|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RESPONDENT No. 33: Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused. Hope this explains my views in the matter. RESPONDENT No. 25: So, are you saying that there are many, many paths to truth? That every path is a path to truth? And, doesn’t that then imply, sir, that truth can be said to be pathless land because there is zero distance between thou and that? RICHARD: Am I correct in reading you to be saying that it is indeed so that truth be a pathless land (because there is ‘zero distance between thou and that’ )? If so then does this not mean that truth does not lie in any temple, in any mosque, in any church and it has no path to it except through one’s own understanding of oneself, inquiring, studying, learning ... then there is that which is eternal? RESPONDENT: I am curious why you responded to No. 25’s comment and not as well to No. 33. No. 33 seems to indicate his acceptance of at least some of the diverse teachings of those Saints, Sages, etc, that you have found to be so wanting. RICHARD: I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) as it stands in express contrast to both the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude and the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude ... whereas I have no query about truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. RESPONDENT: As No. 33 said to No. 31: ‘True, but there are a zillion different ways to express it. Sufi poets did it in one way, Buddhists in another, the Advaitists in another, and so on. Hence my comment that truth is multi-lingual (meaning it can be expressed in many different ways)’. RICHARD: I take that to mean what it says – different ways of expression – and not necessarily indicating no path, one path, or many different paths to truth. It is the validity of the ‘no path to truth’ teaching which interests me ... not the differing expressions of truth. Recently there has been some critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – and an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. As methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique ... especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. ‘Tis a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. RESPONDENT: Do you agree that Sufis, Buddhists, Advaitists, have expressed ‘truth’ (by which is meant what you have called ‘facts’)? RICHARD: You do seem to have some on-going misunderstanding regarding the distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ – despite what I have explained at length – but, then again, you did write recently that my 17-page E-Mail of 12,000 words had ‘not much worth answering’ in it. Presumably it was not worthy of study either?
RESPONDENT No. 33: Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused. Hope this explains my views in the matter. RESPONDENT No. 25: So, are you saying that there are many, many paths to truth? That every path is a path to truth? And, doesn’t that then imply, sir, that truth can be said to be pathless land because there is zero distance between thou and that? RICHARD: Am I correct in reading you to be saying that it is indeed so that truth be a pathless land (because there is ‘zero distance between thou and that’ )? If so then does this not mean that truth does not lie in any temple, in any mosque, in any church and it has no path to it except through one’s own understanding of oneself, inquiring, studying, learning ... then there is that which is eternal? RESPONDENT: I am curious why you responded to No. 25’s comment and not as well to No. 33. No. 33 seems to indicate his acceptance of at least some of the diverse teachings of those Saints, Sages, etc, that you have found to be so wanting. RICHARD: I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) as it stands in express contrast to both the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude and the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude ... whereas I have no query about truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. RESPONDENT: As No. 33 said to No. 31: ‘True, but there are a zillion different ways to express it. Sufi poets did it in one way, Buddhists in another, the Advaitists in another, and so on. Hence my comment that truth is multi-lingual (meaning it can be expressed in many different ways)’. RICHARD: I take that to mean what it says – different ways of expression – and not necessarily indicating no path, one path, or many different paths to truth. It is the validity of the ‘no path to truth’ teaching which interests me ... not the differing expressions of truth. RESPONDENT: Yes, that was obvious. I wanted to understand why the one and not the other. And saying that you were interested in the one and not the other, is not an answer. RICHARD: Yet it is the answer: the reason why I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) is because it stands in express contrast to both the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude and the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude ... whereas I have no query about truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. Would it help to historically contextualise it? The Theosophist attitude (which is what the ‘truth is a pathless land’ attitude is a rejection of) is the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude. RESPONDENT: The question is why you are not also interested in No. 33’s view. RICHARD: Because I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ . What I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) is because it stands in express contrast to the only other alternative to the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude (given that the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude was rejected). RESPONDENT: And I wanted to know whether you agreed with it. RICHARD: I am only too happy to spell it out: the reason why I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ is because the different ways of the expression of truth are indeed ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ . It is the validity of the ‘no path to truth’ teaching which interests me ... not the differing expressions of truth. * RICHARD: Recently there has been some critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – and an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. As methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique ... especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: You have concluded this, because you misinterpret the passages. RICHARD: Do you realise that the validity of your conclusion that I ‘have concluded this’ because I ‘misinterpret the passages’ has to be based upon you having not misinterpreted the passages? Which means that you are saying that you interpret correctly and Richard interprets incorrectly? RESPONDENT: K clearly taught that there is no method or path or authority. RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am equally aware that he taught that there was no method to practice (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am also aware that he taught that there was no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); as well as that I am aware that he taught that experiences of truth were not truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means). Yet, as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. RESPONDENT: Understanding why K taught this, and why he rejected the role of World Teacher, is of value. RICHARD: It is indeed. Seeing that you interpret ‘the passages’ correctly – because it is your conclusion that Richard ‘misinterprets the passages’ – then I am sure that you will be only too happy to put your ‘understanding’ of ‘why K taught this’ into clear and unambiguous terms for my edification? Especially as it is ‘of value’ to understand ‘why he rejected the role of World Teacher’ in relation to the ‘truth is a pathless land’ teaching? If you cannot, or will not, do this then your conclusion that ‘[I] have concluded this because [I] misinterpret the passages’ has no validity whatsoever ... and amounts to grandstanding instead of an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition. * RICHARD: ‘Tis a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. RESPONDENT: In that you know the path already, and that knowledge is unshakeable, where lies the challenge? RICHARD: Maybe you misunderstood what challenge I am referring too? It is in relation to some recent critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – because an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. And, as methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique – especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ – because when the aforementioned stanch ‘K-Reader’ sees that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then the validity of that enduring aspect of the critique falls flat on its face. This is why it is a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. * RESPONDENT: Do you agree that Sufis, Buddhists, Advaitists, have expressed ‘truth’ (by which is meant what you have called ‘facts’)? RICHARD: You do seem to have some on-going misunderstanding regarding the distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ – despite what I have explained at length – but, then again, you did write recently that my 17-page E-Mail of 12,000 words had ‘not much worth answering’ in it. Presumably it was not worthy of study either? RESPONDENT: I see that you did not answer the question, and that question was the reason for my writing. RICHARD: As a false question can only be answered falsely I cannot answer your question. RESPONDENT: But you seem to play that game often. RICHARD: No ... you do. RESPONDENT: If you want to say something about your truth-fact distinction then say it. RICHARD: I did and I do ... I said it, for example, in the 12,000 word 17 page E-Mail which you stated had ‘not much worth answering’ in it. RESPONDENT: Don’t play with it. RICHARD: If you do not find the distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ ‘worth answering’ then what can I do? RESPONDENT: The statement concerning your post was part of a whole post that was obviously in humour. RICHARD: What ‘humour’? The humour you said has nothing to do with fact? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: But you have resisted these explanations in the past. RICHARD: I have gone step-by-step through it with you with no resistance on my part whatsoever. RESPONDENT: You do not like anyone poking fun at you ... RICHARD: I have explained that there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to poke fun at ... therefore your ‘humour’ has no mark to hit. RESPONDENT: ... and this is because despite your countless testimonials, there is a self beating in your flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Has it not dawned upon you yet that all reports are testimonials and/or claims? Everything Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti reported was a testimonial and/or a claim ... for example, he claims that ‘truth, or God’ does exist because he has realised ‘God or truth’ and therefore ‘such a thing does exist’:
I could provide many, many quotes replete with such claims ... here is an unambiguous testimonial of his:
He is clearly testifying that there is no ‘me’ operating in him (if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do). RESPONDENT: This is exhibited in your reactions and responses in your posts. RICHARD: Do you mean that because my explanations (such as there being no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to poke fun at your ‘humour’ has no mark to hit) are discerned by you to be ‘reactions and responses’ it is therefore ‘exhibited’ that there is indeed ‘a self beating in [this] flesh and blood body’ called Richard? RESPONDENT: It is the self that reacts to this comment, focusing on it, and selecting it out of context. RICHARD: How can it be ‘out of context’? The distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ is the very context of the entire 12,000 word 17 page E-Mail ... it is central to the issue you created (that I am claiming that I am ‘innocence (in italics)’ and that I am ‘truth’) so as to get some laughs. In case it still be not clear ... ‘the truth’ and its ‘innocence (in italics)’ was consigned to the waste-bin of history, where it belongs, over eight years ago. RESPONDENT: For it concerns the worthiness of your writings, and this is also why you keep coming back to the distinction between reading and studying, for I told you that I found that particular correspondence with No. 4 was (on the whole) not worth studying. RICHARD: No ... it was you who said that the in-depth and lengthy exchange was not worth studying and not me. What I suggested, over and again, was that you read what I have to say with both eyes so that your [quote] challenge [endquote] of me would be a well-informed challenge ... I never once said anything about the ‘worthiness’ of my writing (or unworthiness). That is what you make of it. RESPONDENT: You can and no doubt will continue to deny all the behavioural evidence. RICHARD: This looks suspiciously like being a variation on that hoary ‘defence’ debating tactic (as in ‘you are being defensive therefore you have something to hide’). Whereas ‘all the behavioural evidence’ that you discern is nothing other than Richard setting the record straight.
RESPONDENT: But the worm caught that big fish (even though it was never intended). RICHARD: Only in your dreams and schemes.
RESPONDENT: As he said to No. 31: [No. 33]: ‘True, but there are a zillion different ways to express it. Sufi poets did it in one way, Buddhists in another, the Advaitists in another, and so on. Hence my comment that truth is multi-lingual (meaning it can be expressed in many different ways)’. RICHARD: I take that to mean what it says – different ways of expression – and not necessarily indicating no path, one path, or many different paths to truth. It is the validity of the ‘no path to truth’ teaching which interests me ... not the differing expressions of truth. RESPONDENT: Yes, that was obvious. I wanted to understand why the one and not the other. And saying that you were interested in the one and not the other, is not an answer. RICHARD: Yet it is the answer: the reason why I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) is because it stands in express contrast to both the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude and the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude ... whereas I have no query about truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ . Would it help to historically contextualise it? The Theosophist attitude (which is what the ‘truth is a pathless land’ attitude is a rejection of) is the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude. RESPONDENT: No the historical context is not helpful. RICHARD: Then why did you introduce the ‘historical context’ in your last E-Mail (further below) saying that the understanding of what happened then be of value? Vis.:
So ... in regard to the understanding, would you not agree that the exclusive attitude (‘truth is a pathless land’) also conveniently happens to exclude the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude of the Theosophists? RESPONDENT: I am asking something about you. I am asking for you to explain your interests. RICHARD: Sure ... my interests are in relation to some recent critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – because an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. And, as methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique – especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ – because when the aforementioned stanch ‘K-Reader’ sees that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then the validity of that enduring aspect of the critique falls flat on its face. It is a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. * RESPONDENT: The question is why you are not also interested in No. 33’s view. RICHARD: Because I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. What I am interested in exploring the ‘pathless land’ implications (‘there is no path to truth’) is because it stands in express contrast to the only other alternative to the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude (given that the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude was rejected). RESPONDENT: What No. 33 means by true is not what you apparently mean by true. RICHARD: This is the sequence whence truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ quote originated:
The meaning given to the word ‘truth’ in this sequence is precisely what I mean by the word ‘truth’ when I say that I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ because the different ways of the expression of truth are indeed ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. RESPONDENT: Do all these paths end up at your door? RICHARD: No ‘paths’ are being discussed in this sequence ... as I said (further above) I take that to mean what it says – different ways of expression of truth – and not necessarily indicating no path, one path, or many different paths to truth. * RESPONDENT: And I wanted to know whether you agreed with it. RICHARD: I am only too happy to spell it out: the reason why I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ is because the different ways of the expression of truth are indeed ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. It is the validity of the ‘no path to truth’ teaching which interests me ... not the differing expressions of truth. RESPONDENT: Thank you, but this is not what I was asking about. RICHARD: This is the sequence you asked me about:
As I have no query about the different ways of the expression of truth being ‘multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’ I responded to the ‘pathless land’ illation ... because what I am interested in is exploring the implications of the ‘pathless land’ (‘there is no path to truth’) teaching. And this is because it stands in express contrast to the only other alternative to the ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude (given that the ‘all paths lead to the truth’ ecumenical attitude of Theosophists was rejected). When it is seen, as a fact, that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ ... it will be seen that there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. The reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught is a ‘there is only one path to truth’ fundamentalist attitude (the path that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught). * RICHARD: Recently there has been some critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – and an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. As methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique ... especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: You have concluded this, because you misinterpret the passages. RICHARD: Do you realise that the validity of your conclusion that I ‘have concluded this’ because I ‘misinterpret the passages’ has to be based upon you having not misinterpreted the passages? Which means that you are saying that you interpret correctly and Richard interprets incorrectly? RESPONDENT: Yes, I do realize this. I do not feel there is only one valid interpretation, but I do feel that there are invalid ones. RICHARD: Okay ... that explains a lot. When I read the ‘passages’ (further below for example) the fact speaks for itself and obviates having to interpret in the first place ... let alone having to ‘feel’ which interpretations are valid and ‘feel’ which interpretations are invalid. RESPONDENT: K explicitly and repeatedly writes about the problem with paths, methods, authority, experience, etc. RICHARD: As I said, I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am equally aware that he taught that there was no method to practice (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am also aware that he taught that there was no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); as well as that I am aware that he taught that experiences of truth were not truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means). RESPONDENT: So to say that his writings are ‘rife’ with them, is to say that you know what K meant better than what he himself says. RICHARD: I am not only aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth, no method to practice, no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth and that experiences of truth were not truth but I am also aware that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. Therefore I am aware that there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. I have said before, on this Mailing List, that what I appreciated about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti when I first read him was his ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’ advice. Vis.:
Might I ask whether you ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’? RESPONDENT: Or that you feel that K was not aware that what he did, was contrary to what he taught, which would render his life’s work, nonsense. RICHARD: It is not a matter of what I ‘feel’. * RESPONDENT: K clearly taught that there is no method or path or authority. RICHARD: I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there is no path to truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am equally aware that he taught that there was no method to practice (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); I am also aware that he taught that there was no authority to mediate between the truth-seeker and the truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means); as well as that I am aware that he taught that experiences of truth were not truth (for that is what ‘truth is a pathless land’ means). Yet, as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then there is a vast difference between the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. RESPONDENT: So you are saying that your interpretation of K is correct, and K’s interpretation of his own life’s teaching is wrong. RICHARD: No. It is not a matter of any ‘interpretation’ (let alone being either ‘correct’ or ‘wrong’) ... the fact speaks for itself. * RESPONDENT: Understanding why K taught this, and why he rejected the role of World Teacher, is of value. RICHARD: It is indeed. Seeing that you interpret ‘the passages’ correctly – because it is your conclusion that Richard ‘misinterprets the passages’ – then I am sure that you will be only too happy to put your ‘understanding’ of ‘why K taught this’ into clear and unambiguous terms for my edification? Especially as it is ‘of value’ to understand ‘why he rejected the role of World Teacher’ in relation to the ‘truth is a pathless land’ teaching? If you cannot, or will not, do this then your conclusion that ‘[I] have concluded this because [I] misinterpret the passages’ has no validity whatsoever ... and amounts to grandstanding instead of an honest, frank and sincere discussion between two fellow human beings vis-à-vis the global suffering engendered by the human condition. RESPONDENT: You are the one grandstanding. You are just too pompous to see it. RICHARD: Here is that word ‘pompous’ again (as in your use of ‘selfless pomposity’ in the previous thread). As you explain (further below) that it ‘was in humour’, and that ‘what actually goes on is not the basis for humour’, then I need take no notice of this humorous remark whatsoever, eh? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: For you to describe what you write as ‘honest’ is already dishonest. RICHARD: As this is, presumably, ‘in humour’ too (and not ‘what actually goes on’) then I need take no notice of what you say here either. RESPONDENT: Your logical inference is also false. Whether I can or cannot does not impact on the validity of the statement. RICHARD: The conclusion that Richard ‘misinterprets the passages’ has no validity whatsoever ... the fact speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: For example, you can be wrong about your interpretation of the Big Bang, and that is valid despite whether I can show you that. RICHARD: As there is no ‘Big Bang’ outside of mathematicians’ ever-frantic mathematics there is nothing to either interpret or misinterpret. If someone were to propose that One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eaters existed, and another said no they do not, would you equally come along and say ‘you can be wrong about your interpretation of the One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eaters and that is valid despite whether I can show you that’? RESPONDENT: The onus is not on me to prove anything to you, for you are the one who is directly contradicting what K says. RICHARD: If I may point out? It was you who concluded that Richard ‘misinterprets the passages’ therefore it is indeed up to you to substantiate your conclusion. RESPONDENT: If you are interested you can look up that speech, and if you cannot find it, I can provide it for you. RICHARD: If you are referring to the 1929 ‘Dissolution Of The Star’ speech then I already have it and am already familiar with its contents. RESPONDENT: But instead of looking into this, you want to say that you KNOW what K meant, what K did. RICHARD: This is what you wrote:
Rather than assume that this implied that you did, in fact, understand why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught that there was ‘no method or path or authority’ I asked you to put your understanding of ‘why K taught this’ into clear and unambiguous terms for my edification (especially as it is ‘of value’ to understand ‘why he rejected the role of World Teacher’ in relation to the ‘truth is a pathless land’ teaching). As you either will not, or cannot, then your conclusion that ‘[I] have concluded this because [I] misinterpret the passages’ has no validity whatsoever. RESPONDENT: You already arrive with no willingness to learn ... RICHARD: What would you have me learn? RESPONDENT: ... though you put forward a challenge it is simply ego. RICHARD: As this is, presumably, ‘in humour’ too (and not ‘what actually goes on’) then I need take no notice of what you say here either. RESPONDENT: The man who wants to learn has a very different attitude. RICHARD: What kind of ‘very different attitude’ ? Pretending that I do not already know, perchance? Shall we look at a quote you recently provided? Vis.:
Do you see the question ‘is there a meditation which is not determined, practiced’ ? Do you see the two words which immediately follow it (‘there is’ )? Is this not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly and unambiguously saying that he already knows the answer to the ‘question’ he poses to the listeners under the guise of walking together, investigating together, looking together? After all, he does start these ‘Washington, D.C., April 1985’ talks with:
He then concludes (in the paragraph you quoted) that ‘when you are completely attentive there is no self’ ... is this the kind of ‘very different attitude’ you are talking about? Because in the paragraph following that which you quoted he goes even further:
Again: is this the kind of ‘very different attitude’ you are talking about? * RICHARD: ‘Tis a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. RESPONDENT: In that you know the path already, and that knowledge is unshakeable, where lies the challenge? RICHARD: Maybe you misunderstood what challenge I am referring too? It is in relation to some recent critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – because an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. And, as methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique – especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ – because when the aforementioned stanch ‘K-Reader’ sees that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then the validity of that enduring aspect of the critique falls flat on its face. This is why it is a fun challenge to engage such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. RESPONDENT: Again, you are not answering my question. RICHARD: I am indeed ... the challenge lies in engaging such a person in a sincere, frank and honest discussion. RESPONDENT: Perhaps you simply do not understand it. So let me put it for you this way: You have been saying you KNOW and this KNOWLEDGE is irrefutable. RICHARD: It is the fact which is ‘irrefutable’: if I were to say ‘this glass and plastic object you are reading these words on is a computer monitor’ then I am simply reporting an irrefutable fact. RESPONDENT: So what can it mean to explore the validity? RICHARD: I am exploring the validity of the other person saying (in this analogy) that ‘this glass and plastic object is not a computer monitor’. RESPONDENT: There cannot be any possibility of validity so long as you already KNOW the answer. RICHARD: If you were taking ‘this glass and plastic object’ to be a ... um ... a wheelbarrow (in this analogy), would you not like to know why it has not worked, for 3,000 to 5,000 years, despite all the serious attempts to make it work like a wheelbarrow should? Therefore, would it not be beneficial to engage in a honest, sincere and frank discussion with someone who is not trying to wheel stuff around in a computer monitor but is instead wheeling stuff around in a wheelbarrow? It may be beneficial to note that, ten days before his death, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti insisted on recording his appraisal regarding the efficacy of the ‘truth is a pathless land’ exclusive attitude of his:
Plus anecdotal evidence from someone privy to off-the-record (unsubstantiated) conversations reports him questioning himself, just prior to this recorded assessment, and saying something like ‘where have I gone wrong?’ (not a direct quote). * RESPONDENT: Do you agree that Sufis, Buddhists, Advaitists, have expressed ‘truth’ (by which is meant what you have called ‘facts’)? RICHARD: You do seem to have some on-going misunderstanding regarding the distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ – despite what I have explained at length – but, then again, you did write recently that my 17-page E-Mail of 12,000 words had ‘not much worth answering’ in it. Presumably it was not worthy of study either? RESPONDENT: I see that you did not answer the question, and that question was the reason for my writing. RICHARD: As a false question can only be answered falsely I cannot answer your question. RESPONDENT: But you seem to play that game often. RICHARD: No ... you do. RESPONDENT: If you want to say something about your truth-fact distinction then say it. RICHARD: I did and I do ... I said it, for example, in the 12,000 word 17 page E-Mail which you stated had ‘not much worth answering’ in it. RESPONDENT: Back to that, again, and again?? RICHARD: Only because you are ‘back to that, again, and again’. RESPONDENT: Sorry to have hurt your feelings, even though you claim they are not there. RICHARD: This is a total waste of a sentence. * RESPONDENT: Don’t play with it. RICHARD: If you do not find the distinction I draw between ‘truth’ and ‘fact’ ‘worth answering’ then what can I do? RESPONDENT: You can stop avoiding. Or can you?? RICHARD: I am not ‘avoiding’ anything other than declining to do your leg-work for you ... after all, this is your [quote] challenge [unquote] of me and if you continue to mount an ill-informed challenge then you will continue to be frustrated by my replies. * RESPONDENT: The statement concerning your post was part of a whole post that was obviously in humour. RICHARD: What ‘humour’? The humour you said has nothing to do with fact? Vis.: [Respondent]: ‘... humour’ only needs to meet a much lower threshold. It only has to be suggestive. What actually goes on is not the basis for humour’. [Richard]: ‘... your humour has nothing to do with fact? That is, this whole enterprise of yours was a ‘suggestive’ way of lowering the threshold on fact – reminiscent of trivialising the fact – so as to obtain some laughter from the peanut gallery? RESPONDENT: So you did not get that it was in humour?? You really do need to work on that. RICHARD: Am I to take it that you were joking when you wrote ‘now that I [Richard] understand that I [Richard] cannot find some flaw in your arguments to show you that you are wrong, I [Richard] can rest my case’ ... and that you were not using humour to make the point that I could not find a flaw and that I was resting my case? If so, and if this is indeed just a ‘suggestive’ way of lowering the threshold on fact – reminiscent of trivialising the fact – so as to obtain some laughter from the peanut gallery, why does it take seven E-Mails just to establish this? * RESPONDENT: But you have resisted these explanations in the past. RICHARD: I have gone step-by-step through it with you with no resistance on my part whatsoever. RESPONDENT: Going into it, does not mean that you have been open to it. RICHARD: Hmm ... ‘open to’ what? Your intrapolation? * RESPONDENT: You do not like anyone poking fun at you ... RICHARD: I have explained that there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul to poke fun at ... therefore your ‘humour’ has no mark to hit. RESPONDENT: That is such a good defence, there is no ‘I’. RICHARD: How can the total absence of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ever be construed as being ‘such a good defence’? RESPONDENT: And so by implication there is no self-centred defence reaction going on. RICHARD: There is no ‘implication’ involved ... there is indeed no ‘self-centred defence reaction going on’. RESPONDENT: But that very belief that there is no ‘I’, is the self-defence. RICHARD: There is no ‘belief’ that there be no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul where it is a fact that there be no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. * RESPONDENT: ... and this is because despite your countless testimonials, there is a self beating in your flesh and blood body. RICHARD: Has it not dawned upon you yet that all reports are testimonials and/or claims? Everything Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti reported was a testimonial and/or a claim ... for example, he claims that ‘truth, or God’ does exist because he has realised ‘God or truth’ and therefore ‘such a thing does exist’. RESPONDENT: No, you have misunderstood K. K was not at all interested in people believing him, or in him. RICHARD: Where did I say that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was interested in ‘people believing him, or in him’? RESPONDENT: But in exploring. He spoke directly against what you are all about. RICHARD: Where did I say that I want people to believe me, or in me? Obviously you are not referring to this exchange:
I do not want any one to merely believe me. I stress to people how important it is that they see for themselves. If they were so foolish as to believe me then the most they would end up in is living in a dream state and thus miss out on the actual. I do not wish this fate upon anyone ... I like my fellow human beings. * RICHARD: [... everything Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti reported was a testimonial and/or a claim ... for example, he claims that ‘truth, or God’ does exist because he has realised ‘God or truth’ and therefore ‘such a thing does exist’]: [quote]: ‘The discovery of truth, or God demands great intelligence, which is not assertion of belief or disbelief, but the recognition of the hindrances created by lack of intelligence. So to discover God or truth – and I say such a thing does exist, I have realised it – to recognise that, to realise that, mind must be free of all the hindrances which have been created throughout the ages’. [endquote]. (‘The Book Of Life: Daily Meditations With J. Krishnamurti’, December Chapter. Published by Harper, San Francisco. Copyright © 1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). RESPONDENT: Your use of quotes is not serious. RICHARD: Nothing I do or say is ‘serious’ ... sincere, yes: but ‘serious’? No way ... life is too much fun to be serious. RESPONDENT: That is because it is polemical and not the honest inquirer. RICHARD: No ... I was responding to your ‘despite your countless testimonials’ sentence. RESPONDENT: The difference is whether you want to distort the basic teaching. RICHARD: How am I distorting the ‘basic teaching’ by pointing out that all reports are testimonials and/or claims ... including Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s reports? RESPONDENT: Not only does this quote use certain terms such as ‘realized’ and ‘recognized’ in a non-standard way, but the whole quote seems so anti-K that the background of when and where he wrote it must be explored. RICHARD: By all means ... explore for as much as you wish to. Yet, whatever ‘the background of when and where he wrote it’ , it still remains a report which is a testimonial and/or a claim ... as are all reports. RESPONDENT: And if you are really interested in understanding, and not polemicising, why did you not attempt to explain the quote that I sent you on this very subject ... RICHARD: I currently have 13 E-Mails in my ‘pending box’ awaiting attention. RESPONDENT: ... that directly contradicts what you are saying here. RICHARD: Before we read your quote, it is pertinent to point out ‘what [I] am saying here’. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: That quote was: ‘We have invented god. The thinking created god for itself. That means, due to unhappiness, fear and depression we created something, called god. God didn’t create us after his image – I wished he had. Personally I have no belief in anything, the speaker just faces that what is, what are facts, the recognition of the essence of each fact, each thought, all reactions. He is fully aware of all that. When you are free of fear, free of suffering, there is no desire for a god’. RICHARD: This is a very apt quote ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is clearly and unambiguously providing the testimonial that he has ‘no belief in anything’ and that he ‘just faces that what is’ and that he is ‘fully aware of all that’ . As for his ‘we have invented god’ phrase, he has this to say:
Which explains why ‘there is no desire for a god’ when ‘you are free of fear’ and ‘free of suffering’ (there is ‘the real God, not the God that man has made’ operating in, or made manifest in, or using, the body). RESPONDENT: And here is another: ‘... I have never said there is no god, I have said there is only god as it is manifest within you. But I will not use the word ‘god’ ... I prefer to call it ‘life’. – ‘The Life and Death of Krishnamurti’, by Mary Lutyens. RICHARD: Another very apt quote ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is clearly and unambiguously providing the testimonial that he has ‘never said there is no god’ and that he has only said ‘there is only god as it is manifest within you’ and that he ‘will not use the word ‘god’’ as he prefers ‘to call it ‘life’’ . He has also called ‘god as it is manifest in you’ the ‘supreme intelligence’. Vis.:
The phrasing ‘... as it is manifest in you’ and ‘... using this body’ and ‘... operating in this body’ are interchangeable, non? RESPONDENT: And K was very clear about accepting what he says as an authority, or anyone else: ‘Why should you accept what anybody says about these matters – including myself? Why should you accept any authority about the inward movement of life? We reject authority outwardly; if you are at all intellectually aware and observant politically you reject these things. But we apparently accept the authority of someone who says, ‘I know, I have achieved, I have realized.’ The man who says he knows, he does not know. The moment you say you know, you don’t know. What is it you know? Some experience which you have had, some kind of vision, some kind of enlightenment? I dislike to use that word ‘enlightenment’. Once you have experienced that, you think you have attained some extraordinary state; but that is past, you can only know something which is over and therefore dead’. – J. Krishnamurti. RICHARD: Okay ... would you say that a person who, in providing a report which is a testimonial, uses words like ‘has done’ is indicating something that is ‘past’ ? And would you say, if the person were to say to others ‘do it and you will see’ (that what they have done is actual and not theory), that they were ‘distorting the basic teaching’ ? Vis.:
Apart from that ... what I find particularly relevant in this paragraph is his ‘why should you accept what anybody says about these matters – including myself’ sentence. * RICHARD: I could provide many, many quotes replete with such claims ... here is an unambiguous testimonial of his: [quote]: ‘Consciousness, with its content, is within the field of matter. The mind cannot possibly go beyond that unless it has complete order within itself and conflict in relationship has come totally to an end – which means a relationship in which there is no ‘me’. This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd). RESPONDENT: That does not mean that K is saying that he is an authority ... RICHARD: Where did I say that he was saying that ‘he is an authority’ in this quote? I simply said ‘here is an unambiguous testimonial of his’ (because I was responding to your ‘despite your countless testimonials’ sentence). RESPONDENT: ... he is saying that he is not a hypocrite, something you are attempting to say that he is. RICHARD: He is the one who is saying that if his testimonial (that there is no ‘me’) is just a verbal explanation and not something that he lives (but what he talks about) then that is ‘hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’ ... not me. * RICHARD: He is clearly testifying that there is no ‘me’ operating in him (if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do). RESPONDENT: Yes, he is testifying to it. So? RICHARD: So Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is clearly and unambiguously providing the testimonial that there is no ‘me’ operating in him. RESPONDENT: That does not make it an authority. RICHARD: I never said it did ... I said that all reports are testimonials and/or claims and that everything Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti reported was a testimonial and/or a claim. I said this because this is what I was responding to:
And I said this because this is what you have said about testimonials recently:
As I said (much further above): my interests in this discussion are in relation to some recent critique of what I considerately and purposefully called ‘actualism’ after finding the word in the dictionary when I went public in 1997 – I welcome all critiques as these matters warrant being discussed thoroughly – because an enduring aspect of the critique is that I propose, not only a method, based on the authority of experience, but a path ... and a wide and wondrous path into the bargain. And, as methods, authority, experience and paths are anathema to the stanch ‘K-Reader’ I am therefore vitally interested in exploring the validity of this critique – especially as methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ – because when the aforementioned stanch ‘K-Reader’ sees that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ then the validity of that enduring aspect of the critique falls flat on its face ... just as this aspect you are presenting is falling very flat indeed. And why it is such a fun challenge is because peace-on-earth is at stake. RESPONDENT: And what are these other quotes that you find support your interpretation?? RICHARD: What ‘interpretation’ ? That all reports are testimonials and/or claims ... including Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s reports? Yet it is a fact that all reports are testimonials and/or claims ... including Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s reports. Finding out for oneself is such fun, eh?
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Eight) 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 |
