|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 19
RESPONDENT No. 42: K, when asked during WWII to condemn the enemy, always advised the questioners to look into themselves and eradicate anger there. Not many people listened. RESPONDENT No. 33: That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else. RICHARD: Would this ‘anger in X, Y, or Z’ be what expressed itself in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the real-life litigious relationship with his erstwhile associate Mr. Desik Rajagopal, rather than what two friends sitting together under a tree would ideally be expressing? RESPONDENT: Why are you so bent on assigning a failure to Krishnamurti to have realized the actuality that you have? RICHARD: As always I am only interested in having an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race. RESPONDENT: It seems that every turn, you try to prove that K was not of ‘your’ level of freedom. RICHARD: Yet this is a mailing list set up to discuss these very issues ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
himself said to question everything, including the speaker RESPONDENT: It is this fanatical drive of yours to prove K ‘wrong’ and you ‘right’ that throws such a cloud over your own ‘would be ‘teachings’.’ This constant barrage of attacks on K shows that you have an almost desperate need to be the only one on Earth to know what you know. I’m not saying that ‘know’ isn’t true, but it is quite ‘suspicious’ because of your mean-ness. RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder there is very little questioning of these basic issues ... just look at the response when somebody does so (‘fanatical drive’ and ‘would be ‘teachings’’ and ‘constant barrage of attacks’ and ‘an almost desperate need’ and ‘mean-ness’). RESPONDENT: For example, the evidence you offer above to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger. RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon? RESPONDENT: From what I understand, K felt that the people who supported him had the right to make the call of the ‘ownership’ of his own writings, and what they wanted was for the writings to be in the hands of a foundation and not in the hands of one person – Raj. RICHARD: Allow me to quote, in part, the relevant text of the final settlement of the lawsuits (written in legalese language):
RESPONDENT: Do you have any inkling at all how tacky those sort of statements are, how small? RICHARD: No.
RESPONDENT: It is this fanatical drive of yours to prove K ‘wrong’ and you ‘right’ that throws such a cloud over your own ‘would be ‘teachings’.’ This constant barrage of attacks on K shows that you have an almost desperate need to be the only one on Earth to know what you know. I’m not saying that ‘know’ isn’t true, but it is quite ‘suspicious’ because of your mean-ness. RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder there is very little questioning of these basic issues ... just look at the response when somebody does so (‘fanatical drive’ and ‘would be ‘teachings’’ and ‘constant barrage of attacks’ and ‘an almost desperate need’ and ‘mean-ness’). RESPONDENT: For example, the evidence you offer above to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger. RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon? RESPONDENT: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question. RICHARD: I asked the question because of the nature of what I was responding to. Viz.:
Generally speaking, the anger that the various saints, sages and seers have come out with from time to time has been designated as ‘Divine Anger’, for example, and I was allowing the possibility that any anger displayed by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti may have thus been exempt from the normal or garden variety. Specifically written into the question is, basically, that there is the ideal (sitting together as two
friends under a tree discussing matters) and there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a
former associate’s documents Which is why I suggested that you look again at what I wrote because the issue I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice Lastly, what is indeed ‘hypocritical’ is advising others to do what one has not done oneself. Viz.:
And it is the ‘not many people listened’ statement which is the telling comment ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not listen to his own ‘Teachings’. But, then again, he oft-times distanced himself from the ‘Teachings’ ... as do the many and varied saints, sages and seers (popularly phrased as do not look at the finger but look at what the finger is pointing to). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world:
Eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding re-birth ... not about peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT No. 42: K, when asked during WWII to condemn the enemy, always advised the questioners to look into themselves and eradicate anger there. Not many people listened. RESPONDENT No. 33: That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else. RICHARD: Would this ‘anger in X, Y, or Z’ be what expressed itself in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the real-life litigious relationship with his erstwhile associate Mr. Desik Rajagopal, rather than what two friends sitting together under a tree would ideally be expressing? RESPONDENT No. 42: That’s a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k. From my perspective it seems unlikely. RICHARD: If ‘acquaintance’ is the requirement then here is just one excerpt from someone who did indeed have much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’ : [quote]: ‘Life changed considerably with the Second World War. (...) It is those war years that stand out most clearly in my memory. Where most people’s lives were pulled apart, ours were bound together as they had never been before and never would be again. (...) Those who were closest to us then, those still living, must wonder what went so wrong that such apparent harmony and vitality of spirit and mind and physical enterprise should disintegrate disastrously into a war of litigation. How three people, who for nearly half a century seemed so inevitably bound together in totally unselfish lives, could be involved in bitter and ugly charges brought by one of them against another. How the high ideals of the brotherhood of man, the eschewing of killing or injury to any creature, the search for freedom from ambition, guilt and fear, could dissolve into such discord. The seeds of conflict must have been sown somewhere along the way, beyond my memories’. (‘Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ © 1991, 2000 by Radha Rajagopal Sloss; ISBN 0-595-12131-4: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=05951213141&page=3 ). RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand why you are so desperate to prove that K was an angry man ... RICHARD: What gives you the notion that I am ‘desperate’ ... or is this emotive expressiveness specifically designed to create an impression? RESPONDENT: ... that you would resort to quoting excerpts from a book that was written by the daughter of a man who stubbornly refused to release his sole rights to the writings of Krishnamurti which stated man had surreptitiously obtained in the first place? RICHARD: The outcome of the various lawsuits showed that they were legally Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s documents all along ... here is the relevant text of the final settlement (written in legalese language):
Maybe this will help to show you that I have not had to ‘resort’ to anything? RESPONDENT: Do you not think that a loyal daughter’s viewpoint might be just a little bit prejudiced in favour of her father and her memory coloured by that favouritism, if not even directed? RICHARD: Of course ... it is just that there is far too much detail for it to be an entire fabrication from beginning to end. And the preface does say that it is all backed by letters and documents that cannot be released for a number of years because of copyright laws. Here is the URL so you can see for yourself: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=05951213141&page=fm13 RESPONDENT: Furthermore, how does it further your sole purpose of peace in this lifetime to try and prove yourself privy to some knowledge of some method that no one else is privy to? RICHARD: But there are others that are privy to it via their own pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) ... you are not the only person on this planet. RESPONDENT: Quite obviously, your ‘method’ is at least equally a failure in the cause of ‘peace in the world’ as anybody else’s ... RICHARD: Why ‘quite obviously’? RESPONDENT: ... and speaking of ‘failures’, your attempt to prove K was a failure at eradicating anger from his own life is the pinnacle of failure. RICHARD: How so? I consider that an astute person can read and decide for themselves. RESPONDENT: And speaking of ‘methods,’ just what is your receipt for ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime’? RICHARD: Put briefly: altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.
RESPONDENT No. 21: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT No. 21 Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT No. 21 Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings.
RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand why you are so desperate to prove that K was an angry man ... RICHARD: What gives you the notion that I am ‘desperate’ ... or is this emotive expressiveness specifically designed to create an impression? RESPONDENT: No, I’m not interested in impressing anything or anyone. I see ‘desperation’ when what is emphasized over and over in numerous posts is your accomplishments where every other ‘avatar,’ ‘sage,’ ‘seer,’ etc. etc. have failed. RICHARD: What is emphasised, over and again in most of my posts, is that the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment has failed to enable peace-on-earth because it has another agenda ... and that there is an alternative to either materialism or spiritualism. The reason I discuss the many and varied saints, sages and seers is that they have, therefore, failed to bring an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on as they seek a solution in a timeless and spaceless and formless realm and not in space and time as form (flesh and blood bodies) ... which is where and when and to what all the mayhem and misery occurs. And this is because that highly revered state of being called spiritual enlightenment comes about through sublimation and transcendence (rising above the base passions) rather than the eradication of them. And this (eradicating anger) is what this thread is all about ... in case you have not noticed. RESPONDENT: That displays to me an extreme need ‘to be right,’ i.e., ‘desperate’. RICHARD: Oh? What it displays to me is an actual caring for my fellow human beings’ well-being and a concern that they may obligingly travel the tried and failed traditional path to spiritual enlightenment ... and similarly fail to bring about peace-on-earth. Whereas you see it as ‘an extreme need ‘to be right,’ i.e., ‘desperate’’ ... to each their own, I guess. * RESPONDENT: ... that you would resort to quoting excerpts from a book that was written by the daughter of a man who stubbornly refused to release his sole rights to the writings of Krishnamurti which stated man had surreptitiously obtained in the first place? RICHARD: The outcome of the various lawsuits showed that they were legally Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s documents all along ... here is the relevant text of the final settlement (written in legalese language): [quote]: ‘... the Krishnamurti Parties acknowledge that the documents they sought to recover from the Rajagopal Parties in the prior lawsuits are, in fact, Rajagopal’s documents and may be kept by Rajagopal’. (Case No. 79918, D. Rajagopal, et al. v. J Krishnamurti et al., Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Ventura). Maybe this will help to show you that I have not had to ‘resort’ to anything? RESPONDENT: So? RICHARD: So the outcome of the various lawsuits showed that they were legally Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s documents all along RESPONDENT: That is obviously a tactical practice on the part of lawyers (just ask No. 12). They always ask for more than you are willing to settle for. RICHARD: Yet it was Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s lawsuit ... are you saying he was party to misrepresentation? RESPONDENT: Nevertheless, the majority of what K wrote and spoke is now held in copyright by the Krishnamurti Foundation Trust – how that they get there if it was, in fact, Rajagopal’s? RICHARD: You are confusing two separate matters here ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s copyrighted words (consigned to ‘Krishnamurti Writings Inc.’ up until 1967) and Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s own documents. It is the latter papers that I am referring to ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti wanted all of Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s own collection of papers which, as an individual, he had the right to keep. Here is the relevant URL for the chapter entitled ‘The Wheels of Justice’ (starting from 1970): http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=05951213141&page=320 There were sixteen years of litigation and three separate lawsuits ... all dropped at the final hour. Here is more of the relevant text of the final settlement after his death (written in legalese language):
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had long ago (1968) dissociated himself from ‘Krishnamurti Writings Inc.’ in an official statement read out during the Saanen Gathering of that year. * RESPONDENT: Do you not think that a loyal daughter’s viewpoint might be just a little bit prejudiced in favour of her father and her memory coloured by that favouritism, if not even directed? RICHARD: Of course ... it is just that there is far too much detail for it to be an entire fabrication from beginning to end. And the preface does say that it is all backed by letters and documents that cannot be released for a number of years because of copyright laws. Here is the URL so you can see for yourself: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=05951213141&page=fm13 RESPONDENT: So, obviously, all is still hearsay and gossip. RICHARD: Goodness me ... as Ms. Radha Sloss lived there in the house, night and day, for a greater part the book is largely a first-hand account (and not just ‘hearsay’ ) and to have the original letters and documents in hand to refresh her memory with and verify her parent’s report can in no way be called ‘gossip’. I find it amazing that you can so quickly dismiss such reports with six short words (‘all is still hearsay and gossip’) as if that incantation-like phrase will make all the years of anger and conflict go away. * RESPONDENT: Furthermore, how does it further your sole purpose of peace in this lifetime to try and prove yourself privy to some knowledge of some method that no one else is privy to? RICHARD: But there are others that are privy to it via their own pure consciousness experiences (PCE’s) ... you are not the only person on this planet. RESPONDENT: But your claims for yourself personally point otherwise – that you are the ‘only one.’ RICHARD: I am the only person, for as far as I have been able to ascertain, that is living it twenty four hours of the day ... that is what is new to human history (the on-going and irrevocable experiencing). Recalling – or bringing about – a PCE is vital in comprehending what I have to say. * RESPONDENT: Quite obviously, your ‘method’ is at least equally a failure in the cause of ‘peace in the world’ as anybody else’s ... RICHARD: Why ‘quite obviously’? RESPONDENT: Because, quite obviously, no one else has ‘done it’, as per your own admittance, you are the ‘only one’. If K was a failure, then, so are you. RICHARD: You are mixing two issues here ... the failure of spiritual enlightenment to eradicate anger (hence the references to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti) and the failure of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ to facilitate other people’s similar enlightenment (by his own account shortly before his death). I do not expect someone to shrug-off the weight of 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and maybe 50,000 years of pre-history) overnight ... and even so there is a remarkable virtual freedom to be lived whilst the process is occurring. Plus I only went public in 1997 anyway ... whereas spiritual enlightenment has been promulgated for thousands and thousands of years with trillions and trillions of words. For just one example, the ‘Tripitaka Koreana’, the woodblock edition of the canon of Buddhist Scripture, has just recently been translated from the 52 million Chinese characters it was originally available as into the Korean language and comprises a 318-volume, 175,000-page collection of sutras and commentaries dating back through the 1,629 years since the introduction of Buddhism to Korea ... and Buddhism itself dates back 2,500 years. I could give many other examples ... you are stretching a long bow in making these comparisons. * RESPONDENT: ... and speaking of ‘failures’, your attempt to prove K was a failure at eradicating anger from his own life is the pinnacle of failure. RICHARD: How so? I consider that an astute person can read and decide for themselves. RESPONDENT: See above reply. RICHARD: I did ... and I start to wonder just which one of us is the one really being ‘desperate’ in their attempts to prove something. * RESPONDENT: And speaking of ‘methods,’ just what is your receipt for ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime’? RICHARD: Put briefly: altruistic ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RESPONDENT: Put more succinctly: self’-aggrandizement is more like it. Claims of, ‘I’m the only one to have discovered what no other sage, avatar, seer, etc. has; they are all failures, and I am a success’ don’t appear to me to be ‘self-immolation’. RICHARD: If you can provide me with names, book titles or URL’s of other people that depict what I describe I would be most delighted ... until then I am simply reporting what is presently the case. If you see such a factual report as ‘‘self’-aggrandisement’ then that is your business. I simply tell it as it currently is (as ascertained with all the resources at my command). RESPONDENT: And, even if there were ‘self-immolation’, that seems to be what comes out of the oven (the final result) and not what went into the mix (the receipt). RICHARD: I am none too sure what you are wanting to convey here so all I can say is that somebody has to be the first in any new human endeavour ... why is this a problem to you? RESPONDENT: In life, there is never a final result, is there? RICHARD: In regards to the subject of this thread (eradicating anger) ... yes.
RESPONDENT No 20: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT No 20: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT No 20: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free ... RICHARD: And sorrow free. RESPONDENT: ... and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ RICHARD: Yes ... all human rights are backed by physical force/restraint (which ultimately means the ‘point of a gun’). RESPONDENT: What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RICHARD: Nothing is ‘up’ ... there is no ‘ruse’ : I make no claim of being a pacifist and wrote to you recently to this effect (the relevant passage is, in fact, also further up the page you snipped this section off). Here is the original version:
If you were to actually read what I wrote it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails, eh?
RESPONDENT No 20: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT No 20: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT No 20: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT No 20: Yes, bulls eye. RESPONDENT: We’ll see. He’s a fast moving target, you know, and slipperier than a greased mamba snake. LOL. RICHARD: I am neither a ‘fast moving target’ nor ‘slipperier than a greased mamba snake’ ... I simply stick to facts and actuality and if you were to cease skittering around the issue (eradicating anger) and stand still for a moment you would see it for yourself too. It is all so simple here in this actual world.
RESPONDENT No. 20: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT No. 20: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT No. 20: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT: The implication here is that to hold copyright to book is a violence of sorts as that is physical force of an upheld law in court. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... all human rights are established and/or maintained at the point of a gun. RESPONDENT: One question, Richard: is your journal copyrighted – or anything you have written? RICHARD: Yes ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free ... RICHARD: And sorrow free. RESPONDENT: ... and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ RICHARD: Yes ... all human rights are backed by physical force/restraint (which ultimately means the ‘point of a gun’). RESPONDENT: What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RICHARD: Nothing is ‘up’ ... there is no ‘ruse’ : I make no claim of being a pacifist and wrote to you recently to this effect (the relevant passage is, in fact, also further up the page you snipped this section off). Here is the original version: [Richard]: ‘If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon?’ [Respondent]: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question’. [Richard]: ‘... specifically written into the question is, basically, that there is the ideal (sitting together as two friends under a tree discussing matters) and there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a former associate’s documents: of course there is implicit in the question that anger was involved ... it is anger that clouds clarity. Which is why I suggested that you look again at what I wrote because the issue I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. *As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable* ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. [emphasis added]. If you were to actually read what I wrote it would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails, eh? RESPONDENT: Perhaps I need to read this again to prevent ‘to-ing and fro-ing,’ but I think I understand where you are saying: you are not a ‘pacifist’ and you are not an ‘idealist’ – you make no ideal of being non-violent – you just are an ‘actualist.’ If that actuality involves someone copying your work and reprinting it, then you just fight them, but in the meantime you are happy and harmless because ‘what might be’, isn’t yet? RICHARD: Not just ‘in the meantime’ ... all of the time (which includes whatever happens when and as ‘what might be’). The key words in the section emphasised further above are [quote] free of malice and sorrow [endquote] ... and something eradicated can never, ever return (else it is not eradicated). When the identity in toto became extinct an actual intimacy became apparent in all its pristine purity ... it has been just here, right now, all along and it was only that ‘I’/‘me’ had been standing the way of it being apparent. And it is impossible to switch off this actual intimacy ... I like people irregardless of the mischief they get up to.
RICHARD: ... The Actual Freedom Trust holds the copyright to all my writings. RESPONDENT: You have stated that you are harmless and malice free, and, now, by your own admittance, you state that you hold your rights at the ‘point of a gun.’ What’s up, Richard, other than your own ruse? RESPONDENT No. 20: Yes, bulls eye. RESPONDENT: We’ll see. He’s a fast moving target, you know, and slipperier than a greased mamba snake. LOL. RICHARD: I am neither a ‘fast moving target’ nor ‘slipperier than a greased mamba snake’ ... I simply stick to facts and actuality and if you were to cease skittering around the issue (eradicating anger) and stand still for a moment you would see it for yourself too. It is all so simple here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: I know you’re not a target, Richard, at least not from me. It was all just a joke in response to No. 20’s remark of ‘bulls eye.’ You call yourself an actualist, but I see that that your actuality has its basis in literacy. You might better be called a ‘literalist.’ RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, but somebody whose life ‘has its basis in literacy’ is a literatist (not a ‘literalist’) and is a person of letters in a learned class known generically as the literati. Whereas a literalist is a reader that takes the written word literally (not metaphorically or allegorically) or an artist that depicts or describes things literally (realistically, true to life, without exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy or allusion) ... and is sometimes known as a realist. I will stay with the word actualist as its meaning is particularly apt.
RESPONDENT: You call yourself an actualist, but I see that that your actuality has its basis in literacy. You might better be called a ‘literalist.’ RICHARD: Ha ... nice try, but somebody whose life ‘has its basis in literacy’ is a literatist (not a ‘literalist’) and is a person of letters in a learned class known generically as the literati. Whereas a literalist is a reader that takes the written word literally (not metaphorically or allegorically) or an artist that depicts or describes things literally (realistically, true to life, without exaggeration, distortion, inaccuracy or allusion) ... and is sometimes known as a realist. I will stay with the word actualist as its meaning is particularly apt. RESPONDENT: The meaning of ‘literacy’ is a person who is literate: educated, intelligent, competent ... RICHARD: Yes ... and as I said (above) such a person is known as a literatist (not a ‘literalist’). RESPONDENT: ... and in your case, exact. Your writing is very precise to the exact meaning of a word, and everything you write is based on the literal meaning of a word. That is why I suggested that if labels fit a person, yours might well be ‘literalist’ instead of ‘actualist.’ RICHARD: Except that you said that my actuality ‘has its basis in literacy’ when it has not ... my actuality is based in an on-going direct experiencing in this actual world and not in the world of the literati (who tend to philosophise and compose intellectual points of view all the whilst nursing malice and sorrow and the antidotal pacifiers love and compassion to their bosom). RESPONDENT: When a person looks to the word for the actual meaning, you give the literal meaning – not what the word points to – the actual thing. RICHARD: But what is the difference between the ‘actual meaning’ and the ‘literal meaning’? And what is the difference between ‘what the word points to’ and the ‘actual thing’ ? If I say the words ‘computer monitor’ the actual meaning of the words are the same as the literal meaning of the words as both mean the actual thing that the words point to. To wit: the glass and plastic object you are reading these very words on. RESPONDENT: This is why you are so slippery – you dart behind the literal meaning of a word when others try to point to something beyond the word. RICHARD: Now this I find strange: your words ‘dart behind’ convey some sort of accusation that I am hiding behind providing, and asking for, a precise and apt description – plus you say ‘slippery’ – as if clarity in communication is a naughty thing to do. RESPONDENT: Your argument is based entirely on what you understand the words to mean. RICHARD: Not so ... my argument is based upon the eradication of anger (in this instance) in all its gradations and nuances. RESPONDENT: Your view of actualism is based on the literal meaning of a word, devoid of any kind of human warmth. RICHARD: I do not have ‘a view of actualism’ – it is an on-going living experience – and I provide a precise description of what it is and how one can get here ... and what you take to be a person ‘devoid of any kind of human warmth’ is also a person devoid of any kind of human coldness as well. You do seem to conveniently overlook that the one comes with the other (love/hate, sorrow/compassion, beauty/ugly, good/evil, god/devil and so on and so on). In a person devoid of identity in toto (of any ‘I’/‘me’ whatsoever) all those cease to exist ... become extinct, have no existence. RESPONDENT: Your argument (and it is an argument because no matter what people write, you have a tendency to rip it apart as though it is some sort of game. I have no idea why you enjoy this sort of work) is based entirely on what the words literally mean. RICHARD: I only argue with those who chose to argue rather than read what my words say with both eyes open. And yes, my argument then – just as all my communication is – is based upon what the words literally mean ... plus upon what the words actually mean, plus upon what the words actually describe, plus upon the actual thing that the words point to. Where is your problem in all this? RESPONDENT: You don’t see to be interested at all in the person behind the words or what the person is interested in saying, but only in catching them in some sort of trap of their own imprecise words. RICHARD: Please correct me if I am misunderstanding but you do seem to be giving the impression that Richard is somehow at fault because other people are imprecise in their communication to him? RESPONDENT: You are a master at the art of language and the analytical study of words and can master just about any wiggle. RICHARD: Not only is Richard ‘slippery’ and not only does Richard ‘dart behind the literal meaning of a word’ ... but he is now doing ‘just about any wiggle’ as well, eh? RESPONDENT: However, you have not yet managed to wiggle out of the fact that your writings are held at the point of a gun ... RICHARD: I have no intention of doing so ... I have already been up-front and out in the open about it (to the point of saying that all human rights are established and maintained by physical force/restraint and not just copyright laws). RESPONDENT: ... and that you, therefore, are not ‘malice free’ as you contend ... RICHARD: I beg to differ ... there is not a skerrick of malice in this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: ... as per your claim that there is no difference in a law suit and a war with guns and cannons, other than the fact that you have not LITERALLY been in a law suit (that I know of) concerning your copyrighted material (probably, because no one in his right mind would want to steal it). RICHARD: I have not ‘LITERALLY’ been in a war, either, since I became free of the human condition ... yet it amounts to the same thing. I can, however, give a practical example: only last year someone broke into my house and stole a number of things (wallet, cash, credit cards and so on) whereupon I promptly called the police ... who arrived with guns on their hips, as expected, and took descriptions, fingerprints and etcetera. They later apprehended the felon (who had broken into eight houses all told that night) and thus faced the full penalty of the law. No malice is required for the above occurrence (calling on people with guns) to take place ... it is all quite straightforward. RESPONDENT: Your contention is that one has to be angry to file a law suit against another ... RICHARD: No, that is not my ‘contention’ at all ... I would have considered the words I emphasised in the other post to be quite clear and explicit:
What gives you the impression that I am saying that ‘one has to be angry to file a law suit against another’? RESPONDENT: ... and I see no substantiation of that claim. RICHARD: Mainly because I never made ‘that claim’. RESPONDENT: You have just built a case of words, as usual. RICHARD: Au contraire ... ‘tis you who has ‘just built a case of words’, attributed that ‘case of words’ to me, and then concluded that I am ‘slippery’, that I ‘wiggle’ and that I ‘dart behind the literal meaning of a word’. In fact anything bar looking at eradicating anger (which is what this thread is about).
RESPONDENT No. 33: The universe, as you define it, is absolute. RICHARD: Aye ... and the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter). RESPONDENT No. 33: All other existence is relative to that absolute. RICHARD: What ‘other existence’ are you talking about? There is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe. RESPONDENT: He’s talking about that ‘other existence’ that lives only in his little opinionated head. RICHARD: It may or may not be an opinion ... I prefer to wait and see rather than second-guess what another has to say. RESPONDENT: Such is the state of the world we are living in. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... ‘such’ is not the state of the world I live in. RESPONDENT: It is full of little ‘thinkers’ who follow the way of their thinking which is taking us all down the path to destruction. RICHARD: The little ‘feelers’ are far more powerful, and far more insidious, than the ‘little ‘thinkers’’ any day of the week. There is no problem with ‘thinking’ per se – ‘tis the instinctually-bred feelings which are driving thoughts along the ‘path to destruction’ – yet it is what is called the good side of the instinctually-bred feelings which are trumpeted as being the solution to the problem. For some peculiar reason the little ‘feelers’ are held to be sacrosanct.
RESPONDENT No. 33: The universe, as you define it, is absolute. RICHARD: Aye ... and the universe is all existence (all time, all space and all matter). RESPONDENT No. 33: All other existence is relative to that absolute. RICHARD: What ‘other existence’ are you talking about? There is nothing else other than this eternal, infinite and perpetual universe. RESPONDENT: He’s talking about that ‘other existence’ that lives only in his little opinionated head. RICHARD: It may or may not be an opinion ... I prefer to wait and see rather than second-guess what another has to say. RESPONDENT: ‘Opinion’, ‘conditioning’, ‘thinking’ ... makes no difference. RICHARD: There is no problem with ‘thinking’ per se ... and a person sans ‘conditioning’ can still have an opinion on a matter. * RESPONDENT: Such is the state of the world we are living in. RICHARD: You would be better off speaking for yourself ... ‘such’ is not the state of the world I live in. RESPONDENT: I stand corrected. I was just speaking of the majority. RICHARD: What I found beneficial, many years ago, was to speak for myself – and not just for ‘the majority’ – as it made it quite clear where the problem was intimately applicable. For example:
Then ‘I’ can do something substantive about ‘my’ world ... what others (be they ‘the majority’ or not) do with their world is their business. * RESPONDENT: It is full of little ‘thinkers’ who follow the way of their thinking which is taking us all down the path to destruction. RICHARD: The little ‘feelers’ are far more powerful, and far more insidious, than the ‘little ‘thinkers’’ any day of the week. There is no problem with ‘thinking’ per se – ‘tis the instinctually-bred feelings which are driving thoughts along the ‘path to destruction’ – yet it is what is called the good side of the instinctually-bred feelings which are trumpeted as being the solution to the problem. For some peculiar reason the little ‘feelers’ are held to be sacrosanct. RESPONDENT: If little ‘feelers’ are held to be sacrosanct, ‘memory’ is held to be even more sacrosanct. Both feelings and thinking have their base in memory which is, of course, our programming, whether from this lifetime or the life of the ‘lizard brain.’ RICHARD: The instinctually-bred feelings – and thus the feeling ‘self’ – pre-dates ‘memory’ ... a baby instinctively feels-out the world long before thought and memory operate. RESPONDENT: The three I’s of which you speak are nothing more than memory, and memory is accumulated through time. RICHARD: There is much more than ‘memory’ involved ... amnesiacs can still experience malice and sorrow and the antidotal love and compassion, for an example. RESPONDENT: To act according to our conditioning, which is thinking/ feeling drawn from memory, is the way the majority of human beings carry on in this world. RICHARD: Dig deeper than that, in yourself, and you will find that the instinctual passions underpin all ‘thinking/ feeling drawn from memory’ ... the ‘conditioning’ is but well-meant attempts by one’s parents, peers and the public at large to control the animal ‘self’. RESPONDENT: If first, one could stop being overwhelmed by one’s thinking and look at what one is doing, with intent, one could stop the insanity of one’s action. RICHARD: Not unless the feelings are also looked at ... it is feelings that overwhelm where push comes to shove. RESPONDENT: One could say, ‘I do not have to act according to what I have been taught, what I am conditioned to do’. RICHARD: What about what one is genetically programmed to do (the instinctive freeze, flee or fight reaction, for instance)? RESPONDENT: Then, seeing that you at that moment are totally, 100% responsible for every action, every word, every thought that emanates from that blood and bones body, at that moment – in that state of 100% responsibility – you are freed of the ‘I’ as the ego, ‘I’ as the soul, the ‘I’ as feelings, or any other ‘I’ you can imagine. RICHARD: ‘Tis not your fault you were born the way you were (genetically programmed with passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire). RESPONDENT: If only one terrorist had seen the insanity of his conditioning and stood up on one ill-fated plane that went down in American on September 11 and said, ‘I do not have to do this’ the course of history would have been altered. RICHARD: Better still: if only No. 19 would stand up and actually do what she proposes (instead of wanting another to do it instead) she would show by example and not just by precept. It carries far more weight if one lives what one promulgates ... the validity is thus demonstrated in action and the appropriate words come forth convincingly. RESPONDENT: This transformation of thinking by each one of us on this earth has to affect the outcome of history. RICHARD: I see that you are focussing on the ‘transformation of thinking’ ... what about the feelings? RESPONDENT: This transformation of thinking comes about by dropping our history, every bit of it, from this second back and into the future. RICHARD: Still focussed on blaming ‘thinking’ , I see. RESPONDENT: It is when we follow our thinking/feeling (our history) that we bring destruction to ourselves and the world. RICHARD: Ahh ... ‘feeling’ gets a brief mention here (albeit linked to and coming after ‘thinking’ ). RESPONDENT: ‘Thinking’ per se can be used intelligently, as a tool, or it can be followed by programmed ‘thinkers’ – ‘little thinkers.’ RICHARD: And thus you finish as you started – blaming the ‘little thinkers’ once again – after paying lip-service to the role the feelings play in the entire shemozzle. And thus is the way that the little ‘feeler’ is kept inviolate.
RESPONDENT No. 19 (Part Twelve) 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 |
