|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 12
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: [Version ‘A’]: ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘ABC’: what he means is ‘XYZ’. [Response ‘A’]: ‘You are giving an interpretative meaning to what you read. [Version ‘B’]: ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘ABC’: what he means is ‘ABC’. [Response ‘B’]: ‘You are giving an overly literal meaning to what you read. [end example]. 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: An interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting. RESPONDENT: Meaning in terms of verbal expression depends upon context. RICHARD: If you ever lose your day job you could always earn pin-money tutoring elderly matriarchs qua ovo fellare ... if you were to cast your gaze upwards you will see these words:
RESPONDENT: The expression that the observer is the observed is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations. RICHARD: Not in the way it is presented in this instance ... perhaps if I were to sequentially arrange Mr. Jiddu
Krishnamurti’s meditation method, in accordance to the step-by-step manner with which he so eloquently described his technique in the three
paragraphs
Do you see how you have had to isolate step No. 10 from the nine preceding steps in order to be able to say that the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations? RESPONDENT: The way I interpret it, when the observing aspect of the psyche is not treated as different from the observed contents (fear, anger, etc) all conflict ends. The observer IS the content, IS programming. RICHARD: Okay ... in the context under discussion the ‘observed contents’ of the psyche are the outside (pointed out by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in the instance provided as being ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’) and when the ‘observing aspect of the psyche’ is not treated as different from these observed contents then ‘all conflict ends’ (aka the outside is the inside) ... ‘the observer IS the content’ (aka the observer is the observed). This is nothing more than a different way of putting what I have been maintaining all along: ‘the inner’ creates its own reality, which it pastes as a veneer over the actual world, and then calls that reality ‘the outer’ ... then the ‘inner’, feeling isolated from ‘the outer’, seeks unity with its own creation (little realising it is its own creation of course) and the rare few who achieve this sleight of hand experience a state of unitive awareness (otherwise known as union or oneness or wholeness). Yet all the while this actual world goes unnoticed ... there is no inner or outer in actuality. RESPONDENT: Because the observer mind state is programming it moves according to a pattern determined by past experience. It is not free of that. RICHARD: There is more to it than this ... just for starters there are the affective feelings to take into account: sensory perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; thought perception is tertiary. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in step No. 6 above only said [quote] ‘do not think’ [endquote] and never said ‘do not feel’ ... on the contrary, many times in other passages he expressly urges how important it is to feel beauty (and thus love) in the perceptive process. For example:
Because of this imposition (the passions are the secondary stage of the perceptive process) the pristine purity of the actual world is nowhere to be found ... and, as ‘being’ itself has its presence in the passions, its arrogation of ownership ensures it never will be. For as long as it remains a ‘presence’ that is. RESPONDENT: We can all see in ourselves that identification is a kind of blindness. RICHARD: If only the enlightened beings could see that, eh?
RESPONDENT: An interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting. RESPONDENT: If they truly understand you, they would be able to explain what you point to in their own words how it is seen to operate in themselves and not just parrot quotations in fear of distorting ‘original’ meaning. Or they would point out where what you are saying seems to be at odds with the facts as they see them. What a speaker communicates verbally can only be understood in terms of the listener’s own direct experiencing or insight. RICHARD: So as to not become side-tracked into discussing various qualifiers, conditioners and caveats which may or may not apply ... am I to take it from the general thrust of your response that you have not concluded that ‘an interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says’ after all? * RESPONDENT: Meaning in terms of verbal expression depends upon context. RICHARD: If you ever lose your day job you could always earn pin-money tutoring elderly matriarchs qua ovo fellare ... if you were to cast your gaze upwards you will see these words: [Richard]: ‘... 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 ...’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Your pleasure at proving yourself ‘right’ (in your own mind at least) is once again noted. RICHARD: You might as well tear the page out of your notebook now, where you jotted down that theory, as all I was doing was pointing to the textual evidence which demonstrates that this is not kindergarten. RESPONDENT: Feels good, eh? :-) RICHARD: As I have no way of feeling whatever it is you are feeling you will have to feel it through to its hollow end all on your own. * RESPONDENT: The expression that the observer is the observed is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations. RICHARD: Not in the way it is presented in this instance ... perhaps if I were to sequentially arrange Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meditation method, in accordance to the step-by-step manner with which he so eloquently described his technique in the three paragraphs which started this thread, it may become obvious to even the most jaundiced eye what those five words are saying: [snipped for reasons of space]. Do you see how you have had to isolate step No. 10 from the nine preceding steps in order to be able to say that the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations? RESPONDENT: Instead of looking at the words of K, look at nature with a truly quiet mind, without trying to do anything or bring about any particular state. When the movement of thought completely stops, what happens? An attention of an entirely different order comes about. There is a fundamental change in the mind that looks. There is a seeing that is not from ‘in here’ looking ‘out there’. The understanding of it is in the experiencing of it, not in thinking about what someone else says about it. RICHARD: Here is a suggestion: instead of only looking at nature, also look at the words of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti with a truly quiet mind, without trying to do anything or bring about any particular state:
When the movement of thought completely stops, what happens? Is there an attention of an entirely different order which comes about? Is there a fundamental change in the mind that looks? Is there a seeing which is not from ‘in here’ looking ‘out there’? Is not the understanding of ‘the observer is the observed’, in regards to ‘the outside is the inside’, in the experiencing of it ... rather than isolating the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ from the context it is sitting in so as to be able to say it is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations? ‘Tis only a suggestion, mind you. * RESPONDENT: The way I interpret it, when the observing aspect of the psyche is not treated as different from the observed contents (fear, anger, etc) all conflict ends. The observer IS the content, IS programming. RICHARD: Okay ... in the context under discussion the ‘observed contents’ of the psyche are the outside (pointed out by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in the instance provided as being ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’) and when the ‘observing aspect of the psyche’ is not treated as different from these observed contents then ‘all conflict ends’ (aka the outside is the inside) ... ‘the observer IS the content’ (aka the observer is the observed). This is nothing more than a different way of putting what I have been maintaining all along: ‘the inner’ creates its own reality, which it pastes as a veneer over the actual world, and then calls that reality ‘the outer’ ... then the ‘inner’, feeling isolated from ‘the outer’, seeks unity with its own creation (little realising it is its own creation of course) and the rare few who achieve this sleight of hand experience a state of unitive awareness (otherwise known as union or oneness or wholeness). Yet all the while this actual world goes unnoticed ... there is no inner or outer in actuality. RESPONDENT: If the inner creates its own reality, that is delusion. RICHARD: No ... that is illusion (such as is experienced by perhaps 6.0 billion people): the delusion is when the inner becomes one with its own reality (such as is experienced by perhaps 1.2 thousand people). RESPONDENT: And conflict will not end with that because a reality invented by the mind of man is at odds with truth, with what is. RICHARD: No, the reality invented by the feeling-fed mind of human beings *is* the truth, the what is ... what it is at odds with is the fact, the actual. RESPONDENT: The observer is the observed means there is no subject split from object. RICHARD: Which means that the outside is the inside. RESPONDENT: There is an attention that is not identified, not localized, not structured in thought. RICHARD: Indeed so ... what you are referring to is a thoughtless, unidentified, oceanic RESPONDENT: Therefore that attention has unlimited space. RICHARD: If you are saying that the physical space, of the infinitude this material universe actually is, is boundless then I am in full agreement ... however it would seem from what follows that you are not and are describing a metaphysical space instead. RESPONDENT: And it has its own movement. RICHARD: Aye ... ‘tis a restless place that metaphysical space (whereas this actual infinitude is utter stillness). RESPONDENT: You don’t have to be K to realize this is so. RICHARD: Indeed not ... there are, and have been, many and varied sages and seers who have realised what you say is so. * RESPONDENT: Because the observer mind state is programming it moves according to a pattern determined by past experience. It is not free of that. RICHARD: There is more to it than this ... just for starters there are the affective feelings to take into account: sensory perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; thought perception is tertiary. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in step No. 6 above only said [quote] ‘do not think’ [endquote] and never said ‘do not feel’ ... on the contrary, many times in other passages he expressly urges how important it is to feel beauty (and thus love) in the perceptive process. For example: ‘It is essential to appreciate beauty. The beauty of the sky, the beauty of the sun upon the hill, the beauty of a smile, a face, a gesture, the beauty of the moonlight on the water, of the fading clouds, the song of the bird, it is essential to look at it, to feel it, to be with it, this is the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth. (...) So it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for the feeling of beauty is the feeling of love’. (‘Fifth Public Talk at Poona’ by J. Krishnamurti; 21 September 1958). Because of this imposition (the passions are the secondary stage of the perceptive process) the pristine purity of the actual world is nowhere to be found ... and, as ‘being’ itself has its presence in the passions, its arrogation of ownership ensures it never will be. For as long as it remains a ‘presence’ that is. RESPONDENT: If what you call being has its presence in the passions, feeling is distorted, corrupted. That is not love. RICHARD: As any affective feeling is a distortion and a corruption of the actual it matters not which is the correct distortion and corruption. RESPONDENT: Love as K said is entirely free of thought in terms of the self as the past. RICHARD: Yet love is undeniably the feeling of ‘being’ – be it past, present, future or timeless – which feeling of ‘being’ is what is secondary in the perceptive process ... sensate perception is primary and thus ‘being’-less. There is no ‘presence’ in bare sensory perception. RESPONDENT: There is no attachment involved. RICHARD: How could there be when love is all that is? RESPONDENT: No sense of possessiveness. RICHARD: The possessiveness of love is so total that it is rarely discerned as such ... it is an all-engulfing possessorship. RESPONDENT: It is not ‘my’ love. RICHARD: Whose love is it then? And before you answer I will remind you of the following:
Would it be in order to presume that the love you say ‘is not ‘my’ love’ is not yours in a narrow exclusive sense but is yours in the sense that it is true nature or the ground in being of all things? * RESPONDENT: We can all see in ourselves that identification is a kind of blindness. RICHARD: If only the enlightened beings could see that, eh? RESPONDENT: One does not become enlightened. Illumination occurs when the self is not. RICHARD: Or, more accurately, enlightenment/illumination occurs when the thinking self is not and the feeling self is. Viz.:
Here is my question: if the thinking self can get such rigorous scrutiny as the mailing list gives it ... why not the feeling self? Is the feeling self sacrosanct?
RESPONDENT: An interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting. RESPONDENT: If they truly understand you, they would be able to explain what you point to in their own words how it is seen to operate in themselves and not just parrot quotations in fear of distorting ‘original’ meaning. Or they would point out where what you are saying seems to be at odds with the facts as they see them. What a speaker communicates verbally can only be understood in terms of the listener’s own direct experiencing or insight. RICHARD: So as to not become side-tracked into discussing various qualifiers, conditioners and caveats which may or may not apply ... am I to take it from the general thrust of your response that you have not concluded that ‘an interpretive meaning is all that can be given to what another says’ after all? RESPONDENT: It depends on what you mean by interpret. RICHARD: As it appears from what follows that you would rather become side-tracked into discussing various qualifiers, conditioners and caveats than acknowledge what the general thrust of your response seems to indicate I will say this much: what I am pointing to, where I say there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting, is a fellow human being who is vitally interested in what it is to be living happily and harmlessly, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, so as to be free to find out, once and for all, what life, the universe, and being human is all about ... a quest which is variously put as being ‘what is the meaning of life’ or ‘what is the purpose of existence’ or ‘where are we coming from, where are we going to, what are we here for’ and so on. This fellow human being is capable of listening with both ears – or reading with both eyes – because they want to know, so intensely that they have never wanted anything as much as this ever before, for themselves just what this business called being alive actually means ... and they want to know it now, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, and not later. Such a depth of sincerity obviates turning what they hear or read into being a clip-on to their existing mind-set ... because sincerity enables naiveté. And naiveté is the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’. RESPONDENT: To understand the verbal meaning of what someone has written, you need to consider the context. There has to be a common understanding of terms and a correct reading of the language used. That effort is interpretation. RICHARD: Are you so sure that perspiration is always involved ... let alone always leading to interpretation? For a simple example: it is said that Richard is tall – and as the verb ‘is’ means being the very thing referred to – then this common word usage unambiguously indicates that I am tall ... it does not mean I exist in relationship with tallness; it does not mean that there is no separation between me and tallness; it does not mean there is no split between me and tallness or any other obfuscation someone may come up with ... it quite straightforwardly means that I am tall. Granted not every instance is this effortless ... but there is more than just a few which are. RESPONDENT: But insight into the nature of thought and the psyche is not a matter of comparison of images of past experiences. For instance you say you lived a certain delusional mind state for 11 years so you know what is involved when another speaks of enlightenment or emptiness or wholeness or the ground in being etc. You are then interpreting from the authority of your own experience are you not? That is not listening without interpreting. RICHARD: First of all, the ‘certain delusional mind state’ which you are referencing for the purpose of your example was indeed enlightenment (in case it has been taken as meaning being deluded enough to consider oneself enlightened when one was not). Second, there is a distinct difference between the authority of experience (expertise) and the authority of law (rule) ... and listening to or reading another relating the very same experiencing with the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension which lived understanding endows can in no way be described as interpreting if for no other reason than like recognises like. Last, but not at all least, since you are specifically referring to me listening or reading at this very moment (where the
delusion called spiritual enlightenment is no longer extant) it would be helpful to explain that it is impossible for this brain to form images as
the entire imaginative/intuitive faculty has vanished I could not form a mental picture of something if my life depended upon it ... whereas in earlier years ‘I’ could get a picture in ‘my’ mind’s eye of ‘my’ absent father, mother, wife, children and so on ... or the painting ‘I’ was going to paint, or the coffee-table ‘I’ was going to build, or the route ‘I’ was going to take by car or whatever. If I were to close my eyes now, and try to visualise, all what happens is the same velvety-smooth darkness – as looking into the infinite and eternal universe at night – which has been the case for all these years now. I simply cannot have images ... when I recall childhood, adolescence, early adulthood, being middle-aged or yesterday it is as if it were a documentary on television but with the picture turned off (words only) or like reading a book of somebody’s life. * RESPONDENT: Meaning in terms of verbal expression depends upon context. RICHARD: If you ever lose your day job you could always earn pin-money tutoring elderly matriarchs qua ovo fellare ... if you were to cast your gaze upwards you will see these words: [Richard]: ‘... 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 ...’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Your pleasure at proving yourself ‘right’ (in your own mind at least) is once again noted. RICHARD: You might as well tear the page out of your notebook now, where you jotted down that theory, as all I was doing was pointing to the textual evidence which demonstrates that this is not kindergarten. RESPONDENT: Interesting. And you sense no feeling involved in the reference to kindergarten? RICHARD: As there are no affective feelings whatsoever in this flesh and blood body – they of course vanished right along with the ‘being’ when that identity finally ‘self’-immolated – there is never any ‘feeling involved’ in any situation or circumstance ... least of all in regards to something so elementary as pointing out where someone is presuming to advise somebody of something already explicitly stated as being a condition of the discussion’s viability. In short: the comment in question is a simple matter-of-fact observation ... albeit somewhat droll (although it would appear its drollness got lost in transit). * RESPONDENT: Feels good, eh? :-) RICHARD: As I have no way of feeling whatever it is you are feeling you will have to feel it through to its hollow end all on your own. RESPONDENT: That is interesting. The absence of feeling is a kind of disorder because feeling is a natural and valuable feedback loop. RICHARD: The affective feelings are most certainly natural – as is the hot-blooded killing of one’s fellow human being – so much so that I make no secret of the fact that what I am reporting is indeed unnatural. For just one example:
Speaking from the on-going experiencing, for just on a decade now, of living life sans the ‘feedback loop’ you prize so highly I can unequivocally testify that operating and functioning in the everyday world of people, things and events freed of any and all instinctual passions and their cultivated derivations is inconceivably easy and efficacious ... and unimaginably superior to the primitive way human beings have had to operate and function as and by for millennia. But if you continue to see it as ‘a kind of disorder’ you will not be on your own ... there are others who also see it that way. RESPONDENT: When some people are confronted with horror, with overwhelming psychological trauma, they unconsciously cope by disconnecting. The intellect becomes isolated from the heart centre in some way. It may be that something happens to the brain. RICHARD: The psychiatric name for this which you describe is alexithymia. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Have you seen the movie ‘The Deer Hunter’? There is a character who after being tortured as a prisoner is finally freed. But he no longer cares or feels anymore. He keeps playing Russian roulette for money until he loses the game. No doubt in excruciating conditions that can happen. RICHARD: I did see the movie, many years ago, but being a fictional work there is not much that I can recall of it ... other than it being a laboured and designed-to-shock capitalisation on a particular war’s notoriety, that is. RESPONDENT: I am not an expert in the area but one can see in oneself that an absence of feeling is almost always associated with avoidance or denial mechanisms. What we need is not to be unconscious of feelings but to be more aware of what we feel even when there is an aversion to what we see. RICHARD: There is something far, far better than what you are proposing ... psychologising has its place in the real-world but in the final analysis all psychologies are predicated upon being something like what might be described as ‘a well-adjusted ego balancing the conflicting demands of society and self’ and, as such, depend upon stabilising strategies, coping mechanisms, management techniques and the like (and it has been said, however truthfully, that the psychiatric profession has one of the highest suicides rates of all professions). In short: there are no solutions to be found in the real-world ... the only solution is dissolution. RESPONDENT: It is not possible to transcend what we deny or avoid. RICHARD: As transcendence involves sublimation that is a questionable point ... but, be that at is may, an actual freedom from the human condition is far, far better than the transcendence of it anyway. The pristine purity of this actual world is impeccable ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in.
RICHARD: ... what I am pointing to, where I say there are peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting, is a fellow human being who is vitally interested in what it is to be living happily and harmlessly, in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are, so as to be free to find out, once and for all, what life, the universe, and being human is all about ... a quest which is variously put as being ‘what is the meaning of life’ or ‘what is the purpose of existence’ or ‘where are we coming from, where are we going to, what are we here for’ and so on. This fellow human being is capable of listening with both ears – or reading with both eyes – because they want to know, so intensely that they have never wanted anything as much as this ever before, for themselves just what this business called being alive actually means ... and they want to know it now, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, and not later. Such a depth of sincerity obviates turning what they hear or read into being a clip-on to their existing mind-set ... because sincerity enables naiveté. And naiveté is the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’. RESPONDENT: You seem to believe that once you ‘know’ what this business of life actually means, there is no confusion in interpreting what others say as a clip-on to your existing mind state. RICHARD: As what I was writing about (above) was in regards the peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting – and not about how I read or listen to what another has to say – then what seems to be so to you has no relevance to what happens here ... if only because naiveté, whilst being the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’, is not innocence itself. As for what happens here: as life is already always complete in this actual world there is nothing that can be added to it (or subtracted from it) ... and this is not a matter of believing as it is an on-going experiencing. RESPONDENT: Isn’t that exactly what you are doing in preaching actualism? RICHARD: No, not at all (as already explained further above) and I find it curious that you would choose to use the word ‘preaching’ ... is that the way you experience somebody talking about the actuality of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body? Surely you are not suggesting that such a person should just keep quiet about an actual freedom from the human condition and not inform their fellow human beings that it is possible? That it is okay to be happy and harmless but one had better keep it to oneself? Would that not only be selfish but socially reprehensible as well? RESPONDENT: But this kind of interpretation is still confusion isn’t it? RICHARD: As there is no ‘this kind of interpretation’ happening here there is, of course, no such ‘confusion’ as what you refer to. RESPONDENT: Knowledge is distorting perception. RICHARD: We have been down this path before, you and I, and nothing has changed since then. Viz.:
Now do you comprehend how I can say that listening to or reading another relating the very same experiencing, with the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension which lived understanding endows, can in no way be described as interpreting ... if for no other reason than like recognises like? RESPONDENT: Instead of observing with two eyes, can there be observation with ‘one eye’, i.e. with consciousness that is undivided? RICHARD: Obviously there can be ... the latest estimate puts the number of one-eyed people at the 1.2 thousand mark. RESPONDENT: It is possible to let what you see reveal what it is. RICHARD: Only if it is hidden in the first place ... here in this actual world the ‘meaning of life’, or the ‘purpose of existence’, or however one’s quest was described, lies open all around. As it has been all along. * RESPONDENT: But insight into the nature of thought and the psyche is not a matter of comparison of images of past experiences. For instance you say you lived a certain delusional mind state for 11 years so you know what is involved when another speaks of enlightenment or emptiness or wholeness or the ground in being etc. You are then interpreting from the authority of your own experience are you not? That is not listening without interpreting. RICHARD: First of all, the ‘certain delusional mind state’ which you are referencing for the purpose of your example was indeed enlightenment (in case it has been taken as meaning being deluded enough to consider oneself enlightened when one was not). RESPONDENT: The fact that one believes they attained an actual state of enlightenment implies self-image. The self gets established in certain kinds of experiences and labels them as enlightenment. RICHARD: It comes as no surprise to hear you say this. RESPONDENT: The term enlightenment as used in Buddhism is not really that. RICHARD: Of course not ... but as I never said it was then all you are doing here is setting up a straw-man so that you can proceed to knock it down (presumably whilst being under the impression you are having a meaningful dialogue with your co-respondent). RESPONDENT: Dogen taught for example that ‘to study the self is to lose the self. To lose the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to lose even a trace of enlightenment and that ‘no trace’ continues endlessly’. This is a way of speaking of a state that is without separation. It is not ‘me’ as an objectless subject. It is an attention that is without self-reflection. RICHARD: As the little I know of what Mr. Kigen Dogen had to say begins and ends with the words he uttered upon full enlightenment (while studying under Mr. Ju-Ching in China) I will reproduce them here:
* RICHARD: ... since you are specifically referring to me listening or reading at this very moment (where the delusion
called spiritual enlightenment is no longer extant) it would be helpful to explain that it is impossible for this brain to form images as the
entire imaginative/intuitive faculty has vanished RESPONDENT: I doubt if what you are saying is true. RICHARD: Sure ... all I am doing here, as has been the case ever since coming onto the internet, is to share my experience with my fellow human being for them to do with what they will. RESPONDENT: To the extent that it is, I don’t know why you believe it is something of merit. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘believe’ it to be anything – let alone ‘something of merit’ – as it is patently beneficial to operate and function sans the imaginative/intuitive faculty. RESPONDENT: Ability to imagine creatively or intuit is not problematic. RICHARD: As I have personally met umpteen number of people who ‘imagine creatively or intuit’ all manner of things which have no existence outside of the human psyche you are way out on your own with this observation. RESPONDENT: The ability to remember through use of images is essential to effectively function. RICHARD: Speaking from the on-going experiencing, for just on a decade now, of living life sans the ‘use of images’ you say are essential I can unequivocally testify that operating and functioning in the everyday world of people, things and events freed of the imaginative/intuitive faculty is a breeze. RESPONDENT: For example, I can study a geographical map of an area and later picture and recollect where places, streets, cities, etc are in relationship to each other. It is almost like calling up a screen on the computer. Another common example – I am looking for an object used yesterday and can recall through images step by step what occurred the day before. By retracing steps, I can bring back the specific memory of where the object was left. When I find the information needed, no further energy is given to image-making. RICHARD: Whereas my experience is that both navigation and the locating of misplaced objects do not require an imaginative/intuitive faculty. RESPONDENT: We all do variations of this very quickly for all sorts of purposes. RICHARD: That there is one person not doing this puts a dent in your ‘we all do’ theory. RESPONDENT: The images occur on a subconscious level. RICHARD: No such event occurs in this brain. RESPONDENT: You don’t look directly at them like you would look at a physical object. RICHARD: As there is no imaging occurring in this brain, to look at either directly or indirectly, you can only be speaking to an image you have of me. RESPONDENT: An inability to perceive without images distorting perception is a much different question. RICHARD: Aye ... but as there is no imaging happening in this brain anyway your ‘much different question’ has no relevance. * RESPONDENT: Meaning in terms of verbal expression depends upon context. RICHARD: If you ever lose your day job you could always earn pin-money tutoring elderly matriarchs qua ovo fellare ... if you were to cast your gaze upwards you will see these words: [Richard]: ‘... 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 ...’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: Your pleasure at proving yourself ‘right’ (in your own mind at least) is once again noted. RICHARD: You might as well tear the page out of your notebook now, where you jotted down that theory, as all I was doing was pointing to the textual evidence which demonstrates that this is not kindergarten. RESPONDENT: Interesting. And you sense no feeling involved in the reference to kindergarten? RICHARD: As there are no affective feelings whatsoever in this flesh and blood body – they of course vanished right along with the ‘being’ when that identity finally ‘self’-immolated – there is never any ‘feeling involved’ in any situation or circumstance ... least of all in regards to something so elementary as pointing out where someone is presuming to advise somebody of something already explicitly stated as being a condition of the discussion’s viability. In short: the comment in question is a simple matter-of-fact observation ... albeit somewhat droll (although it would appear its drollness got lost in transit). RESPONDENT: You are side-stepping the fact that a disparaging comment was made from a feeling of superiority. RICHARD: You have made it more or less apparent by now, via several unsolicited character analyses, that you might very well be proposing a, somewhat tenuous, theory about me being in denial, because of avoidance, and thus out of touch with the feelings you are (maybe intuitively) convinced are in my words, yet just by calling it ‘the fact’ that my comment was made from a feeling does not make your certitude a certainty. If you were to put this conviction back where it came from and re-read what I wrote you may be able to see that I provided a full, explanatory response with no side-stepping whatsoever. RESPONDENT: The feeling comes through quite often in what you write. RICHARD: Whilst I appreciate your concern the conviction it arises from is entirely unfounded. RESPONDENT: I doubt many people miss it. RICHARD: Over the last decade I have interacted with many and varied people in the flesh – and face-to-face communication is a more accurate way to get reliable feedback in regards to the affective feelings than e-mails – yet almost without exception their concern, if any, has been about the absence of an affective response. And, as I remarked in an earlier e-mail, I have been examined by experts in the field for many, many years now. RESPONDENT: You go to a great deal of effort to show off intellectual and verbal skills and often scoff at what others say in as clever a manner as you can think up. RICHARD: It is no effort at all to write intelligently and skilfully, as I happen to like words and have always enjoyed the wide range this particular language commands, and have no intention of dumbing-down just because someone has an ill-founded objection to such proficiency. RESPONDENT: I see this dynamic in my own actions sometimes. RICHARD: And that is the best place to see it ... not only can you know it is happening you can actually do something about it. RESPONDENT: There is a difference between having no feelings and being out of touch with one’s feelings. RICHARD: Indeed ... having no feelings is far, far better (as the ‘self’ is still extant in a person out of touch with their feelings). RESPONDENT: Feelings are what motivate us. RICHARD: Whereas the very fact of being alive on this verdant and azure paradise is what motivates me. RESPONDENT: The interest here is what kind of feelings are occurring in myself and what role is the conditioning we call self playing in those feelings? RICHARD: There is more to a ‘self’ than conditioning ... at root it is the very feelings you say it is playing a role in.
RESPONDENT: You seem to believe that once you ‘know’ what this business of life actually means, there is no confusion in interpreting what others say as a clip-on to your existing mind state. RICHARD: As what I was writing about (above) was in regards the peoples who listen to what I have to say without interpreting – and not about how I read or listen to what another has to say – then what seems to be so to you has no relevance to what happens here ... if only because naiveté, whilst being the closest one can come to innocence whilst remaining a ‘self’, is not innocence itself. As for what happens here: as life is already always complete in this actual world there is nothing that can be added to it (or subtracted from it) ... and this is not a matter of believing as it is an on-going experiencing. RESPONDENT: Adding-on as interpreting is either a confusing factor or it is not. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to say it again: as life is already always complete in this actual world there is nothing that can be added to it. RESPONDENT: If I point out that listening is not interpreting and then proceed with interpreting anyway, I am obviously not aware of the contradiction between what I say and what I do. No doubt this occurs sometimes when I discuss ... RICHARD: Like what happened just above? RESPONDENT: ... and it appears evident at times in your comments as well. RICHARD: Has it ever occurred to you that the reason why you see my ‘comments’ as being overly literal (whatever that means) might very well be because the benchmark you are judging them by is your underly literal (whatever that means) understanding? Just curious. RESPONDENT: When we attempt to persuade or debate, we are pushing a particular set of conclusions or agenda. RICHARD: I have never made a secret of what my agenda is in writing to this mailing list (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) and I have no reservations whatsoever about endeavouring to persuade another to read with both eyes ... but to describe this pastime as ‘pushing a particular set of conclusions’ is to miss the point entirely. RESPONDENT: We are not taking a fresh look ourselves. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... apperceptive awareness ensures that an ever-fresh percipience is constantly happening of its own accord. RESPONDENT: I don’t doubt that you believe what you say and that you feel what you have to offer could be helpful. RICHARD: I do not have to ‘believe’ that what is being written is beneficial at all as the words describing what is on offer are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring ... they are coming directly out of actuality – factual experiencing – and not from some nebulous feeling of helpfulness such as you would have be the case. * RICHARD: I find it curious that you would choose to use the word ‘preaching’ ... is that the way you experience somebody talking about the actuality of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body? Surely you are not suggesting that such a person should just keep quiet about an actual freedom from the human condition and not inform their fellow human beings that it is possible? That it is okay to be happy and harmless but one had better keep it to oneself? Would that not only be selfish but socially reprehensible as well? RESPONDENT: When I represent my experience as something others should seek or emulate, I am trying to lead. But it is my experience and others can only imagine that. RICHARD: Whereas I provide a description of life in this actual world such that others who are vitally interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, can recall, or have happen again, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) ... and, as the PCE enables one to know for oneself what is being described, it is what does the leading. As this leaves me sitting watching TV, with my feet up on the coffee table, it is a most estimable state of affairs. RESPONDENT: So I am distracting others from understanding themselves. At first it doesn’t seem like it, but it becomes clear in observing how others misunderstand what I am saying. RICHARD: Would this be why you chose to use the word ‘preaching’ when referring to me informing my fellow human beings about the already always existing peace-on-earth? RESPONDENT: Moreover, I question whether freedom or happiness is something to seek. The seeking, grasping, desiring mind is painful, is suffering. RICHARD: Whereas with the PCE as one’s guiding light, as it were, one is drawn deliciously to one’s destiny. RESPONDENT: You say that suffering is not happening for you because you have though some deliberate action brought about an end to the self that suffers. RICHARD: I did not do anything at all – I have been here all along having a ball – as it was the identity in parasitical residence who did all what was necessary. RESPONDENT: What is that deliberate action? RICHARD: Put succinctly: altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RESPONDENT: You say be aware of what you are experiencing. RICHARD: What I say is nothing other than a report of what worked for the parasitical identity ... who asked, until it became a non-verbal attitude to life, a wordless approach each moment again, the following question:
After all, this moment is the only moment one is ever alive, and such exquisite So much so that an inevitability sets in. RESPONDENT: If it is the experiencer that makes efforts to be aware and stay aware, the centre is strengthened, not dissolved, right? RICHARD: Since when has naiveté been sudorific? * RESPONDENT: Knowledge is distorting perception. RICHARD: We have been down this path before, you and I, and nothing has changed since then. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘People say they experience God or love or they want to have or know love. But what is known is of thought and memory, it is rooted in time, i.e. – the self’. [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, using ‘thought and memory’ , could readily recognise that which he variously called god, truth, that which is sacred, holy, the presence, the otherness and etcetera, each time again. For an example: [quote]: ‘That presence which was at il L. [two months previously at Il Leccio, Italy] was there, waiting patiently, benignly, with great tenderness. It was like lightening on a dark night but it was there, penetrating, blissful’. (June 27 1961; page 14, ‘Krishnamurti’s Notebook’, Harper & Row, New York 1976). It does pay to read with both eyes open (rather than listen only to the ‘he who says he knows does not know’ style of rhetoric), eh? (www.escribe.com/religion/listening/m13677.html). Now do you comprehend how I can say that listening to or reading another relating the very same experiencing, with the expertise which comes from the intimate comprehension which lived understanding endows, can in no way be described as interpreting ... if for no other reason than like recognises like? RESPONDENT: You must know that K often stated that what is recognized, what is of thought or within the field of the known is not love, not the sacred. RICHARD: Of course ... but that is not what is being referred to (above). RESPONDENT: So it is understandable that you would question, how then did K know? RICHARD: No, I do not question it at all as I am already intimately aware, due to the direct experiencing which was happening, night and day for eleven years, that the truth can be known. RESPONDENT: How is it he spoke of the sacred or of love at all? RICHARD: In a word: intimately. RESPONDENT: If there is a different aspect of mind that awakens and one attempts to discuss it, those that listen usually translate what is said according to what they know. Therein lies the problem. If that aspect of mind is operating then yes, I agree that like understands like. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: But if someone interprets K as saying that ‘you are that’ in an egoistic sense, you are not really hearing K in my opinion. RICHARD: I have never said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – or any enlightened being – was saying that in an egoic way ... if there be an ego-self present it is not enlightenment speaking. RESPONDENT: The other is when the self is not. RICHARD: The other is when the ego-self is not. RESPONDENT: To be clear, K suggested a higher ‘me’ or a Super-me is an escape. RICHARD: Only if it be not the living reality, at that very moment, for the person concerned (just as he did in regards god or truth and so on also being such an escape). RESPONDENT: I acknowledge that K sometimes made statements that could lead you to think that is what he meant. RICHARD: It has never lead me to consider that is what he meant. RESPONDENT: It is similar to the problem in Buddhism. Teachers use the expression ‘your’ or ‘our’ big mind or ‘your’ Buddha mind. RICHARD: The problem being, of course, that identity as ‘being’ or ‘presence’ (aka ‘suchness’, ‘thatness’, ‘isness’) is still in place in spiritual enlightenment ... whether it be described as transformed, transfigured, transmuted, metamorphosed, merged, integrated, unified, or any other word of that ilk, it is identification nevertheless. RESPONDENT: The bottom line is that you can’t understand the nature of mind by merely studying the words of others. RICHARD: As I have repeatedly referred to a living understanding of, not only eleven years of spiritual enlightenment, but a decade now of an actual freedom from the human condition, I do look askance at what you say here ... plus there is more to understanding human nature than pointing the finger at thought. Viz.:
As feelings demonstrably come before thought in the perceptive process this is but a shallow understanding. RESPONDENT: It comes through earnest self-study. RICHARD: If the above quoted understanding is what comes through ‘earnest self-study’ then perhaps something else is called for. * RESPONDENT: Instead of observing with two eyes, can there be observation with ‘one eye’, i.e. with consciousness that is undivided? RICHARD: Obviously there can be ... the latest estimate puts the number of one-eyed people at the 1.2 thousand mark. RESPONDENT: If you are calling undivided awareness delusion, then you are translating, projecting and misinterpreting. RICHARD: As my report, that the altered state of consciousness popularly known as spiritual enlightenment is a delusion born out of an illusion, comes from lived experiencing I am at a loss to see how you can say it is a translation, a projection, and a misinterpretation of what the one-eyed beings are saying. RESPONDENT: If you are saying that a shift in consciousness is not a once and for all ending of confusion, then I agree. RICHARD: As shifting from an illusion to a delusion can in no way be described as an ending of confusion anyway it matters little whether it be ‘once and for all’ or moment to moment. RESPONDENT: But I don’t see how ending illusion equates to delusion. RICHARD: The illusion does not end per se ... it transforms (or whatever word of that ilk) itself into being a delusion. RESPONDENT: Obviously delusion occurs where there is identification. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: Losing identifications is basic to meditation. RICHARD: Losing personalised identifications is basic to meditation. RESPONDENT: Losing identifications and attachments includes dying to your egoistic emotions. RICHARD: Aye ... this is in lieu of dying *as* the ‘egoistic emotions’ (and the soulistic passions) of course. * RESPONDENT: It is possible to let what you see reveal what it is. RICHARD: Only if it is hidden in the first place ... here in this actual world the ‘meaning of life’, or the ‘purpose of existence’, or however one’s quest was described, lies open all around. As it has been all along. RESPONDENT: Sure feels good to talk about it doesn’t it. ;-) RICHARD: If it ‘sure feels good’ to talk about the meaning of life being not hidden but lying open all around as it has been all along then one is not here, in this actual world, now. The perfection and purity of this actual world is impeccable ... nothing ‘dirty’ can get in. * RESPONDENT: Dogen taught for example that ‘to study the self is to lose the self. To lose the self is to be enlightened by all things. To be enlightened by all things is to lose even a trace of enlightenment and that ‘no trace’ continues endlessly’. This is a way of speaking of a state that is without separation. It is not ‘me’ as an objectless subject. It is an attention that is without self-reflection. RICHARD: As the little I know of what Mr. Kigen Dogen had to say begins and ends with the words he uttered upon full enlightenment (while studying under Mr. Ju-Ching in China) I will reproduce them here: ‘Mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body!’ (Dogen Zenji 1200 – 1253). RESPONDENT: Only what is false can drop away. Body drops away has a peculiar meaning. RICHARD: If, as you say, ‘body drops away’ has a peculiar meaning it could very well be in the translation from thirteenth century Japanese into twenty first century English ... for example, the quote you provided (further above) has at least a dozen variations. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: One who is unaware of what is referred to will misinterpret it as something false, i.e. – metaphysics, invention of thought; a grand delusion. RICHARD: One who is unaware that spiritual enlightenment is a delusion born out of an illusion will, of course, not even begin to comprehend the degree of self-deception involved in saying ‘mind and body dropped off; dropped off mind and body!’ ... they would rather say, for example, that the phrase has a ... um ... a peculiar meaning. In other words: anything other than what the phrase says. RESPONDENT: Unalike misunderstands unalike, no? RICHARD: If the various translations (above) are anything to go by it would appear so.
CORRESPONDENT No. 12 (Part Nineteen) 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 |
