|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 20
RESPONDENT: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Freedom is the ending of the ‘me’. The ‘me’ can sincerely want to bring itself to an end, but at best, that only results in the actualisation of an idea, an idea that has many various versions and names. Living in the shadow of an idea is living in illusion, and that illusion survives and is fostered by the belief in its actuality. RICHARD: I am listening to your insistence (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion with the same total attention that I am listening to what you wrote to another only six minutes prior to this e-mail. Viz.:
I am also listening to the nature of what ‘its own result’ is when following the method of ‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’ (of all manner of things) which you thoughtfully provided to this Mailing List yesterday:
And I will be listening to what you write next, in your several-years-long list of justifications, as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step.
RESPONDENT: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Freedom is the ending of the ‘me’. The ‘me’ can sincerely want to bring itself to an end, but at best, that only results in the actualisation of an idea, an idea that has many various versions and names. Living in the shadow of an idea is living in illusion, and that illusion survives and is fostered by the belief in its actuality. RICHARD: I am listening to your insistence (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion with the same total attention that I am listening to what you wrote to another only six minutes prior to this e-mail. RESPONDENT: The idea that you listen with total attention is the projection of self-image, despite any image to the contrary. RICHARD: I am listening to your insistence that ‘the idea that [I] listen with total attention is the projection of self-image, despite any image to the contrary’. RESPONDENT: Listening is blocked when there are unexposed images of the other or ourselves operating. RICHARD: I am listening to your insistence that ‘listening is blocked when there are unexposed images of the other or ourselves operating’. * RICHARD: [... what you wrote to another only six minutes prior to this e-mail]. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘There is the hope, the wish, the desire that it will end, and that helps perpetuate it. That want projects the illusion that something can be done, or something has been done by ‘me’. Seeing the trap, the play in action, is living with the fact, and that brings about its own result’ [endquote]. I am also listening to the nature of what ‘its own result’ is when following the method of ‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’ (of all manner of things) which you thoughtfully provided to this Mailing List yesterday: [Respondent]: ‘... we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: The words are not mine, but a quote of someone else. Your review makes no mention of that distinction. RICHARD: Oh? Were you not at all sincere when you said ‘yes’ to your co-respondent yesterday? Viz.:
Have I made some gross mistake (by naively taking your quoting of another to mean that you genuinely meant it to apply to yourself) ... were you just having an academic discussion after all? Also, am I to take it that your use of the word ‘we’ does not include you when you use it? * RESPONDENT: And I will be listening to what you write next, in your several-years-long list of justifications, as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step. RESPONDENT: Listening to another requires moving beyond the limited, narrow images based on past interpretations. RICHARD: Of course. RESPONDENT: It is constant renewal, a fresh beginning. RICHARD: It certainly is ... it is ever-fresh, novel, never-the-same. RESPONDENT: Your point here is based on a confused reading. RICHARD: Maybe ... or maybe it based upon listening with total attention to the way you shut the door (‘but at best that only results in ...’) with a thought-out conclusion that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion. RESPONDENT: I have never said that I do not contemplate taking the ‘first step’. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is why I said it. RESPONDENT: The point is that such contemplation cannot achieve non-fragmentation, nor can anything else that originates in ‘me’. RICHARD: I am listening to your latest justification as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step.
RESPONDENT: ... I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT No. 10: Perfect, and last week you were also trapped in the same place, and the week before, on and on. Your parents were as well, so were theirs, when do we end the ‘play’. RICHARD: The play ends whenever you sincerely want it to for no one is preventing you from bringing it to an end but yourself. Your freedom is in your hands and your hands only. RESPONDENT: Freedom is the ending of the ‘me’. The ‘me’ can sincerely want to bring itself to an end, but at best, that only results in the actualisation of an idea, an idea that has many various versions and names. Living in the shadow of an idea is living in illusion, and that illusion survives and is fostered by the belief in its actuality. RICHARD: I am listening to your insistence (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion with the same total attention that I am listening to what you wrote to another only six minutes prior to this e-mail. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘There is the hope, the wish, the desire that it will end, and that helps perpetuate it. That want projects the illusion that something can be done, or something has been done by ‘me’. Seeing the trap, the play in action, is living with the fact, and that brings about its own result’ [endquote]. I am also listening to the nature of what ‘its own result’ is when following the method of ‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’ (of all manner of things) which you thoughtfully provided to this Mailing List yesterday: [Respondent]: ‘... we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: The words are not mine, but a quote of someone else. Your review makes no mention of that distinction. RICHARD: Oh? Were you not at all sincere when you said ‘yes’ to your co-respondent yesterday? Viz.: [Co-Respondent]: ‘... the past may be dead, but it fiercely defends its agenda. The life of thought is dead repetition, it stands in the way of being truly alive’. [Respondent]: ‘Yes, I am reminded of Marcel Proust’s lines that we are trapped in acting out last week’s play. RESPONDENT: Sincere agreement does not change the fact of authorship. RICHARD: Indeed not. * RICHARD: Have I made some gross mistake (by naively taking your quoting of another to mean that you genuinely meant it to apply to yourself) ... were you just having an academic discussion after all? RESPONDENT: The mistake you made is to attribute to me the quote, when what can be attributed is agreement with the quote. If you agree with something someone else says, that does not imply that you said it. Is the distinction between first and second hand statements found to be meaningless in your eyes? RICHARD: Of course not. * RICHARD: Also, am I to take it that your use of the word ‘we’ does not include you when you use it? RESPONDENT: When I use it, it does include me. RICHARD: Good ... because when you insist (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion, whilst only six minutes earlier proposing a method (‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’ ) which has ‘its own result’ such as is exemplified by the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’, I cannot but look askance at your determination that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion. But ... however it is that you live your life is your business, of course. * RICHARD: And I will be listening to what you write next, in your several-years-long list of justifications, as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step. RESPONDENT: Listening to another requires moving beyond the limited, narrow images based on past interpretations. RICHARD: Of course. RESPONDENT: It is constant renewal, a fresh beginning. RICHARD: It certainly is ... it is ever-fresh, novel, never-the-same. RESPONDENT: Your point here is based on a confused reading. RICHARD: Maybe ... or maybe it based upon listening with total attention to the way you shut the door (‘but at best that only results in ...’) with a thought-out conclusion that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion. RESPONDENT: Again, this comment misses what I was saying to you. Quite ironic given the claim of total attention. RICHARD: As I am not a mind-reader I go only by the words you write ... and you even reinforced the finality of what you were saying further above (‘but at best that only results in ...’) by stating further below that nothing which originates in ‘me’ can end the play. Viz.:
* RESPONDENT: I have never said that I do not contemplate taking the ‘first step’. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is why I said it. RESPONDENT: You are missing what I am implying. RICHARD: Might I suggest that you say what you mean rather than imply what you mean? RESPONDENT: I mean that I do (at times) contemplate taking the ‘first steps’. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Though I find that to be misconceived. RICHARD: I am sure you do. * RESPONDENT: The point is that such contemplation cannot achieve non-fragmentation, nor can anything else that originates in ‘me’. RICHARD: I am listening to your latest justification as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step. RESPONDENT: Again, you are missing the point of what I am saying. RICHARD: Oh, I get ‘the point’ of what you are saying alright ... nothing which originates in ‘me’ can end the play.
RICHARD: Am I to take it that your use of the word ‘we’ does not include you when you use it? RESPONDENT: When I use it, it does include me. RICHARD: Good ... because when you insist (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion, whilst only six minutes earlier proposing a method (‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’ ) which has ‘its own result’ such as is exemplified by the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’, I cannot but look askance at your determination that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion. RESPONDENT: No method is implied. Perhaps it would be helpful in developing the point to understand that ‘living with the fact of seeing the trap’ may have originated in wanting to end the trap. But that ‘want’, though genuine, cannot end it. This does not imply that the trap cannot end, only that it cannot originate in any ‘want’, indeed, that it cannot originate in ‘me’. ‘Living with the fact of seeing the trap’ takes on a totally different meaning, when the futility of that wanting is seen. It is then no longer being directed by that want. RICHARD: If I may ask? What then is it being directed by (given that the ending of the play is to happen lest the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ are to exemplify one’s experience for the remainder of one’s life)? * RICHARD: But ... however it is that you live your life is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: I take this as a friendly remark. RICHARD: It is indeed. All my remarks are friendly (and I do comprehend that they may not be received as such by recalcitrant egos and compliant souls) as it is impossible to ‘switch-off’ an actual intimacy. RESPONDENT: But in what sense do you consider it my business? RICHARD: Each and every human being is autonomous ... and, provided they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols of the country they live in, they will be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they see fit. ‘Tis only when someone expresses interest in finding out about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are that I discuss these matters ... either face-to-face or on mailing lists such as this one. I live what can be culturally described as a normal lifestyle: this is the lifestyle I have chosen; this is the lifestyle I wish to live; this is the lifestyle I am living. I enjoy what can be culturally described as a normal things: I live in a normal suburban duplex; I eat at normal restaurants; I meet normal people at cafés; I chat about normal things; I have normal pastimes. To be able to freely live this normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. RESPONDENT: Does that imply that you do not judge it? RICHARD: If by your use of the word ‘judge’ you mean am I am capable of coming to a
decision after taking an appraisal of the situation and circumstances ... then yes I do judge it. However, I am well aware that
any assessment is only a current appraisal until further investigation shows otherwise ... or establishes a fact. RESPONDENT: Or that you make no attempt to change it? RICHARD: My whole aim in going public is to have each and every human being change ... and change radically, totally, completely. Then there would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of freed individuals. Each and every body would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past ... terror would stalk its prey no more. Needless is it to say that when one is living the already always existing peace-on-earth it matters not if no one else does? * RESPONDENT: I have never said that I do not contemplate taking the ‘first step’. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is why I said it. RESPONDENT: You are missing what I am implying. RICHARD: Might I suggest that you say what you mean rather than imply what you mean? RESPONDENT: I mean that I do (at times) contemplate taking the ‘first steps’. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Though I find that to be misconceived. RICHARD: I am sure you do. RESPONDENT: Certainty can be an impediment to deeper exploration. RICHARD: The moment you no longer find it ‘to be misconceived’ I will happily drop my surety like a hot potato. * RESPONDENT: The point is that such contemplation cannot achieve non-fragmentation, nor can anything else that originates in ‘me’. RICHARD: I am listening to your latest justification as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step. RESPONDENT: Again, you are missing the point of what I am saying. RICHARD: Oh, I get ‘the point’ of what you are saying alright ... nothing which originates in ‘me’ can end the play. RESPONDENT: Correct. But is this merely a repetition of what I have said or is there as well an understanding of what it means? (Which does not imply acceptance or agreement). RICHARD: I understand what it means well enough to have asked a pertinent question.
RICHARD: When you insist (‘but at best that only results in ...’) that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion, whilst only six minutes earlier proposing a method (‘living with the fact’ of ‘seeing the trap’) which has ‘its own result’ such as is exemplified by the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’, I cannot but look askance at your determination that any sincerity on the part of ‘me’ in wanting the play to end inevitably produces nothing other than illusion. RESPONDENT: No method is implied. Perhaps it would be helpful in developing the point to understand that ‘living with the fact of seeing the trap’ may have originated in wanting to end the trap. But that ‘want’, though genuine, cannot end it. This does not imply that the trap cannot end, only that it cannot originate in any ‘want’, indeed, that it cannot originate in ‘me’. ‘Living with the fact of seeing the trap’ takes on a totally different meaning, when the futility of that wanting is seen. It is then no longer being directed by that want. RICHARD: If I may ask? What then is it being directed by (given that the ending of the play is to happen lest the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ are to exemplify one’s experience for the remainder of one’s life)? RESPONDENT: In a sense it is no longer being directed for the psychological change is a direct result of the action of that seeing. And as it has no particular direction, the change does not conform to any given standard, or idea. RICHARD: As you specifically say that ‘in a sense it is no longer being directed’ I am taking it as being given that the ‘psychological change’, currently being described as ‘living with the fact of seeing the trap’, has occurred (else all this you write is theory) ... and especially so in light of what you have previously written:
So as to clarify, and since you allow that the ‘psychological change’ may have originated in (aka came about as a result of??) a genuine want (aka a sincere want as in ‘sincerely wanting’??) would it be apropos to the topic to say that the initiation of the ‘psychological change’, currently being described as ‘living with the fact of seeing the trap’, does indeed originate in the self? In other words ... there was, if not is, the intent to have the ‘psychological change’ happen as a ... um ... preliminary step? Also, although you say that the nature or quality of the ‘psychological change’ is characterised by ‘no particular direction’, no conformity ‘to any given standard’, no conformity ‘to any idea’ as in no ‘idea of progress’, no ‘idea of improvement’, no ‘idea of change’, is it still legitimate to observe that the ending of the play is to happen lest the words ‘we are trapped in acting out last week’s play’ are to exemplify one’s experience for the remainder of one’s life ... or has the ‘psychological change’, currently being described as ‘living with the fact of seeing the trap’, also have the nature or quality of not caring and/or not being concerned about, both personal and communal salubrity? Plus, where you say that ‘in a sense’ it is no longer being directed ... in what sense is it still being directed? * RICHARD: But ... however it is that you live your life is your business, of course. RESPONDENT: I take this as a friendly remark. RICHARD: It is indeed. All my remarks are friendly (and I do comprehend that they may not be received as such by recalcitrant egos and compliant souls) as it is impossible to ‘switch-off’ an actual intimacy. RESPONDENT: I notice that you do not allow for the all too human possibility that what you might take to be a ‘friendly’ remark is not actually friendly. Those sorts of breakdowns are for many reasons, and it is far too convenient to simply see it in terms of the other person’s ego problems. RICHARD: The nature of your response highlights two aspects of the very topic under discussion and which are germane to this issue:
There are no ‘all too human’ traits in this actual world. * RESPONDENT: But in what sense do you consider it my business? RICHARD: Each and every human being is autonomous ... and, provided they comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocols of the country they live in, they will be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they see fit. RESPONDENT: Are you speaking about what should be the case, or what actually is the case? RICHARD: I am talking of what is actually the case. RESPONDENT: For the facts are that people are not left alone to live their lives. RICHARD: Yet if they did nothing to invite attention they would indeed be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they see fit. * RICHARD: ‘Tis only when someone expresses interest in finding out about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are that I discuss these matters ... either face-to-face or on mailing lists such as this one. I live what can be culturally described as a normal lifestyle: this is the lifestyle I have chosen; this is the lifestyle I wish to live; this is the lifestyle I am living. I enjoy what can be culturally described as a normal things: I live in a normal suburban duplex; I eat at normal restaurants; I meet normal people at cafés; I chat about normal things; I have normal pastimes. To be able to freely live this normal lifestyle in a seaside village is why I set out to become free of the human condition all those years ago. RESPONDENT: Did you have a conception of what freely living is when you set out to become free of the human condition? RICHARD: Oh, no ... there was a four-hour direct experiencing of an actual freedom from the human condition which definitively demonstrated a perfection of such purity as is inconceivable, unimaginable and unbelievable ... and which indelibly imprinted a pure intent to enable this perfection to become apparent for the twenty fours of the day. This pure intent activated the dormant naiveté (which is the closest one can come to innocence whilst being a self) and what happened from then on happened of its own accord. * RESPONDENT: Does that imply that you do not judge it? RICHARD: If by your use of the word ‘judge’ you mean am I am capable of coming to a decision after taking an appraisal of the situation and circumstances ... then yes I do judge it. However, I am well aware that any assessment is only a current appraisal until further investigation shows otherwise ... or establishes a fact. Whereas if by your use of the word ‘judge’ you mean being non-judgemental as in those unliveable NDA edicts ... then I pass. RESPONDENT: By ‘judging’ I am referring here to a normative assessment, and not a factual one. RICHARD: Other than assuming that a mature adult is, by definition, au fait with the legal laws and the social protocols which lubricate normal human congress, I assess each person, thing or event for what-it-is (according the current context) and not according to any norm. RESPONDENT: And as well, by ‘judging’ I am referring to the way images are formed of another, and that image becomes a block to relationship. RICHARD: Neither images nor relationships can occur in this actual world. * RESPONDENT: Or that you make no attempt to change it? RICHARD: My whole aim in going public is to have each and every human being change ... and change radically, totally, completely. Then there would be a free association of peoples world-wide; a utopian-like loose-knit affiliation of freed individuals. Each and every body would be a citizen of the world, not of a sovereign state. Countries, with their artificial borders would vanish along with the need for the military. As nationalism would expire, so too would patriotism with all its heroic evils. No police force would be needed anywhere on earth; no locks on the doors, no bars on the windows. Gaols, judges and juries would become a thing of the dreadful past ... terror would stalk its prey no more. Needless is it to say that when one is living the already always existing peace-on-earth it matters not if no one else does? RESPONDENT: The interest to change others is a form of violence, even if that proposed change be non-violent. That interest is a source of conflict. RICHARD: Unfortunately the qualifying paragraph has become even further separated from the paragraph you are responding to ... I will copy-paste it down here for clarity:
It is the other person’s interest in changing themselves which engages my attention ... if they do not thus give me permission (such as is implicit in subscribing to mailing lists such as this) I do not speak of matters such as these being discussed here. As I have already remarked: provided a person complies with the legal laws and observes the social protocols of the country they live in, they will be left alone to live their life as wisely or as foolishly as they see fit. * RESPONDENT: I have never said that I do not contemplate taking the ‘first step’. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is why I said it. RESPONDENT: You are missing what I am implying. RICHARD: Might I suggest that you say what you mean rather than imply what you mean? RESPONDENT: I mean that I do (at times) contemplate taking the ‘first steps’. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: Though I find that to be misconceived. RICHARD: I am sure you do. RESPONDENT: Certainty can be an impediment to deeper exploration. RICHARD: The moment you no longer find it ‘to be misconceived’ I will happily drop my surety like a hot potato. RESPONDENT: And you have no doubts about it? RICHARD: Why would I? It is your life you are living ... if you try to fool me by misrepresenting yourself you really only fool yourself. RESPONDENT: Do you place total confidence in the avowed statements of another as an indicator of genuine intention? RICHARD: Of course ... anyone who is not of genuine intent eventually goes away (be it sooner or later) as the ensuing conversation soon discloses the inevitable discrepancies inherent in any pretend genuineness. * RESPONDENT: The point is that such contemplation cannot achieve non-fragmentation, nor can anything else that originates in ‘me’. RICHARD: I am listening to your latest justification as to why you will not even contemplate taking the first step. RESPONDENT: Again, you are missing the point of what I am saying. RICHARD: Oh, I get ‘the point’ of what you are saying alright ... nothing which originates in ‘me’ can end the play. RESPONDENT: Correct. But is this merely a repetition of what I have said or is there as well an understanding of what it means? (Which does not imply acceptance or agreement). RICHARD: I understand what it means well enough to have asked a pertinent question. RESPONDENT: Yes, but that only reflects partial comprehension. RICHARD: ‘Tis too early to judge yet ... you may very well be surprised as to how much can be comprehended via the written word.
RESPONDENT: Richard, your reading of K once again, reflects an interest in showing how K failed to live what he taught (the ideal). RICHARD: As always I am only interested in having an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race. RESPONDENT: It has a polemical quality to it, that reflects an agenda. RICHARD: I have made my agenda crystal-clear on many an occasion – peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body – and I am well aware that this is a controversial and/or contentious issue. RESPONDENT: It is therefore, a question whether there is an openness to understand what he is pointing to, and what his life shows, when freed up from that agenda. RICHARD: I understand that what he is pointing to is stepping out of the stream, that exists prior to birth and which will exist after death unless one listens to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world, and that his life shows that he did step out of the stream ... which has parallels to stepping off the Buddhist wheel or cycle of birth, death and rebirth. RESPONDENT: And without that openness, there is no way that such a discussion is helpful to understanding the relationship to K, and it is after all, that relationship, which is reflected in the reading. RICHARD: Of course ... and without a similar openness to discussing all aspects of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world – in particular whether they are liveable or not – then all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on will go on forever and a day. * RICHARD: ... I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/ restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: By not drawing this distinction the rational basis for legal arbitration of disputes is being rejected. RICHARD: How so? If one is subpoenaed to appear in court, and one does not comply, armed persons will come knocking on one’s door to forcibly take one away. To take out a writ against one’s fellow human being is to tacitly acknowledge, and therefore condone, the physical force/restraint that will be used in the event of non-compliance. For the pacifist it amounts to getting someone else to do one’s dirty work for one ... just as in a war. I was a pacifist for eleven years ... it was events such as this that showed the lie of the principle of non-violence * RESPONDENT No. 42: I sense a desire to tag k with labels. The label ‘pacifist’ k has always rejected, in fact it is Ghandi’s pacifism that he criticizes, even ridicules. He rejects it as he rejects any pre-formulated attitude which would prevent one from responding appropriately to a given situation. RICHARD: Are you so sure about this? Here is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has to say on the subject: [quote]: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. (‘Freedom From The Known’ ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: Why do they get to rule the world? RICHARD: Because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples will have been imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: They cannot rule those that are not intimidated by threats of violence ... RICHARD: I fail to comprehend why you would downgrade being shot or imprisoned to being only ‘threats’ of violence ... being shot or imprisoned is already violence. RESPONDENT: ... nor do they get to rule those that continue to be committed to force. RICHARD: I never proposed being ‘committed’ to physical force/ restraint as an alternative to being committed to non-violence (ahimsa/pacifism) ... a person sans commitment to any pre-formulated attitude is free to act as is applicable to whatever the current situation and circumstances are. And as the situation and circumstances are ever-changing it would be silly to have a fixed attitude. Of course only a person that is happy and harmless is able to salubriously live such an unprincipled life. * RESPONDENT No. 42: On the issue of k’s anger. Well, it’s o.k. with me if you want to express that opinion and try to gain other adherents, but I think it is based on a confusion of language. Of course k may use angry language, but look at the context and you will find the language expresses exasperation of the moment. RICHARD: It is this simple: if there is ‘exasperation’ (synonyms: frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, anger) then there has been no eradication of anger. RESPONDENT: What problem do you see with that sort of anger? RICHARD: A difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... all gradations of anger cloud an accurate appraisal and thus a truthful (in accord with the fact) response to whatever the current situation and circumstances are. * RESPONDENT No. 42: K’s discussion of ‘anger’, refers to stored up emotion that hasn’t been exposed to the light of day. It derives from stored hurt, which k describes as the most disastrous handicap to carry through life. That kind of anger I think you will not find in k. RICHARD: So ‘stored up emotion’ has been eradicated but being prone to ‘exasperation of the moment’ has not been, eh? RESPONDENT: What is the problem with that? RICHARD: In the context of the thread it is at odds with the basic premise that was being proposed which I initially responded to (eradicating anger). In the context of my agenda (peace-on-earth) it amounts to copping-out of eradicating the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself). * RESPONDENT No. 42: The matter of the court case surely is more complicated that that it could be used as evidence of anger. RICHARD: I have never let something being ‘complicated’ cause me to not investigate and uncover, explore and discover. RESPONDENT: What do you see in that court case, that is an example of anger? RICHARD: Just for starters ... the clouding of judgement such as to motivate initiating an un-winnable litigation in the first place (and then persisting in it for a number of years). * RESPONDENT No. 42: But thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k. RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000:
As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion. RESPONDENT: I don’t see how you can know whether love and compassion was not free of malice and sorrow in some person that is still alive, let alone lived forty years, five hundred, or two thousand. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I lived that/was that ‘love and compassion’ , night and day for eleven years, thus I have intimate experience/knowledge of all its nooks and crannies. Speaking generally, I need only point out that there are numerous accounts of many and varied saints, sages and seers displaying malice and sorrow in one form or another (usually disguised/ designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). RESPONDENT: How are you defining innocence? RICHARD: I am, of course, using ‘innocence’ in its ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by
evil’ dictionary meaning RESPONDENT: For K freedom from the known is innocence, that is something else than the absence of recognizable emotional reactions. RICHARD: Yes ... I am suggesting going further: freedom from the unknown as well (the absence of ‘being’). * RESPONDENT No. 42: I didn’t respond because there is nothing there that I can respond to. You’re making assertions that have no meaning for me. They don’t resonate. I’m not interested in a shouting match. RICHARD: I am not asking you to shout ... I am pointing out that it is a strange type of innocence that has within it anger and sorrow (even if it be the ‘anger of the moment’ that you approve of in a previous e-mail). And as a follow-on question ... would sorrow of the moment be acceptable to you also? RESPONDENT No. 42: Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind ... RICHARD: How is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s plan of action somehow exempt from ‘a rigid formulaic response’ then? Viz.: [quote]: ‘You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight ...’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Why not read it as a concrete example of peaceful fearlessness, K did not say that you must refuse, or you must refuse to join. RICHARD: I prefer to read it as it is written ... after all, he did emphasise that it was [quote] ‘extraordinarily important to understand this’ [endquote]. * RICHARD: That clearly reads of a pre-planned response to any future event ... not a living response in the moment. RESPONDENT: Only if you read that into it. RICHARD: The words ‘refuse to join the army’ and the words ‘refuse to fight’ are unambiguous ... your variation on the thou shalt not interpret theme has no valid application in the face of such precise words. * RESPONDENT No. 42: [Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind], not the living energy of the exasperation of the moment or the understanding of violence. RICHARD: If I may point out? If there is indeed a ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ then all the careful ‘understanding of violence’ (with its pacifistic conclusion) has been a total waste of time ... it has amounted to nothing. Zilch. RESPONDENT: Are these ‘angry’ responses violence? RICHARD: As there is only ever this moment then the ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ is certainly not living this moment peacefully by any criteria. RESPONDENT: Does that not depend on your definition of violence? RICHARD: Try seeing it more in the terms of living peacefully, each moment again, and the meaning of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, will become much more clear. A moment wasted in exasperation (or frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, disappointment and etcetera) is to waste this moment forever. There is only ever this moment.
RESPONDENT: Richard, your reading of K once again, reflects an interest in showing how K failed to live what he taught (the ideal). RICHARD: As always I am only interested in having an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race. RESPONDENT: Only interested in one goal? RICHARD: When writing to mailing lists such as this ... yes (thus not only ‘showing how K failed to live what he taught’ ). RESPONDENT: That is an interesting psychological observation. RICHARD: Indeed it is ... strange as it may seem there are not many people vitally interested in peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Do you not have any interests not consumed by this one? RICHARD: Do you mean on mailing lists such as this ... or my life in general? If it be the latter then ... yes. I do have other interests outside of writing. My life with my companion is my number one priority. RESPONDENT: Don’t you ever find interest in discovering, exploring, adventuring? RICHARD: I have already explored and adventured and discovered – both in regards the human condition and the physical world – inasmuch as I have packed as much into one life as the average person would take three to accomplish. I am now retired and on a pension ... instead of pottering around in the garden I am currently pottering around the internet. There is a vague notion of one day retiring to a tropical isle and watching the fish leap in the lagoon. RESPONDENT: There is so much that evokes interest, why the focus? RICHARD: Just for starters ... all the mayhem and misery that besets the human race. RESPONDENT: So though you have not been interested in K ... RICHARD: If I may interject ... I have been very interested in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti: I have read about 30 of his books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘K-readers’ face-to-face. RESPONDENT: ... you have repeatedly written that K failed to live what he (taught), and have gone to some length in explaining your point. What is the connection between this, and your one all consuming interest? RICHARD: I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to intimately know via direct experience ... and now I do. * RESPONDENT: It has a polemical quality to it, that reflects an agenda. RICHARD: I have made my agenda crystal-clear on many an occasion – peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body – and I am well aware that this is a controversial and/or contentious issue. RESPONDENT: You do have an agenda, and when there is an agenda, any agenda, it has a direct effect on the ability to be open, to listen. RICHARD: I am open to anything that brings about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: Does not this agenda also include showing that you are the only valid example of living ‘peace on earth’ (to your knowledge) in the whole history of mankind? RICHARD: For as far as I have been able to ascertain ... yes. * RESPONDENT: It is therefore, a question whether there is an openness to understand what he is pointing to, and what his life shows, when freed up from that agenda. RICHARD: I understand that what he is pointing to is stepping out of the stream, that exists prior to birth and which will exist after death unless one listens to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world, and that his life shows that he did step out of the stream ... which has parallels to stepping off the Buddhist wheel or cycle of birth, death and rebirth. RESPONDENT: Putting aside my questions as to the accuracy of this understanding of K ... RICHARD: If you really want to put them aside why not just do so without the theatrical gesture of informing me? Either that or come straight out with your reservations. RESPONDENT: ... is there not a question as to what sort of behaviour (including thought and feeling), the expression ‘stepping out of the stream’ is meant to point to? RICHARD: If it is not the ‘sort of behaviour (including thought and feeling)’ as is epitomised by peace-on-earth then ... no. RESPONDENT: Is it not possible that what you take that expression to point to, is not what K is pointing at? RICHARD: No. * RESPONDENT: And without that openness, there is no way that such a discussion is helpful to understanding the relationship to K, and it is after all, that relationship, which is reflected in the reading. RICHARD: Of course ... and without a similar openness to discussing all aspects of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world – in particular whether they are liveable or not – then all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on will go on forever and a day. RESPONDENT: Yes, openness includes that discussion. RICHARD: Good ... that is what this thread is all about (eradicating anger). RESPONDENT: But I do not get the connection between that particular discussion of the ‘Teachings’ and that result. RICHARD: So I noticed ... whereas I would have considered it obvious to any astute person that anger (and anguish) is germane to the subject. RESPONDENT: Why is it at all important to that end to discuss the liveability of the teachings? RICHARD: So as to have an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race. RESPONDENT: That would assume that the Teachings are a blueprint for how mankind is to live, and they are not. RICHARD: That is not the impression Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti conveyed over 60-plus years. RESPONDENT: Indeed, K taught that any such blueprint is an obstacle to that end. RICHARD: Yet he did say on his death-bed that nobody had lived the ‘Teachings’. * RICHARD: ... I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: By not drawing this distinction the rational basis for legal arbitration of disputes is being rejected. RICHARD: How so? If one is subpoenaed to appear in court, and one does not comply, armed persons will come knocking on one’s door to forcibly take one away. To take out a writ against one’s fellow human being is to tacitly acknowledge, and therefore condone, the physical force/restraint that will be used in the event of non-compliance. For the pacifist it amounts to getting someone else to do one’s dirty work for one ... just as in a war. I was a pacifist for eleven years ... it was events such as this that showed the lie of the principle of non-violence. RESPONDENT: First, this is not the way that such disputes are arbitrated by the courts. Being sued under the law of contracts, or torts, does not lead to the physical use of force by officers of the court to secure an appearance. The result of (usually multiple) non-appearance when summoned, neither by yourself or your agent (e.g., lawyer), is to forfeit your case. RICHARD: Even so, ultimately physical force is used ... for example, in the scenario you sketch, to collect on or seize what has been forfeited if there be no eventual compliance. If there is no enforceable penalty to pay law and order has no impact ... and the bully-boys and feisty-femmes will laugh at the toothless tiger. RESPONDENT: But there is a larger issue here, whether it is hypocritical for the pacifist to use the legal system for protection, just as it may be hypocritical to use the police force and army for protection from violent attack. RICHARD: Exactly. RESPONDENT: And this larger issue appears to be a matter of how that ‘pacifist ideal’ is understood. Taking ‘pacifism’ to be an absolute rule that it is always wrong to use force for protection or securing rights granted under law, would make appealing to the legal system hypocritical. RICHARD: Indeed. RESPONDENT: But pacifism need not be conceived as such, and K did not commit himself to any such principle. RICHARD: In the case of litigation ... obviously not; in the case of war ... obviously so. RESPONDENT: In this way, ‘pacifism’ is often understood as an attitude that opposes only certain forms of the use of force, and not all uses. RICHARD: Sort of like being only partially-pregnant, eh? RESPONDENT: As such, the ‘pacifist’ can still see the need for police action, as well as a legal system that is designed to provide an alternative to might makes right. RICHARD: As both a police action and a legal system are backed by might it is a moot point ... even so it is but a selective pacifism and not the Full Monty. * RESPONDENT No. 42: I sense a desire to tag k with labels. The label ‘pacifist’ k has always rejected, in fact it is Ghandi’s pacifism that he criticizes, even ridicules. He rejects it as he rejects any pre-formulated attitude which would prevent one from responding appropriately to a given situation. RICHARD: Are you so sure about this? Here is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has to say on the subject: [quote]: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. (‘Freedom From The Known’ ©1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: Why do they get to rule the world? RICHARD: Because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples will have been imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: You assume that K was setting down a universalised principle for right action, applicable to everyone, but one that will be followed by all but the bully boys. RICHARD: And the feisty-femmes. RESPONDENT: But there is no indication that this is what he was doing here ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... his avowed aim, in 1929, was to set everyone free (which overlooks the fact that not everyone will want to be thus freed in the manner he prescribed). RESPONDENT: ... and he contradicts much of what he writes elsewhere as to the right guide of action. RICHARD: Aye ... consistency is not a strong point among the many and varied saints, sages and seers. RESPONDENT: The act of opposing fighting in a war or being inducted in the armed forces, does not result in rule by the bully boys. RICHARD: If an entire nation did so it would ... it is simply impractical unless every man, woman and child became pacifistic at once (and even then their submerged feelings would erupt from time to time). RESPONDENT: For that to happen, this action must be abstracted from its concrete conditions and deemed applicable in all contexts. RICHARD: If a proposed solution has no universality it is not worth pursuing ... ‘tis then a selfish solution. * RESPONDENT: They cannot rule those that are not intimidated by threats of violence ... RICHARD: I fail to comprehend why you would downgrade being shot or imprisoned to being only ‘threats’ of violence ... being shot or imprisoned is already violence. RESPONDENT: K says ‘may be imprisoned’ that means that it is not a certainty. RICHARD: Perhaps not a 100% certainty ... but I have personally seen it happen in practice (plus read about it). RESPONDENT: It is a possible outcome of the action being taken. RICHARD: Or even the most likely outcome ... for that is what the evidence of history shows. RESPONDENT: So at that point when the decision is being taken, it is only a ‘threat’ of imprisonment or being shot. RICHARD: Aye ... but where the tire meets the road is where the threat becomes the reality. RESPONDENT: My point is that the bully boys do not rule those that are not intimidated by their threats. RICHARD: Both the bully-boys and feisty-femmes rule when they carry out their threats though. * RESPONDENT: [They cannot rule those that are not intimidated by threats of violence] nor do they get to rule those that continue to be committed to force. RICHARD: I never proposed being ‘committed’ to physical force/restraint as an alternative to being committed to non-violence (ahimsa/pacifism). RESPONDENT: Yes, I am not referring to your position. RICHARD: Good. * RICHARD: A person sans commitment to any pre-formulated attitude is free to act as is applicable to whatever the current situation and circumstances are. And as the situation and circumstances are ever-changing it would be silly to have a fixed attitude. Of course only a person that is happy and harmless is able to salubriously live such an unprincipled life. RESPONDENT: What you are saying here is not substantially different from what K has said, you simply don’t see that K is also saying it. RICHARD: If you can produce the quotes wherein he says the equivalent opposite to the quote I provided I will be most interested to read it ... if not then what you say here is nothing but rhetoric. * RESPONDENT No. 42: On the issue of k’s anger. Well, it’s o.k. with me if you want to express that opinion and try to gain other adherents, but I think it is based on a confusion of language. Of course k may use angry language, but look at the context and you will find the language expresses exasperation of the moment. RICHARD: It is this simple: if there is ‘exasperation’ (synonyms: frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, anger) then there has been no eradication of anger. RESPONDENT: What problem do you see with that sort of anger? RICHARD: A difference in degree is not a difference in kind ... all gradations of anger cloud an accurate appraisal and thus a truthful (in accord with the fact) response to whatever the current situation and circumstances are. RESPONDENT: But not all that is referred to anger is a difference of degree, there are also differences in kind. RICHARD: This is news to me. RESPONDENT: What can be called anger covers many different sorts of behaviour, though they might look alike. If I use a knife to cut out a tumour, that is not the same use of the knife as when it is used as a weapon. Anger can be a mode of passionate expression, it can be an expression of caring, and not an expression of wanting to harm. RICHARD: I am glad that I am not your children (or your wife). RESPONDENT: Similarly, not all that is called ‘anger’ clouds perception. RICHARD: Any feeling clouds perception. RESPONDENT: This appears to reflect a larger picture of all emotion, of all passion, and the way that influences perception, whether it is anger or compassion, enthusiasm or benevolence. RICHARD: Exactly ... as I said: any feeling clouds perception. * RESPONDENT No. 42: K’s discussion of ‘anger’, refers to stored up emotion that hasn’t been exposed to the light of day. It derives from stored hurt, which k describes as the most disastrous handicap to carry through life. That kind of anger I think you will not find in k. RICHARD: So ‘stored up emotion’ has been eradicated but being prone to ‘exasperation of the moment’ has not been, eh? RESPONDENT: What is the problem with that? RICHARD: In the context of the thread it is at odds with the basic premise that was being proposed which I initially responded to (eradicating anger). In the context of my agenda (peace-on-earth) it amounts to copping-out of eradicating the root cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself). RESPONDENT: But you are assuming that eradicating all that you call anger is the root cause of the wars and murders, when it may not be so. RICHARD: I specifically said ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself (the eradication of all emotions and passions are a by-product of such altruistic ‘self’-immolation). RESPONDENT: That assumption is what requires exploration, prior to looking at K’s anger. RICHARD: If what I write is read with both eyes it will be seen that there is no such ‘assumption’ to be explored. * RESPONDENT No. 42: The matter of the court case surely is more complicated that that it could be used as evidence of anger. RICHARD: I have never let something being ‘complicated’ cause me to not investigate and uncover, explore and discover. RESPONDENT: What do you see in that court case, that is an example of anger? RICHARD: Just for starters ... the clouding of judgement such as to motivate initiating an un-winnable litigation in the first place (and then persisting in it for a number of years). RESPONDENT: What evidence do you have that the litigation was not winnable? RICHARD: The outcome showed that they were legally Mr. Desik Rajagopal’s documents all along ... here is the relevant text of the final settlement of the lawsuits (written in legalese language):
RESPONDENT: Certainly it requires more than reproducing a copy of the judgement, you would need at least the correspondence between K’s lawyers and K. RICHARD: You may ... I do not. RESPONDENT: The larger issue here is in regard to the use of the legal system. RICHARD: Precisely ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: Copy right law has a rational purpose. RICHARD: So does International Law ... and it too is backed by physical force. RESPONDENT: Litigation on that basis is part of supporting that rational purpose. RICHARD: And such rationality is backed-up by force ... an emotional or passionate person is unlikely to listen to reason. RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the entire legal framework of society is based on clouded judgement? RICHARD: No. * RESPONDENT No. 42: But thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k. RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000: [Richard]: ‘The evidence of history shows that the saints and sages and seers have been unable to extricate or isolate love and compassion out from malice and sorrow and vice versa ... innocence is totally new to human experience. No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent. All the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers) despite preaching peace and harmony. [endquote]. As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion. RESPONDENT: I don’t see how you can know whether love and compassion was not free of malice and sorrow in some person that is still alive, let alone lived forty years, five hundred, or two thousand. RICHARD: Speaking personally, I lived that/was that ‘love and compassion’, night and day for eleven years, thus I have intimate experience/knowledge of all its nooks and crannies. RESPONDENT: I am familiar with your claim. I see no need here to enter into the basis of that claim. And I do not see that your experience, whatever it is, can resolve this question for another. RICHARD: Then why do you ask me how I can know what I know? * RICHARD: Speaking generally, I need only point out that there are numerous accounts of many and varied saints, sages and seers displaying malice and sorrow in one form or another (usually disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). RESPONDENT: The image of these words may be preventing hearing that they are not the same as what is ordinarily referred to. RICHARD: There are no images happening here. RESPONDENT: And your claim that all these accounts display malice and sorrow in one form or another, appears false. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I will keep my own counsel on the matter, however, as I intimately know the state of being in question (popularly known as spiritual enlightenment). RESPONDENT: Perhaps part of the difference is in the way ‘compassion’ is viewed. (and even then, not all accounts have a place for ‘compassion’). RICHARD: Not the way it is ‘viewed’ ... the way it is experienced: compassion has its roots in sorrow. * RESPONDENT: How are you defining innocence? RICHARD: I am, of course, using ‘innocence’ in its ‘free from sin or guilt; untouched by evil’ dictionary meaning ... as in a complete absence of malice and sorrow which comes about when the identity (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) altruistically ‘self’-immolates in its entirety for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. RESPONDENT: Absence of sorrow is where I think your definition parts company with the common dictionary meaning. RICHARD: Yet guilt and sorrow are inseparably linked. * RESPONDENT: For K freedom from the known is innocence, that is something else than the absence of recognizable emotional reactions. RICHARD: Yes ... I am suggesting going further: freedom from the unknown as well (the absence of ‘being’). RESPONDENT: As the unknown is not known, what is it that you are saying that there is freedom from? RICHARD: From what is popularly called the unknown (which entails the eradication of ‘being’ and not just the end of ‘becoming’). * RESPONDENT No. 42: I didn’t respond because there is nothing there that I can respond to. You’re making assertions that have no meaning for me. They don’t resonate. I’m not interested in a shouting match. RICHARD: I am not asking you to shout ... I am pointing out that it is a strange type of innocence that has within it anger and sorrow (even if it be the ‘anger of the moment’ that you approve of in a previous e-mail). And as a follow-on question ... would sorrow of the moment be acceptable to you also? RESPONDENT No. 42: Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind ... RICHARD: How is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s plan of action somehow exempt from ‘a rigid formulaic response’ then? Viz.: [quote]: ‘You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight ...’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Why not read it as a concrete example of peaceful fearlessness, K did not say that you must refuse, or you must refuse to join. RICHARD: I prefer to read it as it is written ... after all, he did emphasise that it was [quote] ‘extraordinarily important to understand this’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Let us look again at what K said: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. Where is the rigid formulisation here? RICHARD: In the words ‘you will be shot’ (it is couched as an imperative statement). RESPONDENT: Aren’t you reading into this the additional statement that joining the army is always an action that is against peacefulness, or that fighting is always an action that is against peacefulness? RICHARD: No ... I prefer to read it as it is written. RESPONDENT: K says that living peacefully is to live without problems, and what he gives is an example. RICHARD: If being imprisoned or being shot is not a problem to you then what you say is true ... howsoever if all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples likewise find it not to be a problem to be imprisoned or being shot then the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world. RESPONDENT: Living peacefully is not judged from ‘outside’, but is an inner quality. RICHARD: If it does not work in moment-to-moment action the ‘inner quality’ is not worth anything. RESPONDENT: Given that inner quality, even if you are shot, it is not a problem. RICHARD: And therein lies the whole point ... a guaranteed one-way ticket to the after-death realm of one’s choice by earning one’s chosen god’s good graces. * RICHARD: That clearly reads of a pre-planned response to any future event ... not a living response in the moment. RESPONDENT: Only if you read that into it. RICHARD: The words ‘refuse to join the army’ and the words ‘refuse to fight’ are unambiguous ... your variation on the thou shalt not interpret theme has no valid application in the face of such precise words. RESPONDENT: But K did not say ‘refuse to join the army’ or ‘refuse to fight’. He used a conditional, ‘if you ... then’, or ‘you may ... because’. RICHARD: Aye ... but followed by the imperative ‘you will be shot’. RESPONDENT: And by the way, I do not have any rule that ‘thou shalt not interpret’. RICHARD: Hmm ... what is ‘only if you read that into it’ meant to convey then? RESPONDENT: Interpreting is an unavoidable aspect of using language, symbols, signs or concepts. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are peoples who read what I have to say without interpreting. * RESPONDENT No. 42: [Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind], not the living energy of the exasperation of the moment or the understanding of violence. RICHARD: If I may point out? If there is indeed a ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ then all the careful ‘understanding of violence’ (with its pacifistic conclusion) has been a total waste of time ... it has amounted to nothing. Zilch. RESPONDENT: Are these ‘angry’ responses violence? RICHARD: As there is only ever this moment then the ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ is certainly not living this moment peacefully by any criteria. RESPONDENT: You mean by your criteria, not any criteria. RICHARD: Just ask around and see what response you get. * RESPONDENT: Does that not depend on your definition of violence? RICHARD: Try seeing it more in the terms of living peacefully, each moment again, and the meaning of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, will become much more clear. A moment wasted in exasperation (or frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, disappointment and etcetera) is to waste this moment forever. There is only ever this moment. RESPONDENT: ‘Exasperation’ is wasted, for it comes out of some dependence on arriving at a goal. ‘Exasperation’ I suggest, may not be what K is getting at, or what his behaviour reflected. RICHARD: It may have missed your attention that I am simply responding to what my co-respondent has shifted the initial discussion about the word ‘anger’ to? I still say it is anger ... but I am interested to see how far this ‘exasperation’ theme can go. RESPONDENT: I am suggesting that this so called ‘anger’ may be a natural reflection of caring. RICHARD: It is natural ... yes: I am proposing something unnatural. RESPONDENT: So I think this comes down to the question whether compassionate caring for the pain and suffering, the ignorance and confusion, the laziness and hatred, is to be regarded as ‘wasted’, or whether that compassionate caring is simply the natural expression of a vital heart and open mind that is not caught up in the divisiveness of self-interested agendas and images. RICHARD: ‘Tis cute how the discussion about the anger in ‘eradicating anger’ was first shifted to ‘exasperation’ ... and now it has all-of-a-sudden turned into a discussion about ‘compassionate caring’ . And thus peace-on-earth is still nowhere in sight.
CORRESPONDENT No. 20 (Part Ten) 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 |
