|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
RESPONDENT: K said that we exist only in relationship. To me, to exist only in relationship means as the Buddhists say, there is nothing that has any inherent or intrinsic existence in and of itself. They call it dependent origination. It does not imply separation nor does it mean nothing exists. Everything exists only in relationship. [quote] ‘It is not just sentient beings who lack a core self. All phenomena do. If we analyse or dissect a flower, looking for a flower in its parts, we shall not find it. This suggests the flower doesn’t have any intrinsic reality ... and yet we can not deny the existence of flowers and their scent ... emptiness is simply this unfindability. To seek for the core of any phenomena is ultimately to arrive at a more subtle appreciation of its emptiness, its unfindability’. Tenzin Gyatso (The Dalai Lama). The question is what is the actuality? K asks is the observer really separate from the observed? He asks us to go into it and not take his word for anything. The duality or confusion is in the invention of self as observer separated in the aspect of thought he calls psychological time so as to monitor and control what is occurring in the psyche. RICHARD: As I have already remarked, if what the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ means to you is that the observer and the observed exist in relationship, that is your business ... I was simply responding to the following:
Your unequivocal ‘no’ to your own question gave me the impression that the phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ meant to you that the observer *is* the observed ... now that you have explained not only what the phrase means to you but why it means what it means to you as well there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter any further. * RICHARD: In view of the fact that you have brought Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti into this discussion you may find the following illuminating: [quote] ‘... to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that *the outside is the inside*, then you find out that *the observer is the observed*. [emphasis added]. (page 36; ‘Krishnamurti on Education’; published by Krishnamurti Foundation India, ISBN 81-87326-00-X). If your terminology (subject and object) refers to what his terminology refers to (inside and outside) then, where you are saying that the object and subject exist in relationship, he is saying that the object *is* the subject ... or, to put that the other way round, where he is saying that the outside *is* the inside, you would (presumably) be saying that the outside and the inside exist in relationship. Another example of you saying that the observer and the observed exist in relationship would be (presumably) to say that the thinker and the thought exist in relationship also ... whereas when the thinker *is* the thought there is no separation whatsoever (as in they are inseparable, one and the same thing, indistinguishable). Viz.: [quote] ‘Are not the thinker and his thought an inseparable phenomenon? (...) When the thinker and his thought become inseparable then only is duality transcended. Only then is there the true religious experience’. (page 14; ‘Authentic Report of Sixteen Talks’ given in 1945 and 1946). As it is only when the observer *is* the observed that duality is transcended (aka nonduality), and as it is only in nonduality that there is the true religious experience (aka spiritual enlightenment), then it is no wonder you also find the expression ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art) is being misunderstood too. RESPONDENT: If the outside is the inside, there is no outside or inside. RICHARD: I beg to differ: when the outside *is* the inside there is only the inside ... in the jargon it is sometimes called ‘subject with no object’. RESPONDENT: Similarly, if the observer is the observed, there is no observer or observed. RICHARD: Ahh ... here is the nub of the issue: when the observer *is* the observed there is only ‘That’. RESPONDENT: There is unitary perception. You look into existence with absolute undivided consciousness. RICHARD: When the observer *is* the observed there is nothing other to look into (nonduality means no other). RESPONDENT: In Buddhist terms samsara is nirvana, the ordinary is the extraordinary. RICHARD: When samsara *is* nirvana there is no ordinary to be extraordinary ... there is only the ‘Deathless’ (‘amata’). Viz.:
Thus the ‘Deathless’ (which is neither samsara nor nirvana) is an after-death realm (Parinirvana) that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more rebirth); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). * RICHARD: ... realising the truth of the ancient ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ wisdom (which is where the illusion transmogrifies into a delusion) is a profound realisation wherein there is absolutely no misunderstanding whatsoever of what the sages and seers were pointing to. Then, and only then, is there the living experiencing of the ancient ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ wisdom. RESPONDENT: I don’t follow. You seem to be calling delusion wisdom unless you are being sarcastic. RICHARD: I am not being sarcastic – nor am I being frivolous – and as I have always been up-front in regards the delusionary nature of the ancient wisdom I look askance at your response. My records show that, over the years you and I have corresponded, I have used the words ‘delusion’, ‘delusionary’ and ‘deluded’ 93 times when writing to you about these very matters. Unless you are being disingenuous it would appear that 92 of them passed you by. RESPONDENT: Thou Art That I take as an expression of the insight that true identity lies in the energy of creative intelligence and not in what has been given you by your culture as the content of consciousness, e.g. your name, habits, knowledge, memory of experiences, beliefs, convictions, strong feelings, cultural values, etc. It is a liberating experience for thought-feeling to be freed of identification with even an aspect of the known. But it is an obvious delusion if there is a belief that I as ego am that. To say Thou art that does not mean that you as the known are that. It means that identity is not in the known. RICHARD: Again, I have always specified that by the word ‘identity’ I mean ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (and not just ‘I’ as ego). And I have always indicated that the English word ‘soul’ can refer to spirit by any name and not just the western meaning popularly attributed to the word ... therefore the word ‘soul’ refers to the same thing that the word ‘atman’ refers to. In this context, what ‘Thou Art That’ points to is the timeless and spaceless and formless ‘Brahman’ (Consciousness). It is the third phrase of the four ‘Mahavakyas’ (Great Phrases) of Hinduism – the second of the four being ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman) already mentioned further above – and the fourth phrase is ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ (Atman is Brahman) ... which is why I say that the illusion (identity as soul) transmogrifies into a delusion (identity as god). And to say that ‘true identity lies in the energy of creative intelligence’ in lieu of saying ‘I am God’ does not make it any less of a delusion ... ‘tis just deceitfulness covered in the guise of humility. * RESPONDENT: A core implies something centred within a limited isolated space. It is a core in a way but in another way it is illusory mind state. That mind state is gone. As indicated in another thread, at the centre so to speak is awareness or energy without form or image. The content of consciousness in terms of thoughts and feelings is on the periphery and not at the centre. They arise like a superficial ripples in a pond. My statement above that all at once division ends sounds like a casual affair. It is not. It is a tremendous psychological upheaval, a kind of death and a kind of birth. RICHARD: Maybe what you refer to as ‘at the centre so to speak’ is what I refer to with the word core – ‘core’ as in ‘centre of being’ – and the reason why it is a rotten core (the word ‘rotten’ is being used as in ‘corrupt’ or ‘tainted’) is plain to see in what you wrote in the other thread you mentioned: [Respondent]: ‘I agree with the writer that enlightened people are certainly fallible. That is obvious. Enlightenment is as Osho said, an ending of the old state of being and also a beginning of a new way of learning that is with-out ending. It is not some kind of perfected state of complete liberation. That is a fairy-tale. (...) I further agree that with enlightenment the Void or the Nagual or the immeasurable is your centre of awareness and the ego is at the periphery. Ego does not die, it just no longer takes the centre stage of your attention’. [endquote]. ‘Tis no wonder that spiritual enlightenment has never brought about peace on earth. RESPONDENT: It seems to be an evolutionary process. A few buds of the tree of man blossom and come to fruition. That speaks to a potentiality in man as a species. From one perspective it is all up to you and me but from another it is out of our hands entirely. RICHARD: I cannot see how you can say that ‘a few buds of the tree of man blossom and come to fruition’ in the same breath as saying that ‘that speaks to a potentiality in man as a species’ when that very ‘fruition’ you speak so glowingly of is spiritual enlightenment. Look at your very own words: ‘enlightened people are certainly fallible’; ‘enlightenment is not some kind of perfected state of complete liberation’; ‘ego does not die’. How can you still pretend not to see why spiritual enlightenment has never brought about peace on earth?
RICHARD: ... if what the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ means to you is that the observer and the observed exist in relationship, that is your business ... I was simply responding to the following: [Respondent]: ‘Is the observer really separate from the observed? No’. [endquote]. Your unequivocal ‘no’ to your own question gave me the impression that the phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ meant to you that the observer *is* the observed ... now that you have explained not only what the phrase means to you but why it means what it means to you as well there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter any further. RESPONDENT: In regard to the psyche, the inquiry is, am I different than my qualities? We learn to structure the psyche so there is an observing centre that is isolated so as to control. Society demands that we act a certain way, that we conform to its rules of behaviour. We should do this and we should not do that. We have to ‘behave’ or else. The brain is programmed and we as controller act from that program to direct what we do. So what is wrong with that? A central processing area seems basic to integrating impressions and sensory input. But there is a problem where that which observes is prejudiced or biased. That means it is corrupted, disordered. To ask ‘is the observer separate from the observed’ is to ask whether that which looks is observing from programming, or is it free of all conditioning? If there is looking from knowledge, from a centre built in memory, it seems like certain content ‘in here’ is looking ‘out there’. But if that which looks is free of any particular content, there is no sense of being isolated of localized or bounded. There is a spaciousness of mind that is not invented by thought. Observation from that spaciousness is choiceless, effortless, and does not exclude anything. A quality of that spaciousness is silence where there is no ideation of me or God or Self or soul or of anything else. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate that you have further explained why the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ means to you that the observer and the observed exist in relationship, and not that the observer *is* the observed, there is not much point in pursuing the matter any further because arguing which delusion is the better delusion is not what interests me. Suffice is it to say that, as a generalisation, in western mysticism oneness with god, or union with god, means a relationship with god (‘I and God’) whereas in eastern mysticism oneness with god, or union with god, means there is nothing other than god (‘I am God’). Which is possibly why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings can be taken either way. * RESPONDENT: It seems to be an evolutionary process. A few buds of the tree of man blossom and come to fruition. That speaks to a potentiality in man as a species. From one perspective it is all up to you and me but from another it is out of our hands entirely. RICHARD: I cannot see how you can say that ‘a few buds of the tree of man blossom and come to fruition’ in the same breath as saying that ‘that speaks to a potentiality in man as a species’ when that very ‘fruition’ you speak so glowingly of is spiritual enlightenment. Look at your very own words [in another thread]: ‘enlightened people are certainly fallible’; ‘enlightenment is not some kind of perfected state of complete liberation’; ‘ego does not die’. How can you still pretend not to see why spiritual enlightenment has never brought about peace on earth? RESPONDENT: Desire to bring about a certain end such as self-liberation or peace on earth has nothing to do with freedom as I understand it. RICHARD: First and foremost: as peace on earth has nothing to do with ‘self-liberation’ whatsoever, and everything to do with ‘self’-immolation instead, you are not talking to me at all but to your own misunderstanding of what I say. Furthermore, if the identity parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body has no interest in enabling peace on earth then all the misery and mayhem will go on for ever and a day ... it is only the very desire to bring about an end to all the aguish and anger that will provide the enormous energy necessary to impel the identity into making the supreme ‘self’-sacrifice. Lastly, as the freedom you understand is the ‘fruition’ you speak so glowingly of (further above) you will probably keep on misunderstanding what I say. RESPONDENT: What is free by its very nature does not seek to become free. RICHARD: Of course what is already free does not seek to become free – I have been free all along and never sought otherwise – it was the identity in parasitical residence who sought ‘self’-liberation ... and attained it for eleven years. ‘Twas only when the ‘self’-liberated identity finally ‘self’-immolated that I became apparent.
RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate that you have further explained why the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ means to you that the observer and the observed exist in relationship, and not that the observer *is* the observed, there is not much point in pursuing the matter any further because arguing which delusion is the better delusion is not what interests me. Suffice is it to say that, as a generalisation, in western mysticism oneness with god, or union with god, means a relationship with god (‘I and God’) whereas in eastern mysticism oneness with god, or union with god, means there is nothing other than god (‘I am God’). Which is possibly why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings can be taken either way. RESPONDENT: Both the observing part and the part observed are the same psyche and any assumed division of higher self and lower self is false. RICHARD: As the entire contents of the psyche are illusory it makes no difference whatsoever whether the assumed division of the illusory higher self and the illusory lower self is false or not ... and, as the contents of the psyche are the psyche, the psyche itself ceases to exist when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘self’-immolates. RESPONDENT: What is not of time or of the psyche is impersonal, not localized or bounded by anything. RICHARD: When the psyche itself ceases to exist, which is when the illusory personal identity ‘self’-immolates in toto, the delusory impersonal identity, of course, also ceases to exist. Or, to put that another way, when ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) ends then god (which is ‘ground in being’) correspondingly ends as well. Then the actual infinitude becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: That is not to say that the energy of insight is the same movement as conditioned brain activity. There can be insight into the workings of the mind of man. What is it that sees? It is not observation from the known, not looking from the ‘me’ which is the background or programming. If there is a complete emptying of the contents of consciousness, there is no self-reflection occurring. Of course such a creative state of emptiness is hard to ‘keep’ so to speak. But once there is a complete dying to the known, consciousness is never the same again. RICHARD: An insight into the human condition is direct experiencing, unmediated by any identity whatsoever, otherwise known as apperception. * RESPONDENT: Desire to bring about a certain end such as self-liberation or peace on earth has nothing to do with freedom as I understand it. RICHARD: First and foremost: as peace on earth has nothing to do with ‘self-liberation’ whatsoever, and everything to do with ‘self’-immolation instead, you are not talking to me at all but to your own misunderstanding of what I say. RESPONDENT: Self-immolation implies that there is a mind-state that is capable of bringing about its own ending. But desire for a particular state to result from one’s effort is self-motivated. It is a kind of grasping or choosing to become. That may not be what you mean but to tell people they can end a rotten core by doing something, seems contradictory. The core is the ‘doer’ or state of being a separate experiencer. When the melon is ripe, it falls from the vine. It is a natural event, not a forced one. And there is no reason to assume that if it occurs, it occurs the same way or to the same extent for everyone. RICHARD: First, ‘self’-immolation implies that there is no denial of there being an identity which
is capable of ‘self’-sacrifice (as contrasted to ‘self’-surrender) ... which honesty ensures the integrity of the ensuing
freedom. Then the already always existing peace-on-earth becomes apparent. * RESPONDENT: What is free by its very nature does not seek to become free. RICHARD: Of course what is already free does not seek to become free – I have been free all along and never sought otherwise – it was the identity in parasitical residence who sought ‘self’-liberation ... and attained it for eleven years. ‘Twas only when the ‘self’-liberated identity finally ‘self’-immolated that I became apparent. RESPONDENT: Why equate self (‘I’) with freedom? RICHARD: As I use the first person pronoun without scare quotes to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul I am not equating ‘self (‘I’)’ with freedom at all. There are three I’s altogether but only one is actual: I am this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. I have been here all along ... it was just that there was this loudmouth parasitically inhabiting this body who dominated so totally that I could barely get a word in edgeways ... except in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). And when both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul finally ceased to exist (via altruistic ‘self’-immolation) I became apparent. It took eleven years from when ‘I’ as ego died (resulting in spiritual enlightenment) for ‘me’ as soul to die as well (resulting in actual freedom). RESPONDENT: To the extent the unlimited or the unconditioned is manifesting on the level of the particular, there is freedom from psychological suffering. I don’t bring that freedom about. I just get in the way. If it seems otherwise, try as hard as you can. What happens? Is there freedom from the self or does suffering increase? RICHARD: What I discovered was that, while there was indeed freedom from psychological suffering after ‘I’ as ego died, there was freedom from psychic suffering only after ‘me’ as soul died as well ... meaning that when the psyche itself ceased to exist all psychic manifestation ended. No more universal sorrow, for example. It would have been a lot easier, and less traumatic, if both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul had ‘self’-immolated as a package deal (identity in toto). But, then again, there would not be all this intimate knowledge of spiritual enlightenment if there had not been that eleven years of lived experiencing ... insider information, as it were. It sure saves a lot of book-learning.
RESPONDENT: Both the observing part and the part observed are the same psyche and any assumed division of higher self and lower self is false. RICHARD: As the entire contents of the psyche are illusory it makes no difference whatsoever whether the assumed division of the illusory higher self and the illusory lower self is false or not ... and, as the contents of the psyche are the psyche, the psyche itself ceases to exist when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘self’-immolates. RESPONDENT: If the entire contents are illusory, they don’t exist to self-immolate or do anything else do they? RICHARD: As the illusory nature of the entire contents of the psyche, which is the psyche itself, did not stop you from building a complex metaphysics on the assumption that the falseness of ‘any assumed division of higher self and lower self’ was ... um ... insightfully seen to be the truth it would appear that ‘self’-immolation in toto is essential lest the illusion become the delusion it is begging to be. In other words: unless ‘I’ die an illusory death commensurate to ‘my’ illusory existence ‘I’ will continue to be a presence ... wreaking ‘my’ havoc once again in yet another disguise. * RESPONDENT: What is not of time or of the psyche is impersonal, not localized or bounded by anything. RICHARD: When the psyche itself ceases to exist, which is when the illusory personal identity ‘self’-immolates in toto, the delusory impersonal identity, of course, also ceases to exist. Or, to put that another way, when ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being (which is ‘being’ itself) ends then god (which is ‘ground in being’) correspondingly ends as well. Then the actual infinitude becomes apparent. RESPONDENT: If there is delusion and it ends, it follows that the ground or root of that delusion ends as well. But it doesn’t follow that effort from delusion ends delusion. There must be something that is not caught up in delusion operates. That energy and attention is grounded in actuality. RICHARD: The ‘something that is not caught up in delusion’ is nothing other than the purity and perfection of the actual infinitude already referred to ... the pure intent to have the already always existing peace-on-earth become apparent is a dedication, born of the pure consciousness experience (PCE), which enables one to tap into the over-arching benignity and benevolence of the actual world. Then one is not on one’s own, in this, the adventure of a lifetime. * RESPONDENT: That is not to say that the energy of insight is the same movement as conditioned brain activity. There can be insight into the workings of the mind of man. What is it that sees? It is not observation from the known, not looking from the ‘me’ which is the background or programming. If there is a complete emptying of the contents of consciousness, there is no self-reflection occurring. Of course such a creative state of emptiness is hard to ‘keep’ so to speak. But once there is a complete dying to the known, consciousness is never the same again. RICHARD: An insight into the human condition is direct experiencing, unmediated by any identity whatsoever, otherwise known as apperception. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that there is a conscious decision to self-immolate which means the organism lives with apperception rather than the grasping self? RICHARD: All I am saying here is that an insight into the human condition, otherwise known as apperception, unlike an insight into anything else can only ever be a direct experiencing (as in unmediated by any identity whatsoever) else it be a corrupt insight ... contaminated by the seer’s very presence. Meaning that, irregardless of whether the observer is the observed, or exists in relationship with the observed, the observer taints observation (hence the use of the word ‘rotten’ in its ‘corrupt’ and/or ‘tainted’ meaning). For instance: the seeing of the falseness of the ‘assumed division of higher self and lower self’ is a classic example of this rottenness in action ... the illusion (‘ lower self’ ) has become the delusion (‘higher self’ ) via an unitary insight. * RESPONDENT: Desire to bring about a certain end such as self-liberation or peace on earth has nothing to do with freedom as I understand it. RICHARD: First and foremost: as peace on earth has nothing to do with ‘self-liberation’ whatsoever, and everything to do with ‘self’-immolation instead, you are not talking to me at all but to your own misunderstanding of what I say. RESPONDENT: There was a particular organism with certain memories, abilities and characteristics both before and after what you call self-immolation. RICHARD: Yes, as this flesh and blood body I have been here all along having a ball ... it was just that there was a loudmouth parasitically inhabiting this body who dominated so totally that I could not get a word in edgeways (except in a PCE). And, when that identity ‘self’-immolated in toto for the benefit of this body and every body, all of that entity’s memories, abilities, and characteristics were also immolated – the slate was wiped clean – thus I have no childhood hurts whatsoever. I have always been here like this: I have already been having a wonderful, marvellous and amazing life all this while. RESPONDENT: You recall what was, what changed, and what is now. RICHARD: Yes, I have been here for 55 years and have all my own memories, abilities, and characteristics ... when the slate was wiped clean all of ‘my’ memories, abilities, and characteristics disappeared along with ‘me’. RESPONDENT: So there is a personal history and from that history you act and talk and explain yourself. That is basically the human psyche. RICHARD: I am aware that the term ‘human psyche’ can be used in lieu of the term ‘human
consciousness’ but as ‘my’ memories, abilities, and characteristics were affectively-based memories, abilities, and
characteristics – and particularly the psychic memories, abilities, and characteristics – I prefer to stay with the primary
meaning of the word ‘psyche’ Otherwise I would be saying that consciousness has ceased ... which is patently nonsensical. RESPONDENT: What changed? Something about consciousness that was, is no more. What is left is not limited by the same emotional/ cognitive software so to speak. RICHARD: The ‘emotional/ cognitive software’ which was deleted when ‘being’ itself became extinct had a reach far beyond anything conceivable, imaginable, comprehendible or believable ... just for starters the word psychic, or psychical, refers to anything of or pertaining to the energies of the psyche or ‘being’ itself – the soul, the spirit or the self parasitically inhabiting the flesh and blood body – any non-material, incorporeal, other-worldly, unworldly, unearthly, non-human or inhuman currents or emanations. Any energy flow which is ethereal, ephemeral, intangible, cryptic, inexplicable, enigmatic, unfathomable and which is instinctual, intuitive, prescient, telekinetic, telepathic or clairvoyant ... anything extrasensory. It refers to anything occult, arcane, esoteric or ghostly – anything to do with witchcraft, sorcery or wizardry (be it either white magic or black magic) – everything supernatural, supernormal, preternatural, preternormal, transcendental or numinous ... anything religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical. The metaphysical includes the hallowed, consecrated, sanctified, deified, beatific, holy, divine, heavenly and sacred – including anything saintly, cherubic or angelic – and the sinful, black-hearted, damnable, sinister, fiendish, infernal, diabolical ... anything demonic, devilish, hellish, satanic and evil. In short: there is a lot more to being happy and harmless – free from malice and sorrow and their antidotal pacifiers love and compassion – than meets the eye. RESPONDENT: Self-liberation doesn’t mean the self becomes liberated. It means freedom from the conditioning that is the self. RICHARD: If ‘self-liberation’ does not mean the liberation of spirit from matter then what is left upon ‘freedom from the conditioning that is the self’ according to you? Meaning that, upon the eventual death of the flesh and blood body called ‘Respondent’, does the ‘true identity’ which ‘lies in the energy of creative intelligence’ die right along with it or not? Viz.:
In other words: is the identity which is ‘not in the known’ mortal or immortal? * RESPONDENT: From the perspective of a mind state of self-isolation, what occurs is one’s choice ... to be or not to be is the question. RICHARD: I beg to differ: the decision ‘not to be’ , once not being is experienced in a memorable PCE, is a choiceless decision in that there is no choice but ‘self’-immolation so as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent. It is an ‘of course’ decision ... a full, unreserved !YES! to being alive as this flesh and blood body only. RESPONDENT: But if the illusory nature of self is penetrated, choice as to becoming is seen to be the central illusion. RICHARD: But the illusory nature of ‘self’ cannot be ‘penetrated’ – one can only see directly that in fact there is no ‘self’ when that ‘self’-less condition is actually happening – meaning that any penetration is nothing other than the seer, in one of its many guises, assuming itself to not be an illusion in order to have the seeing be the truth. RESPONDENT: A point comes where the falseness of psychological time is absolutely undeniable. RICHARD: If by ‘psychological time’ you mean becoming as opposed to being then this is but another way of saying that the falseness of ‘any assumed division of higher self and lower self’ is what is ‘absolutely undeniable’. RESPONDENT: I can not do. RICHARD: If by your use of the first person pronoun you are referring to the flesh and blood body you have my full agreement ... only an impersonalised identity (an identity dissociated from all matter) can do what you refer to here. RESPONDENT: Self and choice in becoming are really the same thing. RICHARD: Which is another way of saying that ‘lower self’ (becoming in time) only needs to realise that it is ‘higher self’ (being timeless) for choice to end ... as in ‘not my will but thy will’. RESPONDENT: There is no real entity that dies so as to be later praised for its bravery and altruism in making the ultimate self-sacrifice. RICHARD: I beg to differ: the entity is very real – at times very, very real – whilst it is and it is only when the entity is not that it can be known directly that its reality was an illusion ... whilst one is that identity the knowledge that identity itself is an illusion can only be an intellectual knowledge from inference or a remembered knowledge from a PCE. Thus praising the no-longer extant identity’s ‘self’-sacrifice is an accurate commendation ... whereas praising god for the identity’s deliverance is but ‘self’-praise writ large. RESPONDENT: That is a left-handed narcissism as I see it. RICHARD: Hmm ... and would this seeing be another insight-from-truth by any chance? RESPONDENT: To me a laissez-faire event is action from programming. RICHARD: This smacks of being a straw-man ... here is the exchange in full:
Nowhere did I imply that ‘a natural event’ was an ‘action from programming’ ... I made it quite clear that by a laissez-faire event (a non-interventionist event) I was referring to the natural event (not a forced one) of the melon falling from the vine when ripe. But seeing that you have raised the subject: there is a distinct difference between genetic programming and the after-birth programming called conditioning. RESPONDENT: What you call ‘apperception’ arises out of insight. RICHARD: It is nothing of the sort – apperception does not come from god – as apperception is when perception is unmediated by any identity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: One sees the value in it and feels the necessity of it. RICHARD: As apperception is, amongst other things, the total absence of feeling-perception your
comment is a non-sequitur RESPONDENT: So it is not exactly a choice is it? RICHARD: Only if you want to be run by your feelings.
RESPONDENT: Both the observing part and the part observed are the same psyche and any assumed division of higher self and lower self is false. RICHARD: As the entire contents of the psyche are illusory it makes no difference whatsoever whether the assumed division of the illusory higher self and the illusory lower self is false or not ... and, as the contents of the psyche are the psyche, the psyche itself ceases to exist when the identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) ‘self’-immolates. RESPONDENT: If the entire contents are illusory, they don’t exist to self-immolate or do anything else do they? RICHARD: As the illusory nature of the entire contents of the psyche, which is the psyche itself, did not stop you from building a complex metaphysics on the assumption that the falseness of ‘any assumed division of higher self and lower self’ was ... um ... insightfully seen to be the truth it would appear that ‘self’-immolation in toto is essential lest the illusion become the delusion it is begging to be. In other words: unless ‘I’ die an illusory death commensurate to ‘my’ illusory existence ‘I’ will continue to be a presence ... wreaking ‘my’ havoc once again in yet another disguise. RESPONDENT: Hmm ... let’s see. First there is the rotten core that is really an illusion. RICHARD: Yes, although whilst that illusion holds sway it is very real ... so real as to cause universal misery and mayhem down through the ages and unto the present day. The latest estimates put the number illusory identities in excess of 6.0 billion. RESPONDENT: And the rotten core changes into a delusion when it becomes identified with an image of something higher, divine, timeless or immortal. RICHARD: Not an ‘image’ of something higher, divine, timeless or immortal ... the very reality of that which is sacred, holy. The latest estimates put the number delusory identities in excess of 1.2 thousand. RESPONDENT: Then the rotten core that is an illusion and a delusion somehow comes up with the clarity and courage to end itself ... RICHARD: The clarity comes from the pure consciousness experience (PCE) and the courage comes from the altruistic instinct. RESPONDENT: ... leaving a corelessness that congratulates the sacrificed rotten illusory deluded core for having the right stuff to deliver the coreless goods. RICHARD: Leaving an apperceptive flesh and blood body living in the perfection and purity of this actual world which, were it not for the identity’s noble ‘self’-sacrifice, would never have become apparent. Of course there is praise for the identity who enabled peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: And the corelessness says this was and is an adventure of a lifetime, remembered and worthy of praise by the slate made clean. RICHARD: This apperceptive flesh and blood body says the journey to blessed oblivion, which the identity voluntarily and cheerfully embarked upon, was the adventure of a lifetime – it made the identity’s life worthwhile – and nowadays, living freed of the identity’s presence, this flesh and blood body says that life itself is an even more magnificent adventure. And, as a bonus on top of all this, global peace-on-earth is now a distinct possibility. RESPONDENT: Now that’s complex metaphysics! RICHARD: How on earth can the altruistic sacrifice of an identity in toto – meaning that both the illusory ‘lower self’ and the delusory ‘higher self’ which you were starting to build your case on further above cease being a presence – be at all complex? Is it this flesh and blood body’s praise for such a gallant act which makes it so in your eyes?
RESPONDENT: Richard said that K’s statement that the observer is the observed unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to. And I pointed out that K himself said that this does not mean that you are the tree, as that would be ridiculous. Richard frequently gives an overly literal meaning to what he reads from others. RICHARD: Ha ... this is actually quite humorous – given that it is written on a mailing list wherein there quite often is excoriation for interpreting what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words say – in that by me not deviating one hair’s breadth away from what the words ‘the outside is the inside’ and ‘the observer is the observed’ say, in the context they sit in, you are now reduced to making the point that I am being ‘overly literal’ (whatever that means) ... and that I am ‘frequently’ doing so into the bargain. Wonders will never cease, eh? But to get to the point: as we have had a discussion before, you and I, not only on this very topic but revolving around the self-same paragraph as I have posted again this time around, wherein you explained that the phrases mean existing as a relationship (and not being that), perhaps it would be apposite to go into the topic further. For starters, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti indeed does not say that there is identification with a particular tree, hill, rock, bird, and so on ... here is but one example:
Yet, here is another example, where he unambiguously says that the outside is the inside (and the inside is the outside):
The reason why I have emphasised him saying *and there is only life* (when there is no watcher) is because of statements like this:
It becomes even more clear, for an example, when the latter part of the descriptive paragraph already quoted (further above) is examined closely:
Do you see that he says the mind was totally with that bird, not observing the bird, and that the mind went through and beyond it; that the mind of the crow was part of the mind that spanned the seas and time; that this mind was vast, limitless, beyond all measure; that this mind was wholly empty, and being empty this mind could attend without a cause; that this mind’s attention had neither root or branch; that all energy was in the empty stillness of this mind; that the energy of this mind was the energy of all beginning; that *this mind was life* ... it was life that had no time as ending? And just to bring it home to you I will remind you of what you posted yourself just recently:
Perhaps if I were to say, by way of an explanation, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not mean that he has identified as the trees, hills, rocks, birds and so on ‘in a narrow exclusive sense’ (which would be akin to painting red ink on a red rose anyway as someone once said) but in the sense that the mind which he is (when the watcher is not) is the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ ... and here are the words ‘all things’ once again:
Now do you comprehend what the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is conveying? If you maintain that the words ‘the outside is the inside’ do not indicate being that which is referred to, but indicates instead existing in relationship with that which is being referred to, then you are saying, in effect, that the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ exists in relationship with all things ... rather than being all things. As I commented in our previous discussion, as a generalisation, in western mysticism oneness or union with the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ most often means a relationship with that (by whatever name) whereas, also as a generalisation, in eastern mysticism oneness or union with that most often means there is nothing other than that ... and if your experience is being in relationship with that then, as I also remarked in the previous discussion, there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter any further as it really does not matter which delusion is the correct delusion. My experience, night and day for eleven years, was being that
RESPONDENT: Richard said that K’s statement that the observer is the observed unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to. And I pointed out that K himself said that this does not mean that you are the tree, as that would be ridiculous. Richard frequently gives an overly literal meaning to what he reads from others. RICHARD: Ha ... this is actually quite humorous – given that it is written on a mailing list wherein there quite often is excoriation for interpreting what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words say – in that by me not deviating one hair’s breadth away from what the words ‘the outside is the inside’ and ‘the observer is the observed’ say, in the context they sit in, you are now reduced to making the point that I am being ‘overly literal’ (whatever that means) ... and that I am ‘frequently’ doing so into the bargain. Wonders will never cease, eh? RESPONDENT: In the above I detect the all too human feeling of resentment as to criticism. RICHARD: You have to be grasping at straws to find resentment in my response as it is indeed comical – given the background regarding the non-interpretation caution Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti impressed upon listeners/ readers – so much so that when the e-mail came into my mail-box another in the room asked me what the joke was which occasioned the chuckles (quite often I receive some of the jokes which do the rounds of the internet and I usually read the more amusing ones out loud). Perhaps if it were put this way:
Typically humour derives its comic impact from a sense of the ridiculous ... and the ability to laugh at such risibility can be very enriching. RESPONDENT: (I anticipated a brief with citations and footnotes). RICHARD: If supplying suitably referenced textual corroboration is evidence of resentment, in your eyes, you are seeking to place any person you correspond with in an impossible position ... as in (just as further above) damned if they do and dammed if they don’t. RESPONDENT: It is a feeling we are all familiar with. RICHARD: Not in this neck of the woods it ain’t ... besides which, even if it were so, the criticism in question is so risible nobody would be perturbed by it. RESPONDENT: But only a few deny the obvious, that the feeling occurs. RICHARD: Of course when all else fails just tell the other they are in denial ... then when they respond, so as to set the record straight, the one being critical can then say only a person feeling attacked would feel the need to defend themselves (as if the very proffering of a corrective explanation somehow proves they were right all along). I could go on and detail other ploys you could try on for size – I have been examined by experts in the field for many, many years now – but perhaps you might be inclined to call it quits at this and get on with the topic at hand? RESPONDENT: K said I am free and I seek only to make others free. But he also said ‘to say I am free’ is an abomination’. Which is it K? Get your story straight. Are you free or not? RICHARD: Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth as it were, the very testimony you are looking for:
The dates (1974 and 1980) puts the testimony fairly and squarely in what some call his ‘mature period’ ... plus there is the use of the first person pronoun in the latter quote. RESPONDENT: Or Jesus said the Father and I are one. Before Abraham was, I AM. But also said it is not I that do these things (miracles) but the Father that is in me. Good Lord! Stick to the facts Jesus. Are you God or not? Jesus might well respond: damn it man, I am obviously not God in the way you mean it. LOL. RICHARD: This is quite typical of the dichotomy between the humanity and the divinity co-existing in the one body ... sometimes they speak as the human and at other times speak as the divine. This topic has long been a subject of interest in mystical circles as it is indicative of the fragile and elusive link between ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’ (known by some as ‘Sacred Schizophrenia’). For example: ‘Two birds, inseparable companions, are perched on the same tree; one eats the sweet fruit and
the other looks on without eating’. (Rig Veda I.164.20). This vision, deemed to be meaningful, is duplicated in Mundaka
Upanishad (I.III.1) and in Shvetashvatara Upanishad (IV.6). In the same way as the two birds are inseparable, a human being is not
thought complete and whole without both the aspect of ‘Prakriti’ (which experiences the domain of time and space and form) and
the aspect of ‘Purusha’ (which is timeless and spaceless and formless). Mr. Ishvarakrishna (compiler of ‘Samkhyakarika)
pointed out: ‘Purusha without Prakriti is lame and Prakriti without Purusha is blind’ In other words: a sage’s or seer’s spiritual essence is counter-poised with their human nature.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Eighteen) 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 |
