no basis in fact’. RESPONDENT: In terms of projection from the centre, if there is effort to awaken, that is identification with thought, a kind of day-dreaming. RICHARD: No. That is an idea that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘seemed to promote that has no basis in fact’. RESPONDENT: The other is when I am not; wholeness is when division is not. RICHARD: No. That is an idea that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘seemed to promote that has no basis in fact’. * RESPONDENT: Looking from not knowing does not involve ideas of success or failure. RICHARD: Goodness me ... to be missing out on the peace-on-earth that is here right now is such a massive failure that it beggars description. Do you not care about what you are doing to your fellow human by continuing to nurse malice and sorrow to your bosom? Which do you fear most: failing ... or succeeding? RESPONDENT: Suffering arises from blindness to the fact that what I am doing or apparently choosing to do in psychological time is a playing out of cultural and biological programming. RICHARD: Yes ... all mental and emotional suffering arises from the existence of a rudimentary animal self that is born of the instinctual passions of fear and aggression (savage passions) and nurture and desire (tender passions) onto which ontological ‘being’ the parental conditioning; the peer-group conditioning; the societal conditioning and the conditioning one does to oneself has overlaid an autological identity ... which I call ‘I’ as ego (a psychological entity in the head) and a ‘me’ as soul (a psychic entity in the heart) for consistency and clarity of communication. The ‘daydreaming inattentiveness’ stops upon the union (the psychological ‘I’ as ego entity in the head unites with the psychic ‘me’ as soul in the heart) that results when it is realised that ‘no effort is required to move from a state of day dreaming to one of wakefulness’ because of the attention paid to ‘holistic seeing’ ... the ‘fragmented identity’ is now a ‘whole identity’ because ‘becoming’ has ceased and ‘being’ is. The rudimentary and ancient animal self common to all sentient beings is the genesis of ‘being’ as an all-expansive and all-encompassing identity. That deep feeling of ‘me’ and/or ‘Me’ – that is ‘being’ and/or ‘Being’ itself – is at the core of identity. It arises out of the basic instincts that blind nature endowed all human beings with as a rough and ready ‘soft-ware’ package to make a start in life and is common to all sentient beings. This is why it is felt to be one’s ‘Original Face’ – to use the Zen terminology – when one accesses it in religious/ spiritual/ mystical meditation practices and disciplines (including the ‘no-method’ practices and disciplines). This is the source of the ‘we are all one’ (‘oneness’), because ‘we’ are all the same-same blind instinctual self that stretches back beyond the dawn of human memory. It is a very, very ancient genetic memory ... but hoariness does not make it automatically wise, however, despite desperate belief to the contrary. RESPONDENT: Seeing is from attention that is free of the movement of thought. RICHARD: No. That is an idea that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘seemed to promote that has no basis in fact’.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Seven) 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 |
