|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RICHARD: 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? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘K clearly taught that there is no method or path or authority. Understanding why K taught this, and why he rejected the role of World Teacher, is of value’. RESPONDENT: I have noted your use of such sophistry elsewhere. It is a logical mistake to take a particular case for a general statement. RICHARD: I would suggest it is ‘sophistry’ to argue that the ‘particular case’ is being taken for a ‘general statement’ when the very reason you wrote your ‘particular case’ statement in the first place was in reply to my ‘particular case’ response to your ‘particular case’ query as to why I responded to the ‘no path to truth’ E-Mail and not to the ‘differing expressions of truth’ E-Mail. Viz.:
But never mind ... you would make a good engineer RESPONDENT: The historical context is not helpful here, because the interest was elsewhere. RICHARD: If I may point out? You are asking me what my interest is: you are (repeatedly) asking me why I responded to the ‘no path to truth’ E-Mail and not to the ‘differing expressions of truth’ E-Mail and I am explaining why – to the point of copy/paste repeating myself and thus occasioning laughter from the peanut gallery – yet you insist that I am not answering your question. If ‘the interest’ (aka your interest) is ‘elsewhere’ then write to that someone else about it and not me. I am vitally interested in the ‘historical context’ as it is central to ‘understanding’ why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti taught the exclusive ‘pathless land’ attitude and if you have no wish to explore why this ‘is of value’ then simply cease writing to me ... instead of hiding your disinclination, or inability, to put your understanding of ‘why K taught this’ into clear and unambiguous terms for my edification, behind devious undergraduate debating tactics. RESPONDENT: Sophistry is the misuse of logical argument, it is the way in which the self misuses reasoning. RICHARD: As this is, presumably, ‘in humour’ (and not ‘what actually goes on’) then I need take no notice of what you say here. * RICHARD: 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: ‘Conveniently happens’ does not seem to be appropriate here. RICHARD: Given the ‘historical context’ of the rejection of ‘the role of World Teacher’ it is very appropriate – the ‘Teachings’ prior to 1929 can easily be described as fitting into the ‘many paths’ ecumenical attitude – and bespeaks a political reason for the exclusive attitude (‘truth is a pathless land’) rather than coming from a direct ascertainment of the nature of ‘The Truth’. I have already posted his ‘water can never find out what water is’ quote to you in another thread – and the inability of non-material consciousness to ascertain the nature of ‘The Truth’ was the central feature of that thread – yet despite methods, authority, experience and paths being rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ the exclusive ‘pathless land’ attitude is taken to be carved in stone tablets from on high. 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. Viz.:
Might I ask whether you ‘doubt everything; question everything; even the speaker’? RESPONDENT: It clearly undermines Theosophist general methodology. RICHARD: It does far, far more than ‘undermine Theosophist general methodology’ ... it wipes it right out of existence in five short words. * 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: You already begin the exploration with the conclusion that K’s teachings are rife with methods, authority, and paths, and so your only aim is to convince the other of your conclusion. RICHARD: I engage in a discussion with the full awareness that methods, authority, experience and paths are rife throughout most, if not all, of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ ... it is called seeing the fact. That the other does not see the fact is the challenge. RESPONDENT: A sincere, frank and honest discussion is one where both are open, and this exhibits a closed mind. RICHARD: As this is, presumably, ‘in humour’ (and not ‘what actually goes on’) then I need take no notice of what you say here. RESPONDENT: There is an inherent weakness in your methodology. The validity or invalidity of the statement ‘the truth is pathless’, does not rest on whether or not K’s teachings are rife with methods, authority, etc. RICHARD: The ‘etc.’ in your ‘does not rest on whether or not K’s teachings are rife with methods, authority, etc.’ stands for ‘experience and paths’ (if you are referring to my phrase ‘methods, authority, experience and paths are rife’ that is). Therefore, what you are saying here (if this is indeed what you are referring to) is that the validity or invalidity of the statement ‘the truth is pathless’ does not rest on whether or not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ are rife with methods, authority, experience and paths. In short: you seem to be saying that the validity of the ‘the truth is pathless’ statement does not rest on there being no paths in the ‘Teachings’? RESPONDENT: The truth can have a path though K does not have one, the truth can be pathless, though K has a path. RICHARD: I am no logician (and male logic is as useless as female intuition when it comes to self-investigation anyway) so I will arrange the possibilities sequentially for clarity:
Have I missed any possibilities? If not, could you now explain what ‘the truth can have a path though K does not have one, the truth can be pathless, though K has a path’ means to a non-logician like Richard? Because it seems that your ‘methodology’ is to contrast No. 4 with No. 2 and, overlooking/ ignoring the other seven possibilities, baldly present their conjunction as if it makes rational sense to do so? If that be logic then I am well-pleased to not be a logician. Whereas No. 5 (with traces of No. 9 as well) is the reality evident throughout most, if not all, of the ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: So what your methodology is aimed at is K’s consistency. RICHARD: I have no use for a ‘methodology’ ... I simply see the fact that there is a vast difference betwixt the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. If you wish to formalise that factual discrepancy into some axiomatic methodological system whereby no theorem contradicts another so as to achieve a logical ‘consistency’ then that is your business. RESPONDENT: And why should that be of importance? RICHARD: As it is your theory that Richard has a ‘methodology’ which is aimed at Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘consistency’ I will leave that for you to answer. RESPONDENT: If K is taken as an authority then it becomes important. RICHARD: Yet as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is an ‘authority’ the discrepancy between the ideal and the reality is already important even before the listener comes into the equation ... and it is doubly important as he presents himself as not being an ‘authority’. RESPONDENT: But if he is not, then the statements are examined on their own merits. RICHARD: What ‘merits’? Without ‘authority’ authoritative statements amount to meaningless babble and have no merit whatsoever (I am, of course, talking about the authority of experience, as in testimonials). The authority of power (the ultimate, unquestionable authority), which is present in the ‘Teachings’ as well, was already explored in a prior thread. * 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: [No. 33]: ‘Ramana Maharshi, Ramakrishna, et al conveyed their thoughts in words that have a different connotation to a Krishnamurti reader. But essentially those two are also talking about things that K talked about. If someone got bogged down with the ‘correct word’ then s/he will miss the essence of what the two R said. Truth, in my humble opinion, is multi-faceted, multi-lingual, and multi-thesaurused’. [No. 31]: ‘Truth is ‘one’’. [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)’. 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: I disagree with this conclusion. No. 31 and No. 33 were discussing truth as that which is actual. RICHARD: Then that is a matter to take up with them, and not me, as I did not notice the word ‘actual’ being used in that sequence. RESPONDENT: Whereas you have repeatedly insisted on distinguishing between truth and fact. RICHARD: Indeed ... along with ‘actual’ versus ‘real’ it was the central issue of the in-depth and lengthy discussion which, although you say you read it, you also say that it was not ‘worthy of study’. RESPONDENT: I have attempted to get you to explore your distinction with me, but you demur. RICHARD: Correction: you have ‘attempted’ to get me to do your leg-work for you ... and I decline. RESPONDENT: For them the concern is how to reconcile diverse traditions, but it appears that you have rejected these traditions. RICHARD: The core or genesis of those ‘diverse traditions’ collapsed like a leaky balloon when unmasked in the utter simplicity of apperceptive awareness in a deserted cow-paddock in 1992 ... no rejection was needed. * 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: Paths = ways of expressing truth. RICHARD: Not necessarily so ... if (note ‘if’) Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was accurate in his appraisal and that truth is indeed a pathless land then his way of ‘expressing truth’ can in no way equal a path or paths. Therefore your statement that ‘paths=ways of expressing truth’ has no relevance whatsoever for this discussion. * RESPONDENT: You already arrive with no willingness to learn ... RICHARD: What would you have me learn? RESPONDENT: How about the obstacles to self-exploration, the obstacles to exposing yourself, the obstacles to being open to another? If you arrive with the unshakable conclusion that you are selfless, then how can you ever look into that? If you arrive with the conclusion that K is a hypocrite, or that there is a path, because I know it, and so the statement the ‘truth is pathless’ is wrong, how can you be free to look into that? RICHARD: Okay ... arranged sequentially this is what you would have me learn:
What now? * 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? Viz.: [quote]: ‘If there is order in one’s life, real order, then what is meditation? Is it following certain systems, methods: the Zen method, the Buddhist meditation, the Hindu meditation, and the methods of the latest gurus? If meditation is determined, if it is following a system, a method, practiced day after day, what happens to the human brain? It becomes more and more dull. Is meditation something entirely different? It has nothing whatever to do with method, system, practices; therefore, it can never be mechanical. It can never be conscious meditation. It is like a man consciously wanting money and pursuing money: consciously you meditate, wanting to achieve peace, silence. The man who pursues money, success, power, and the man who pursues so-called spirituality are both the same. Is there a meditation which is not determined, practiced? There is, but that requires enormous attention. That attention is a flame and that attention is not something that you come to; it is attention now to everything, every word, every gesture, every thought; it is to pay complete attention, not partial. If you are listening partially now, you are not giving complete attention. When you are completely attentive there is no self, there is no limitation’. (pp. 359-360, ‘Total Freedom’; Washington, D.C., 21 April 1985; © 1996 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.). 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? RESPONDENT: There is no inconsistency between expressing what is seen, and walking together, investigating, looking together. RICHARD: Oh? Yet there is an inconsistency between Richard ‘expressing what is seen’ and Richard not pretending to be ‘walking together, investigating together, looking together’ ? RESPONDENT: Have you ever taken a field walk with a nature guide? RICHARD: Aye ... I have been guided by many, many peoples – of which guidance I am most appreciative – and what I particularly appreciated about all these many, many peoples is that they did not pretend to be learning with me when they already knew whatever it was that I was learning from them. That they knew was the very reason I wanted to learn from them. RESPONDENT: But this is not why you brought this quote. It was to put forward an argument: what you mean by the attitude of wanting to learn can be seen in the quote below, for you are identifying that attitude with K, and you can see in this quote that K has the answers, and so he is just like me, ergo, I am a man who wants to learn. RICHARD: No ... where is the evidence that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is ‘a man who wants to learn’ when he discusses with others? RESPONDENT: The reasoning however fails First, because I do not identify the attitude with the K in that quote. RICHARD: Yet you seek to ‘identify that attitude’ with Richard? RESPONDENT: Secondly, because the answer that K has, does not conflict with the attitude of learning. Indeed, it is learning. RICHARD: Okay ... what is he ‘learning’ when he poses the question ‘is there a meditation which is not determined, practiced’ yet immediately follows it with ‘there is’? I only ask because his advice to others when posing a question often goes something is like this:
Plus he often provides some version or variation on this theme:
Yet what does he say but one short sentence after his ‘there is’ answer? Do you see (further above), for yourself, where he says ‘if you are listening partially now you are not giving complete attention’? If you do, then you will also see that, far from having this ‘very different attitude’ you speak of (of being ‘the man who wants to learn’) he not only wants to persuade the other into what his ‘there is’ answer points to, he also chides the other not to be ‘listening partially’ to what his ‘there is’ answer points to. RESPONDENT: The problem is not in having some answer, but whether that answer is itself open or closed. And in that your answers are closed: ergo: you do not exhibit that attitude of one who wants to learn. RICHARD: Discussing whether ‘that answer is itself open or closed’ is not going to clarify the issue because you will go on telling me, whatever I say, that it is my interpretation. It is this simple: I see no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has either ‘that attitude of one who wants to learn’ or is learning anything whilst he is ‘walking together, investigating together, looking together’ with the other ... quite the obverse, in fact. Yet he expressly says ‘we are going to talk over together our problems as two friends’. * RESPONDENT: After all, he does start these ‘Washington, D.C., April 1985’ talks with: [quote]: ‘We are going to talk together (...) We are going to, if you will kindly, talk over together our problems as two friends. Though we don’t know each other, we are going to talk, discuss, have a conversation (...) We are going to take a very long, complex journey together, and it is your responsibility, as well as that of the speaker, that we walk together, investigate together, look together ...’. 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: [quote]: ‘Freedom, complete freedom, is to have limitless space. (...) When there is that space and emptiness and, therefore, immense energy – energy is passion, love and compassion and intelligence – then there is that truth which is most holy, most sacred, that which man has sought from time immemorial’. (page 360, ‘Total Freedom’; Washington, D.C., 21 April 1985; © 1996 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.). Again: is this the kind of ‘very different attitude’ you are talking about? RESPONDENT: The answer depends on what K meant by ‘that truth which is most holy, most sacred, that which man has sought from time immemorial’. If he meant by this the same thing as that complete freedom, space, immense energy, then this again is simply the energy of attention, the energy of learning. The answer is ‘openness’, and that is a very different attitude indeed. RICHARD: Again: discussing what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti specifically meant by ‘that truth which is most holy, most sacred, that which man has sought from time immemorial’ is not going to clarify the issue because you will go on telling me, whatever I say, that it is my interpretation. Can we keep this simple? Where is his ‘very different attitude’ that you set as a criterion for these discussions? Viz.:
I have posted this quote to you before:
Where is the evidence, then, of his ‘willingness to learn’ that you set as a criterion for these discussions? Incidentally, if your ‘paths=ways of expressing truth’ observation was valid then what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is saying here is this:
* 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: Aren’t you assuming that I am reading it on the computer monitor? Maybe I ran it off in the printer, and I am reading a paper copy. RICHARD: I am only too happy to re-arrange my analogy to suit your specific circumstance:
Do you have any other suggestions as to what I can change in my analogy before you will look at what is being conveyed? RESPONDENT: It is interesting how convinced people are of facts, that are not facts. And this also has to do with how you regard your experiences, or how you are interpreting K. You think they are facts, but they are not. RICHARD: When I look at the glass and plastic object just above the keyboard I do not ‘think’ it is a fact that it is a computer monitor ... it is irrefutably a fact that it is a computer monitor. The same applies to PCE’s (wherein thought may or may not be operating) and seeing the fact of the vast difference betwixt the ideal that the ‘Teachings’ taught and the reality that the ‘Teachings’ taught. * 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: You are not exploring it, if you already made up your mind that it is so. RICHARD: I have not ‘made up [my] mind that it is so’ ... that is what you make of it. It is a fact that it is so. 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? RESPONDENT: Your analogous do not have any real force to them, perhaps because they are truisms that do not support the main point in contention. RICHARD: What ‘main point’ ? That nobody can ‘KNOW the answer’ anyway ... so therefore Richard cannot be correct no matter what he says? * RICHARD: 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: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘... nobody has done it. Nobody. And so that’s that’. (‘Two Birds On One Tree’; © Ravi Ravindra; 1995; (pp 45-46). Published by Quest Books). 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: Now you are switching your line of attack from K’s ‘consistency’ to K’s efficacy. RICHARD: Three points are immediately obvious:
RESPONDENT: And that is a different discussion. RICHARD: The efficacy of the ‘truth is a pathless land’ exclusive attitude is directly proportional to its reality as opposed to its ideal ... which is what this current discussion is already exploring. RESPONDENT: Are you interested in looking into it? RICHARD: I have been doing nothing else since this thread began. RESPONDENT: And why? RICHARD: So as to enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent for some other body as well as this body. RESPONDENT: Because you feel you have a path which is efficacious? RICHARD: It is not a matter of what I ‘feel’ ... I know it is efficacious as it is the path that the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul who was inhabiting this body used. There may very well be other paths ... but this is the only one that has worked so far. I will not pretend not to know just to satisfy your criterion for discussing peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT: You already arrive with no willingness to learn ... RICHARD: What would you have me learn? RESPONDENT: How about the obstacles to self-exploration, the obstacles to exposing yourself, the obstacles to being open to another? If you arrive with the unshakable conclusion that you are selfless, then how can you ever look into that? If you arrive with the conclusion that K is a hypocrite, or that there is a path, because I know it, and so the statement the ‘truth is pathless’ is wrong, how can you be free to look into that? RICHARD: Okay ... arranged sequentially this is what you would have me learn:
What now? RESPONDENT: You are asking how ... RICHARD: No ... you are. I asked you ‘what would you have me learn’ and you replied ‘...how can you ever look into that?’ giving four instances where you discerned it to be applicable and ‘... how can you be free to look into that?’ giving three instances where you discerned it to be applicable, so I merely replaced the second person pronoun <you> with the first person pronoun <I> so as to make it applicable to what you would have me learn (‘how can [I] ever look into ...?’ and ‘how can [I] be free to look into ...?’). RESPONDENT: ... is that not to ask for a method? a path? RICHARD: It certainly looks like that to me ... if this were not a Mailing List set-up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world I would be inclined to say that you would indeed be having me learn ‘a method? a path?’ here on this Mailing List. But maybe that is me making an interpretation of your intention ... yet again? RESPONDENT: So why not simply start fresh? RICHARD: Ahh ... would you now be having me learn to delete points 1-7 (above) or having me learn to just delete the ‘how can I’ part of points 1-7 (so that it is in accord with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ... um ... non-authoritarian ‘Teachings’)? RESPONDENT: Free from all these descriptions of oneself as having achieved. RICHARD: I have not achieved anything ... I have been happily and harmlessly just here right now for 53 years. RESPONDENT: Free from the need for any method or path. RICHARD: As I am already always happily and harmlessly just here right now I have no need for ‘any method or path’ ... let alone needing to be free from ‘any method or path’. RESPONDENT: Free from the role of world saviour, with all that authority. RICHARD: I am no ‘world saviour’ (either in ‘role’ or actuality): I am a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The ‘world saviour’ will not be on earth again for ‘many hundred years’. Viz.:
As for ‘all that authority’ ... my expertise in matters pertaining to what is sometimes called ‘consciousness studies’ sits very comfortably with me. RESPONDENT: Free from having to be something special. RICHARD: There is no ‘having to be’ to be something special to be ‘free from’ as I am already something special: a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and, until some other ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul gets of their backside and does something personal about human suffering, I will remain the only something special on this planet so far (as far as I have been able to ascertain). That I am something special was not of my doing ... and continuing to be the only something special is not of my doing either. RESPONDENT: Is it possible to put all that accumulated knowledge about oneself aside ... RICHARD: It is not necessary for me to ‘put all that accumulated knowledge about oneself aside’ ... it only appears, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and disappears as soon as the sentence is written. I never have private thoughts about these matters discussed here ... I take the pristine perfection of this already always existing peace-on-earth for granted. RESPONDENT: ... so that there is a fresh start? RICHARD: Okay ... what ‘fresh start’ would you have me learn?
RICHARD: ... if this were not a Mailing List set-up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world I would be inclined to say that you would indeed be having me learn ‘a method? a path?’ here on this Mailing List. But maybe that is me making an interpretation of your intention ... yet again? RESPONDENT: It is a misinterpretation. The questions, ‘how can you’ were rhetorical. The rhetorical form: If you ... how can you ever ...’, ordinarily means that ‘if you do this, then you cannot do that’. It is not referring to a method, but suggests an impossible conjunction. RICHARD: The questions were ‘rhetorical’ questions, eh? And needless rhetorical questions at that as this issue was already addressed in another thread. Viz.:
Yet even so, not only are you still trying to get me to see the Richard you see, but you are wanting me to ‘look into’ the obstacles you see this Richard you see to be having which block the communication you see should be happening as well. Have you noticed that the bulk of your communication to me has no substance? That you are continually trying to put into place in me attributes which you consider should be present in a fellow human being (and only then can you ‘discuss together, as two friends, taking a walk together’ issues which you are familiar with)? Basically you are displaying your inability to be ‘listening’ to a fellow human saying something that does not fit into the comfortable grooves that discussions ordinarily follow among ‘K-Readers’. I once went to a video and discussion evening at ‘Vasanta Vihar’, in what was then Madras, in 1984 and nothing has happened over the ensuing 17 years – nor will happen by the looks of what is occurring here – to break ‘K-Readers’ out of this endless circling they are indulging in over and again. And what is particularly crippling is this ‘Pathless Land’ injunction. * RESPONDENT: Free from all these descriptions of oneself as having achieved. RICHARD: I have not achieved anything ... I have been happily and harmlessly just here right now for 53 years. RESPONDENT: Then why give any significance to your biography? RICHARD: I cannot answer this any better than I did in my response to you a few days ago:
RESPONDENT: Methods and paths, by definition, determine the goal, and what it is to achieve. RICHARD: Yes ... ‘the goal’ is peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body. What it ‘is to achieve’ is the total ‘self’-immolation of identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) so that the already always existing peace-on-earth may become apparent. * RESPONDENT: Free from the need for any method or path. RICHARD: As I am already always happily and harmlessly just here right now I have no need for ‘any method or path’ ... let alone needing to be free from ‘any method or path’. RESPONDENT: The method or path that you have discovered ... RICHARD: I never discovered anything ... the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul discovered both the actualism method and the wide and wondrous path. RESPONDENT: ... and identify with ... RICHARD: I cannot ‘identify’ with anything ... let alone something that is not applicable to me. I am providing a report of what the identity discovered, applied, and had total success with, for others to do what they will with. RESPONDENT: ... is what enslave you though for the ‘graduate’, such as yourself, the method or path is no longer necessary. RICHARD: It never was necessary for me – I have been here for 53 years having a ball – it was only necessary for the identity (the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). It is over, finished. Done. RESPONDENT: And that is why you do not see how that method and path enslaves others that have not yet graduated. RICHARD: In what way does something which worked efficaciously and delivered the goods ‘enslave others’ ... especially seeing that the feed-back from others informs me that it does not? Or, to put it another way, what is it that you know, about both the actualism method and the wide and wondrous path, that makes it ‘enslave others’ which Richard and these others do not? * RESPONDENT: Free from the role of world saviour, with all that authority. RICHARD: I am no ‘world saviour’ (either in ‘role’ or actuality): I am a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul. The ‘world saviour’ will not be on earth again for ‘many hundred years’. Viz.: [quote]: ‘You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence, operating in a body for many hundred years’. (‘Two Birds On One Tree’; © Ravi Ravindra; 1995; (pp 45-46). Published by Quest Books; Quoted from page 206; ‘The Life And Death Of Krishnamurti’; Mary Lutyens; © 1990, John Murray Publishers, London). RESPONDENT: The comparison is noted. RICHARD: Good ... and what a salutary comparison it is, eh?
* RICHARD: As for ‘all that authority’ ... my expertise in matters pertaining to what is sometimes called ‘consciousness studies’ sits very comfortably with me. RESPONDENT: If you are just here, right now, then what expertise is there? RICHARD: Just for starters ... seeing the fact through all the hype. RESPONDENT: What knowledge? RICHARD: The lessons of history (among other things). RESPONDENT: That is all the past, all those studies, all those conclusions as to what people are. RICHARD: Oh? Has ‘what people are’ changed all of a sudden? In what way? * RESPONDENT: Free from having to be something special. RICHARD: There is no ‘having to be’ to be something special to be ‘free from’ as I am already something special: a fellow human being sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... and, until some other ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul gets of their backside and does something personal about human suffering, I will remain the only something special on this planet so far (as far as I have been able to ascertain). RESPONDENT: A classic of ‘selfless pomposity’. RICHARD: Would you prefer that I not mention discovering peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: Where does comparison between yourself and all others, fit into that ‘fact’ that all is taking place ‘here, right now’?? RICHARD: I go by what others tell me – I only get to meet flesh and blood bodies here in this actual world – and they tell me that they are a ‘self’ (by whatever name) who is suffering. If they were to cease telling me this tale of woe ... then where is the comparison for me to make? RESPONDENT: You believe that you are doing something about human suffering, but all you have done is to give yourself special status. RICHARD: No ... it is that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples are suffering is what gives me ‘special status’. If they were to cease suffering – as that is what they say is happening for them – then where is the ‘special status’? RESPONDENT: In looking closely at the nature of methods and paths, we can see that they contribute to strife, continue to division. RICHARD: Presumably this is your royal ‘we’? Because when I look at the method and path that the ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul who was inhabiting this body used I see that it enabled the already always existing peace-on-earth into becoming apparent. RESPONDENT: And that in determining the special status of the ‘graduate’, they continue the pain of comparison. RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that there is no ‘pain of comparison’ here. * RICHARD: That I am something special was not of my doing ... and continuing to be the only something special is not of my doing either. RESPONDENT: Everyone is special, and no-one is special. RICHARD: As the word ‘special’ is being used in regards to not-suffering (as in the total absence of human suffering in a flesh and blood body) then what you convey here is that everyone is not-suffering and no-one is not-suffering. Perhaps you could explain how this makes sense to a non-logician like Richard? RESPONDENT: It is you that determines that you are special and others are not. RICHARD: Au contraire ... it is that perhaps 6.0 billion peoples are suffering that determines that I am ‘special and others are not’. RESPONDENT: It is you that sees in yourself an answer to human suffering, ignoring that this contributes to world division. RICHARD: I guess I had better keep quiet about discovering peace-on-earth then ... seeing that mentioning it ‘contributes to world division’. * RESPONDENT: Is it possible to put all that accumulated knowledge about oneself aside ... RICHARD: It is not necessary for me to ‘put all that accumulated knowledge about oneself aside’ ... it only appears, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and disappears as soon as the sentence is written. RESPONDENT: So it is only when you contribute these posts, that you exhibit these self-centred reactions? Does it switch on and off? RICHARD: As a false question can only be answered falsely I cannot respond to your query. * RICHARD: I never have private thoughts about these matters discussed here ... I take the pristine perfection of this already always existing peace-on-earth for granted. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by never having private thoughts? RICHARD: For large chunks of my daily life there is no thought, thoughts or thinking at all ... thought, thoughts or thinking only happens, episodically, as required by the circumstances (such as writing this sentence) and ceases happening as soon as the sentence is written. What the other person has to say initiates thought, thoughts or thinking about these matters ... it is their interest that occasions these words. RESPONDENT: Or that you take it for granted? RICHARD: Just like I take gravity, for an example, for granted ... it is commonplace; it is the norm; it is the given; it is the status-quo; it is what is already always happening. * RESPONDENT: ... so that there is a fresh start? RICHARD: Okay ... what ‘fresh start’ would you have me learn? RESPONDENT: That there is no method, and no path, no knowledge, that there is no achiever and no arrival in regard to awareness. RICHARD: Ahh ... it would appear that you and I are (somewhat) in agreement for once, inasmuch that ‘no method’ is needed here in this actual world (there is nothing either lacking nor extraneous) and ‘no path’ is needed here in this actual world (there is nowhere to go to or arrive from) and ‘no knowledge’ is needed here in this actual world (except episodically as required by the circumstances) and ‘no achiever’ is present here in this actual world (for there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul in actuality) and there is ‘no arrival’ here in this actual world (for I am already always just here right now where I have been for 53 years). But what use is this knowledge to the one who is not just here right now as the flesh and blood body only? It is crippling knowledge if it be transposed onto the denizens of ‘real world’ as a modus operandi. RESPONDENT: That is the emptiness, the nothingness, of that fresh start. RICHARD: ‘Twas but a short-lived agreement I see ... this (as contrasted to ‘that’) is fullness, is everythingness ... and it is never-starting and never-ending. This already always is.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think Krishnamurti was a charlatan – for example I consider Sai Baba to be a charlatan: he sells enlightenment / peace etc. to the gullible. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). RESPONDENT: Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. RICHARD: If you had kept on reading the very next part of the E-Mail would you have still written this? Viz.:
This is not an isolated quote about the stream going on after physical death ... in fact a co-respondent posted some quotes on this subject only a little while back:
You even responded to that E-Mail with the following observations:
I see you unambiguously saying that ‘anything remembered (no matter who is remembering) is part of the stream of thought. So long as a personality is remembered, it does survive the physical death of the body’ ... yet in this E-Mail you are telling me that ‘stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. The ability to hold two contradictory notions in situ simultaneously is an astounding feat of prestidigitation, no? RESPONDENT: [Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death]. But so it does not continue in the here and now. RICHARD: However, seeing that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time, it did indeed ‘continue in the here and now’ despite his ‘stepping out of the stream’ ... as has been the case for all saints, sages and seers for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years. Which is why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). RESPONDENT: Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. RICHARD: If you had kept on reading the very next part of the E-Mail would you have still written this? RESPONDENT: Yes, because I did read it. RICHARD: Oh? Maybe you did not read the bit where Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly says ‘if I don’t end the image, the stream of image-making goes on’ when the organism dies (and that the stream of sorrow is ‘part of the same stream’ as the stream of image-making only ‘much deeper’)? Otherwise, how can you then say that ‘stepping out of the stream is not so that it does not go on after physical death’? * RICHARD: [It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history).] Viz.: [K]: ‘When the organism dies it is finished. But wait a minute. If I don’t end the image, the stream of image-making goes on. (...). That is: I die; the organism dies and at the last minute I am still with the image that I have. (...). So there is this constant flow of image-making. [B]: ‘Well, where does it take place? In people? [K]: ‘It is there. It manifests itself in people. [B]: ‘You feel it is in some ways more general, more universal? [K]: ‘Yes, much more universal. (...). [B]: ‘In other words you are saying that the image does not originate only in one brain, but it is in some sense universal? [K]: ‘Universal. Quite right. (...). There is the stream of sorrow, isn’t there? [B]: ‘Is sorrow deeper than the image? [K]: ‘Yes. (...). [S]: ‘Deeper than image-making is sorrow? [K]: ‘Isn’t it? Man has lived with sorrow a million years. (...). [B]: ‘It [sorrow] goes beyond the image, beyond thought. [K]: ‘Of course. It goes beyond thought. (...). [S]: ‘Before you go on – are you saying that the stream of sorrow is a different stream from the stream of image-making? [K]: ‘No, it is part of the same stream. ... The same stream but much deeper. (...). [B]: ‘And the disturbances in sorrow come out on the surface as image-making. [K]: ‘That’s right. (...). You know, sir, there is universal sorrow. (...). [S]: ‘You say universal sorrow is there whether you feel it ... . [K]: ‘You can feel it. (pages 122-126, Dialogue VII; May 20 1976;’The Wholeness Of Life’; © 1979 by The Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd; Published by HarperCollins, New York). This is not an isolated quote about the stream going on after physical death ... in fact a co-respondent posted some quotes on this subject only a little while back: [quote]: ‘Then there is this problem that the vast majority of people, of human beings, never come to the freedom from death but are caught in a stream, the stream of human beings whose thoughts, whose anxieties, pain, suffering, the agony of everything that one has to go through, we are caught in that stream. And when a human being dies he is part of that stream. (...) And the Psychical Research Societies and other societies, when they, through mediums and all the rest of it, when they call upon the dead, they are calling people out of that stream’. (3rd Public Talk, Ojai, 14th April, 1973). [quote]: ‘When you die your thought of yourself goes on in that stream as it is going on now – as a Christian, Buddhist, whatever you please – greedy, envious, ambitious, frightened, pursuing pleasure – that is this human stream in which you are caught’. (Talks in Saanen 1974, 6th Public Talk). [quote]: ‘To step out of the stream is to step out of this whole structure. So, creation as we know it is in the stream. Mozart, Beethoven, you follow, the painters, they are all here’. (‘The Reluctant Messiah’). You even responded to that E-Mail with the following observations: [Respondent]: ‘The personality is thought, image. Thought is not, however, personal. So though we identify the personality with a specific body, personality is not specific to a body. Anything remembered (no matter who is remembering) is part of the stream of thought. So long as a personality is remembered, it does survive the physical death of the body. There is nothing posited about soul, or any metaphysical entity’. (Message # 00830 of Archive 01/01). I see you unambiguously saying that ‘anything remembered (no matter who is remembering) is part of the stream of thought. So long as a personality is remembered, it does survive the physical death of the body’ ... yet in this E-Mail you are telling me that ‘stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’. The ability to hold two contradictory notions in situ simultaneously is an astounding feat of prestidigitation, no? RESPONDENT: You are jumping to an unwarranted conclusion. There is a confusion in the way you are interpreting ‘stepping out of the stream’. RICHARD: As well as saying (as already detailed much further above) ‘if I don’t end the image, the stream of image-making goes on’ when the organism dies, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also says ‘when you die your thought of yourself goes on’ (in the second of the three quotes further above). I am not interpreting. RESPONDENT: Stepping out of the stream involves a human being, not all human beings. RICHARD: Yes ... it is a singular event. RESPONDENT: But the personality, being thought, is part of the stream, though we identify it with a particular human being. So stepping out of the stream does not imply that the personality can step out of the stream as well. RICHARD: Indeed not ... when ‘the personality’ (psychologically) dies that is the end of being in the stream for that particular human being. RESPONDENT: That would require that all human beings step out of the stream. If this does not seem clear to you perhaps we can return to the texts: You wrote: [Richard]: ‘It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history)’. First, notice that you used the word ‘primarily’. Where is that in any of the texts that you have cited? RICHARD: I am writing to a mailing list – I am not writing a doctoral thesis – and I am not about to lengthen my already lengthy E-Mails by including absolutely every related quote. Are you not already familiar with the urgency Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speaks of in his ‘house on fire’ metaphor? That is, when the house is burning one does not, primarily (first and foremost, above all else) ask when, where, how or why one is to get out of the house. This metaphor means that what one does, primarily, first and foremost, above all else, is get out (aka ‘step out’). RESPONDENT: Secondly, where is it in any of the texts, the conclusion that K or anyone else, by stepping out of the stream, that personality is not still part of the stream. Meaning that other people have stopped thinking about that person, or remembering that person? RICHARD: I am not cognisant of any text that shows other people’s images of that particular person keep that particular person in the stream once they have stepped out. However, there is references that a stream-bound personality can remain earth-bound if other people will not let them go when they physically die, though. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: There are actually two distinct ideas here: there is the stepping out of the stream, which means that there is no longer for that human being, the trap, the suffering, the ‘anxieties, pain, suffering, the agony of everything that one has to go through’. RICHARD: It is, as I have already said, a singular event ... not dependent upon any other person’s cooperation or collusion. RESPONDENT: But that does not imply that other people are not thinking about that human being. RICHARD: Of course not ... but what other people think has nowt to do with the resultant state which that particular human being’s unilateral action brings about. RESPONDENT: And so long as ‘anything remembered (no matter who is remembering) is part of the stream of thought. So long as a personality is remembered, it does survive the physical death of the body’’ the conclusion is that although there is a stepping out of the stream, that personality in any case continues in the stream. RICHARD: Yet only a memory of that particular human being’s ‘personality’ continues ... and only in other people’s thoughts (as in other people’s thoughts keeping their memory of that particular human being’s ‘personality’ alive). RESPONDENT: For that personality is part of the stream, part of the thoughts shared by mankind. And so the stepping out of the stream is so that although the personality continues to be part, the human being is no longer caught. Hence my statement: ‘Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death’’. RICHARD: Hmm ... so is global amnesia required to bring the ‘personality’ to an absolute end? * RESPONDENT: [Stepping out of the stream is not ‘so that it does not go on after physical death]. But so it does not continue in the here and now. RICHARD: However, seeing that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time, it did indeed ‘continue in the here and now’ despite his ‘stepping out of the stream’ ... as has been the case for all saints, sages and seers for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years. RESPONDENT: You are now turning to another topic. RICHARD: I am not ‘turning to another topic’ at all ... it is the topic. This is why I left the beginnings of this thread at the top of the page ... I will copy-paste it down here to save you scrolling:
RESPONDENT: Which is whether K actually lived at all times, that which he taught. RICHARD: I have already written that he genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT: We were previously discussing this as the problem of efficacy. How are you proposing to investigate this? RICHARD: The same as I have been doing: I have been doing nothing else but ‘investigate this’ since I first wrote to this Mailing List over two years ago ... you and I have shared 50 or so E-Mails on the efficacy of the ‘Tried and True’ already. * RICHARD: Which is why the ‘Tried and True’ is the tried and failed. RESPONDENT: What are you basing this upon? RICHARD: Upon the fact that it has been tried again and again and has failed again and again for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Nine) 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 |
