|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 27
RESPONDENT: To me, you are just a parasite who will borrow anyone’s soap-box to propagate his particular belief system.RICHARD: As a parasite is person who lives at the expense of another person or of society in general (like an animal or plant which lives in or on another and draws its nutriment directly from it and harming it in the process) and is a person who obtains the hospitality, patronage, or favour of the wealthy or powerful by obsequiousness and flattery and is someone who is totally dependent on others as in a hanger-on, a sponger, a cadger, a leech, a bloodsucker, a drone, a scrounger, a freeloader ... then would you care to substantiate your wild allegations with some facts? And whose ‘soap-box’ are you referring to? This is an un-moderated mailing list open to all ... there is no stipulation that one be a Krishnamurtiite. Are you trying to muzzle me? Why? RESPONDENT: I suspect that only death will have that affect. RICHARD: The question was whether you are trying to muzzle me ... not death. Nowhere in this post do you address this question. So I will ask it again: ‘Are you trying to muzzle me?’ Why? * RICHARD: Because you objected to my repetitious words I stopped bothering you some months ago ... especially when you had closed the door on the possibility of perfection and peace-on-earth by writing to me that: [Respondent]: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’. You have endeavoured to get a response from me since then on a few occasions ... and now you try again. Do you genuinely want to find out for yourself just what is going on? Or is this just another attempt to push the line that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was but a normal man who had some outstanding insights into living? RESPONDENT: As you have said a number of times, you enjoy writing posts, and your ability to write and your quite obvious very organised ability to quote past posts etc, leaves no doubt that writing is indeed a pleasure to you. But just because a writer is enjoying himself, and technically is very efficient, means nothing, if the reader of his work finds little of value in his writing. RICHARD: You are being rather presumptuous here ... who are you to decide what people find of value in my writing? Just because you ‘find little of value’ is no reason to project that personal experience onto any one else as if it holds true for any one and every one. I was happily having a dialogue with No. 12 about the defining characteristics of an experience that sets a person apart from others in a state of being called ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’ ... and you bought into the discussion with quotes to prove me wrong. I responded and you steadfastly decline to look by saying ‘well sorry, I have better things to do than to respond to every torn morsel from a speech’. Now, as they were not ‘torn morsels’ at all – they were direct quotes selected to substantiate my point as I do not indulge in wild and unsubstantiated claims – it becomes clear that the reason why you will not respond is because you cannot continue to dissimulate in the face of direct evidence. So what are you left with? You can only to say, in effect, that I should stop writing because the ‘reader of [Richard’s] work finds little of value in [Richard’s] writing’. Do you not think that No. 12 is big enough and old enough and experienced enough to decide for himself? Or any other reader for that matter? It is simply a matter of clicking the ‘Delete’ button if you find Richard’s writing to not measure up to your pathetic standards of discussion. RESPONDENT: It must be obvious that you write countless more posts than I do, and that you make many statements about enlightenment, ego death, soul death, actual freedom and also declarations about your lack of anger etc. RICHARD: What stands out for me when I read what you have to say about my posts is this thing you appear to have about me being free of anger ... does it stick in your craw that much that some one can actually eliminate such a fundamental passion, eh? RESPONDENT: Now it seems that many on this list who listen to all this, question in their own ways what they hear, and as with your response to me, they are met with an almost ‘novel’ type response. RICHARD: Aye ... it is indeed a novel response. This is because my way of being alive is so unique that in eighteen years of scouring the books and travelling overseas no one else, as far as I have been able to ascertain, lives in such a novel manner. The only person who comes close is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti whom I found out about last year when I first came onto the Internet. But he does not know what happened to him and has no solutions to offer. He is simply a curiosity to those who go to see him. He states that he is a ‘never to be repeated sport of nature’. Whereas I know where I came from and where I am at and how I got here. RESPONDENT: To even attempt to answer each and every comment, would just contribute to the major problem on this list. i.e. verbal diarrhoea. RICHARD: Then why do you add even more ‘verbal diarrhoea’ and compound the ‘major problem’ if you see this fact so clearly? You do not have to write at all ... you can lurk for the rest of your life. Nobody is insisting that you post. RESPONDENT: It’s not that I wish to muzzle anyone, but in my own ‘pathetic’ way, am suggesting that no matter how pleasurable writing may be, beauty is non-verbal. RICHARD: May I suggest? If you read this sentence you will see that you do indeed say that you want to muzzle people ... the clue is in the words ‘non-verbal’. Basically you are coming out with that hoary spiritual line that we should all sit in silence and discover for ourselves that which is ... whoops! ... I almost broke that cardinal law and ‘attempted to describe the indescribable’. Take ten demerits, Richard ... and go back to the bottom of the class! * RICHARD: Well, I am indeed ‘dealing with that actuality’ now: [Respondent]: ‘Richard ended our only attempts to talk ... why didn’t he continue to deal with that actuality?’ ... and what is your pathetic response? Like a sulky little school-boy you say ‘I did not address my last post to you. Personally, I was talking to anyone who wished to listen’. So, as you cannot have it both ways ... which is it that you want, eh? Do I reply or not? RESPONDENT: That is your affair and I will not loose any sleep, whether you do or not. RICHARD: Oh ... that is good to hear. You see, the impression you convey in your writing is that it bothers you like all get-out ... must be my assumption, eh? Just a silly misunderstanding on my part. Good. RESPONDENT: When I am writing a post, I too find it very enjoyable. RICHARD: Excellent ... so now that you can relate to me you will probably find comments like this one (following) as stupid as I find them to be too, eh? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: And though you do not believe it, that post quoting Krishnamurti (1945), was a reaction to your post, sent to all list members. RICHARD: Indeed ... you want others to see for themselves just how wise you are in that you know better than Richard does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about. Now, I also want others other to see for themselves just how wise I am in that I know better than No. 27 does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about ... yet while arrogating that right for yourself you object to me doing so. RESPONDENT: As you are on the list, like anyone, you were free to respond or leave it. RICHARD: I know full well that I am ‘free to respond or leave it’ ... and I did indeed ‘leave it’ for months in regards to responding to you. But you considered that I was not free to do so ... look:
RESPONDENT: The very suggestion that it was just some sort of ploy to draw a response from you, says much for your supposedly dead ego. RICHARD: It is not a ‘suggestion’ that you wanted a response from me ... it is a fact. Viz.: ‘Richard has apparently closed the draw bridge on further discussion with me ... Richard ended our only attempts to talk ... If I had closed such a door ... why didn’t he continue to deal with that actuality?’ Do you see your ego in action? RESPONDENT: File for future quotation purposes. RICHARD: The reason I keep a record of all correspondence I have with others is that I like my fellow human beings and wish the best for them. I was run by both an ego and a soul for thirty four years – and by a soul only for another eleven years – and thus I know intimately what it is like. The ‘I’ that I was then did not want to look at ‘my’ instinctual passions or ‘my’ sorrowful and malicious feelings or ‘my’ corrupted thoughts or identity-controlled actions and behaviour at all. ‘I’ was a normal man, well bought-up and educated, a decent and responsible citizen. ‘I’ was what is called ‘happily married’ with four ‘lovely children’ owning my ‘own house’ and running my ‘own business’ successfully. People who were into things like what is discussed on this Mailing List were the ‘lunatic fringe’ and were not worth even listening to. All that ‘Peace On Earth’ stuff was just ‘pie-in-the-sky’ idealism ... ‘I’ knew better than they. Which is: if only other people would stop doing ... [ insert whatever complaint here] ... then all would be well. Well ... ‘I’ had an experience that showed me what ‘I’ was. ‘I’ was nothing but a lost, lonely, frightened and very, very cunning entity inside this flesh and blood body. So ‘I’ acted upon this ... and here I am today. I am simply passing on to my fellow human beings my experience of life. What they do with this information is their business. There is no need in me to do this because I have no problems whatsoever. Why I do it is because other people tell me that they are suffering ... so I explain how I ended suffering in myself. One of the triggers that started me on this voyage into my psyche was the realisation that human beings are driven to kill their fellow human beings ... and I was one of them. Now I am not ... and I can easily see when another is dissimulating while they cannot. This is why I am re-quoting you again and again until you see it for yourself ... or click the ‘Delete’ button. It is your life you are leading and I can only suggest ... what you do with my suggestions is entirely up to you. As long as you comply with the legal laws and observe the social protocol, you are left alone to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you choose. Only you reap the rewards or pay the consequences for any action or inaction you may or may not do. * RICHARD: What ‘particular belief system’ are you talking about? RESPONDENT: In the last 2 weeks alone you have sent about 40 very large posts, and I would not be surprised if that is not a typical quantity for as long as you have been on the list. If anyone listened to as many speeches by a politician or evangelist, it does not require an Einstein mind to discern whether that the person is repetitiously expressing his beliefs. RICHARD: I did not ask you to demonstrate that you can count ... I asked for evidence that I am ‘propagating a particular belief system’. Can you answer the question? What ‘particular belief system’ are you talking about? RESPONDENT: If my discernment is so far-fetched, than I wonder why you go too so much effort to dismiss it, as the ‘pathetic responses’ of ‘a sulky little schoolboy’. RICHARD: Because I like my fellow human being and wish only the best for them ... the word ‘benevolence’ literally means ‘well-wishing’. RESPONDENT: I have no filing system of all your posts, but consider your repetitious responses to such matters as ‘enlightenment, ego death, soul death, actual freedom’ as similar to a politician or evangelist preaching his beliefs. RICHARD: Is it repetition that bothers you? That is, if I say something once – and the other does not get it – then I am not allowed to say it again? Are you for real? And as the content of my ‘repetitious responses’ is so vastly different to any ‘politician or evangelist’ I cannot even begin to see this similarity that you are talking about. * RICHARD: You have to be grasping at straws if you can see anger in any of my words ... I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. I use an exclamation mark, for example, for what it is designed for: it is for surprise – or emphasis – and does not indicate anger. RESPONDENT: So referring to my post as ‘pathetic responses’ of ‘a sulky little schoolboy’ is just a statement of fact. RICHARD: Aye ... your post was a very ‘pathetic response’. It is a fact in that you totally failed to address yourself to the issue ... and this is indeed pathetic. As for your cropped quote: ‘a sulky little schoolboy’ indicating that I consider it to be a fact that you actually are a sulky little schoolboy ... you will notice what the full quote is in the following exchange and will see the word ‘like’ makes it a simile and not a factual report of your actual situation. Viz.:
So, as you cannot have it both ways ... which is it that you want, eh? Do I reply or not?’ RESPONDENT: And not an attempt to belittle anyone who considers what you write as preaching. Who are you are kidding? RICHARD: I do not have to belittle you ... you do that to yourself all of your own accord by not producing one iota of evidence to back your allegations. I do not have to ‘attempt’ anything so trite – I point out the fact – and a fact is eminently capable of speaking for itself. RESPONDENT: At times you say very sensible things but then you reveal your beliefs, and you appear so normal. This goes for everyone on the list. You say you have no anger, which is so laughable, since you apparently are incapable of seeing the anger you express, whenever you feel the need to defend the beliefs you laughingly believe you are not propagating. K, like you, like me, like the local town drunk, like Einstein was a normal person. Apparently you do not consider yourself or Krishnamurti as normal. Well I do. You usually are more sensible than the town drunk, but at times even drunks can be very sensible. Therefore, I listen to you both, but usually find you more sensible. In the same way, I usually find Krishnamurti more sensible than your preaching. I have no intention of deeply analysing why, but personally I find that reading a passage by Krishnamurti makes me think, whereas reading a post by you, sends me to sleep. Though, I do make an effort to stay awake. RICHARD: If you have no intention of ‘deeply analysing’ what drives you – meaning that you personally do not wish to participate in peace-on-earth – then that is your business ... yet realise, the next time you complain about all the violence you see on TV., that you are as ‘guilty’ as the next person. RESPONDENT: To analyse means to examine minutely the constitution of, and I must assume that is what drives you. RICHARD: Goodness me ... are we now going to get an analysis of what the word ‘analyse’ means so as to prove through analysis that analysing something is the wrong approach? RESPONDENT: To me, that implies, looking at whatever, breaking it up, coming to conclusions about what does what and why. RICHARD: May I ask ... why are you doing this? RESPONDENT: And then concluding what should or should not be doing what. RICHARD: May I ask ... why do you wish to stay as you are? RESPONDENT: Then deciding to act in a particular way. RICHARD: May I ask ... why do you keep avoiding the obvious? RESPONDENT: Those conclusions are the belief system that drives you. RICHARD: May I ask ... do you genuinely like being driven by sorrow and malice? RESPONDENT: That may not be a scientific definition of analysis, but it appears to be your approach. RICHARD: I do not passively condone all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides by doing nothing but sitting around analysing analysis to justify my inaction ... if that is what you mean. RESPONDENT: When analysis is considered the only approach, then it is no wonder you ask, ‘what drives you’. RICHARD: This is a ‘straw man’ argument ... if you did read my posts instead of going to sleep you would have noticed that I have never advocated analysis to be ‘the only approach’. In fact, when I typed < analys > (that includes ‘analyse’, analysis’, ‘analysed’ and ‘analysing’) into the search function of my computer and sent it back through my posts it only stopped twice ... so where do you gain the impression you have from? The same place you gained the impression I am propagating a belief system, perchance? RESPONDENT: Give analysis a rest, and you may find out. RICHARD: I did find out ... and analysis was but one of many excellent tools to break the stranglehold that stupidity had upon me. May I ask? What have you ‘found out’ by ‘giving analysis a rest’ ? That is ... apart from this unanalysed insight:
RESPONDENT: As you do not know me in my daily life, your references to my non-interest in ‘peace-on-earth’ ... are guesswork. RICHARD: My reference is based upon this conclusion of yours: Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’. What you are saying is that no one can be free of the Human Condition twenty four hours a day. May I suggest? Try analysing this statement with the same interest you used when analysing analysis. RESPONDENT: Your references to my reactions to what is seen on TV, are guesswork. RICHARD: It is impossible for any normal human being – complete with the full suite of feelings – to not be affected by all the violence in the world. That is a fact. You say that you are normal – as you would like Mr. Albert Einstein, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, the town drunk and Richard to be – so you are affected ... otherwise you are lying in claiming to be normal. Are you trying to tell me that you are so inured to violence that you are not affected? RESPONDENT: I thought you only dealt with facts? RICHARD: Good grief, this is so trite an objection that it is staggering to contemplate just what people will get up to in order to justify maintaining their philosophy on life. But okay then ... it is only the typical response of a normal person to all the violence on television to come out with the cliché: ‘There is too much violence on television ... that is what is wrong with the world’ and it is not at all what No. 27 says. Just out of idle curiosity ... how do you deal with being affected by all the violence?
RESPONDENT: If you continue to send such massive posts, then my way of dealing with them, may be to ignore them. On the other hand, smaller posts would be more welcome. RICHARD: Okay, I will keep this a short as possible ... without compromising clarity with brevity, however. RESPONDENT: And though you do not believe it, that post quoting Krishnamurti (1945), was a reaction to your post, sent to all list members. RICHARD: Indeed ... you want others to see for themselves just how wise you are in that you know better than Richard does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about. Now, I also want others other to see for themselves just how wise I am in that I know better than No. 27 does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about ... yet while arrogating that right for yourself you object to me doing so. RESPONDENT: Personally, I find your whole belief system and approach stupid. RICHARD: Once again you are talking about Richard’s ‘belief system’ and stating that it is stupid – I am unconcerned what you feel about my approach – as if you have demonstrated that it is so. I have repeatedly asked you to illustrate where it is a belief system and you steadfastly decline to answer. Just repeating ‘your belief system’ again and again in each post does not make it so ... you do need to back your allegations with substantive information. RESPONDENT: I quoted a speech I found sensible. RICHARD: Good. We now have a basis for discussion. What did you find sensible in it? RESPONDENT: Unlike you, I did not tear it to pieces with my interpretations. RICHARD: The words ‘tear it to pieces’ can sometimes be emotive words and may reflect more what you feel I did than what I actually did do. Would you care to re-visit that exchange? Viz.:
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? I was asking you a question designed to elucidate what you understand from this quote that persuaded you to post it to the list to show that what I was saying to No. 12 regarding the 1922 enlightenment experience was nothing but my ‘interpretation’ . Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s mind-heart was not capable of ‘being open to that ecstasy’?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? Did he, or did he not, ‘invite’ the 1922 experience? Do you feel that it was, in fact, too great for his ‘mind-heart’?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? On his death-bed Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talked of ‘going to that mountain-top’ after physical death to see for himself. Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did, in fact, ‘reduce it to his own level’?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s description of his own mind does fit that description?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘pursued the singer’?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not mature?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’ ? Do you feel that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did include himself with what he called ‘with many’?
In what way do you feel that I am ‘tearing it to pieces’ here with what you call my ‘interpretation’? Because if you answer all the above honestly you will see that anyone who does think that he includes himself when he uses ‘we’ is indeed ‘sucked in badly’ ... because it is a fact that he never did. There are many, many passages in many of the extensive transcripts published – both from the ‘immature’ and the ‘mature’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – where he says with words from his own mouth that he does not include himself. RESPONDENT: You said before that I did not respect No. 12’s ability to understand, and yet you treat all the listeners like children and interpret Krishnamurti for them. RICHARD: Can you demonstrate where in the above quotes that I was interpreting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti?
RESPONDENT: If you continue to send such massive posts, then my way of dealing with them, may be to ignore them. On the other hand, smaller posts would be more welcome. RICHARD: Okay, I will keep this a short as possible ... without compromising clarity with brevity, however. RESPONDENT: And though you do not believe it, that post quoting Krishnamurti (1945), was a reaction to your post, sent to all list members. RICHARD: Indeed ... you want others to see for themselves just how wise you are in that you know better than Richard does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about. Now, I also want others other to see for themselves just how wise I am in that I know better than No. 27 does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about ... yet while arrogating that right for yourself you object to me doing so. RESPONDENT: Personally, I find your whole belief system and approach stupid. RICHARD: Once again you are talking about Richard’s ‘belief system’ and stating that it is stupid as if you have demonstrated that it is so. I have repeatedly asked you to illustrate where it is ‘a belief system’ and you steadfastly decline to answer. Just repeating ‘your belief system’ again and again in each post does not make it so ... you do need to back your allegations with substantive information. RESPONDENT: When I said that I found your whole belief system and approach stupid, it was because, in the previous paragraphs which you fail to quote ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I did not ‘fail to quote’ ... I was under express orders to keep my post short. You are a funny fellow ... you cannot have it both ways, you know. RESPONDENT: ... you said: [Richard]: ‘Excellent ... so now that you can relate to me you will probably find comments like this one (following) as stupid as I find them to be too, eh?’ So it’s Ok for you too say something sounds stupid, because it makes no sense to you, but you require evidence from me. RICHARD: Not so ... you can consider something to be as ‘stupid’ as you like – and print such opinions as often as you like without evidence – for I am unconcerned about what you think or feel about my writing style or approach as I do not value your opinion. I was, however, referring to your much repeated allegation that I am propagating a ‘belief system’. I have repeatedly asked you to illustrate where it is ‘a belief system’ and you steadfastly decline to answer. Just repeating ‘your belief system’ again and again in each post does not make it so ... you do need to back your allegations with substantive information in order to be taken as being sincere. * RESPONDENT: I quoted a speech I found sensible. RICHARD: Good. We now have a basis for discussion. What did you find sensible in it? RESPONDENT: Most of the remainder of your post asks me to explain in what way do I feel that you are ‘tearing it to pieces’, because you do not see that by asking me what I find sensible, you are asking me to do to the speech, exactly what I find stupid in your approach. RICHARD: Indeed ... I said that the words ‘tear it to pieces’ can sometimes be emotive words and may reflect more what you feel I did than what I actually did do. If you steadfastly decline to back your wild accusations with substantive information then I can only gain the impression that you are indeed being emotional ... if not hysterical. RESPONDENT: It may be a fairly common practice on reading a speech, to analyse it, to examine the speech in segments, making comments for or against those segments. It is the approach commonly used by political and religious analysts, and its lack of success can be measured by the arguments this approach brings. RICHARD: I have no idea whether political or religious analysts do this or not because – being able to think for myself – I have never bothered to examine such learned critics’ analysis ... what would they know? Yet what has this information to do with me? I am neither promoting a religious point of view nor a political point of view ... once again you are making allusions. * RESPONDENT: As you are satisfied with that approach, the chances are you will continue it. RICHARD: This is a ‘straw man’ argument. RESPONDENT: Unlike you, I did not tear it to pieces with my interpretations. RICHARD: The words ‘tear it to pieces’ can sometimes be emotive words and may reflect more what you feel I did than what I actually did do. Would you care to re-visit that exchange? RESPONDENT: If you don’t like what I’ve written, call it stupid if you like, but if all you’re going to do is to break it up into segments, asking me to give evidence to prove this or that, then I will continue to consider your approach stupid. RICHARD: And what would you consider the approach of a person who, while steadfastly declining to back them, makes wild accusations again and again ... rational, perhaps? * RESPONDENT: You said before that I did not respect No. 12’s ability to understand, and yet you treat all the listeners like children and interpret Krishnamurti for them. RICHARD: Can you demonstrate where in those quotes that I was interpreting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? RESPONDENT: If you wish to believe that what you think and say about Krishnamurti and his words, are not interpretations, but actual facts, then in order to demonstrate otherwise, I would have to play your game and ‘tear your statements to pieces’. No thanks. RICHARD: Do you see that this is a ‘straw man’ argument ... that it is not my game to ‘tear statements to pieces’ at all? You think or feel that it is a ‘tearing to pieces’ that I am doing ... yet I am not. If you look through my comments you will see that I was asking questions designed to elucidate what you understand from this quote that persuaded you to post it to the list to show that what I was saying to No. 12 regarding the 1922 enlightenment experience was nothing but my ‘interpretation’. You see, it is your interpretation that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not an enlightened man and that the experience in 1922 was not the definitive awakening that launched him upon a sixty-plus years speaking career ... even though he said so himself. You interpret his many, many transcribed words differently – which you may do so if you choose – but when you buy into a discussion betwixt me and another poster with your interpretation you must realise that you will be questioned as to how you came about that interpretation. To then bluster and rabble on about how you will not stoop to my apparently despicable level and ‘tear statements to pieces’ – and ‘like religious and political analysts’ into the bargain – is nothing but bombast and blather. What you appear to be doing is hiding behind Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s oft-repeated statement about not interpreting the ‘Teachings’. Yet, he also urged you to find out for yourself ... doubt everything. On top of that he said not to make anyone into your authority ... especially the speaker, did he not? Yet even if you somehow sort that lot out there is this clincher: ‘Do not quote anyone, including the speaker’ ... and yet you did. And you are just outrageously wrong with your interpretation.
RESPONDENT: Though you do not believe it, that post quoting Krishnamurti (1945), was a reaction to your post, sent to all list members. RICHARD: Indeed ... you want others to see for themselves just how wise you are in that you know better than Richard does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about. Now, I also want others other to see for themselves just how wise I am in that I know better than No. 27 does as to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was on about ... yet while arrogating that right for yourself you object to me doing so. RESPONDENT: Personally, I find your whole belief system and approach stupid. RICHARD: Once again you are talking about Richard’s ‘belief system’ and stating that it is stupid as if you have demonstrated that it is so. I have repeatedly asked you to illustrate where it is ‘a belief system’ and you steadfastly decline to answer. Just repeating ‘your belief system’ again and again in each post does not make it so ... you do need to back your allegations with substantive information. RESPONDENT: When I said that I found your whole belief system and approach stupid, it was because, in the previous paragraphs which you fail to quote ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I did not ‘fail to quote’ ... I was under express orders to keep my post short. You are a funny fellow ... you cannot have it both ways, you know. RESPONDENT: ... you said: [Richard]: ‘Excellent ... so now that you can relate to me you will probably find comments like this one (following) as stupid as I find them to be too, eh?’ So it’s Ok for you too say something sounds stupid, because it makes no sense to you, but you require evidence from me. RICHARD: Not so ... you can consider something to be as ‘stupid’ as you like – and print such opinions as often as you like without evidence – for I am unconcerned about what you think or feel about my writing style or approach as I do not value your opinion. RESPONDENT: For a person who says ‘I am unconcerned about what you think or feel about my writing style or approach as I do not value your opinion’, you go to a lot of trouble responding to what I write. RICHARD: Once again, you are such a funny fellow ... you are now trying to make out a case against me simply because I respond to you, yet when I do not ‘go to a lot of trouble responding’ to what you write you are very busy wanting to know why. Writing to you – or not writing to you – is a sort of ‘damned if I do damned if I don’t’ scenario. Look:
Let me know when you make up your mind ... I await your further instructions. * RESPONDENT: If you wish to believe that what you think and say about Krishnamurti and his words, are not interpretations, but actual facts, than in order to demonstrate otherwise, I would have to play your game and ‘tear your statements to pieces’. No thanks. RICHARD: Do you see that this is a ‘straw man’ argument ... that it is not my game to ‘tear statements to pieces’ at all? You think or feel that it is a ‘tearing to pieces’ that I am doing ... yet I am not. If you look through my comments you will see that I was asking questions designed to elucidate what you understand from this quote that persuaded you to post it to the list to show that what I was saying to No. 12 regarding the 1922 enlightenment experience was nothing but my ‘interpretation’. You see, it is your interpretation that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not an enlightened man and that the experience in 1922 was not the definitive awakening that launched him upon a sixty-plus years speaking career ... even though he said so himself. You interpret his many, many transcribed words differently – which you may do so if you choose – but when you buy into a discussion betwixt me and another poster with your interpretation you must realise that you will be questioned as to how you came about that interpretation. To then bluster and rabble on about how you will not stoop to my apparently despicable level and ‘tear statements to pieces’ – and ‘like religious and political analysts’ into the bargain – is nothing but bombast and blather. What you appear to be doing is hiding behind Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s oft-repeated statement about not interpreting the ‘Teachings’. Yet, he also urged you to find out for yourself ... doubt everything. On top of that he said not to make anyone into your authority ... especially the speaker, did he not? Yet even if you somehow sort that lot out there is this clincher: ‘Do not quote anyone, including the speaker’ ... and yet you did. And you are just outrageously wrong with your interpretation. RESPONDENT: Ever since I have been on this list, and I suspect even in posts to you earlier this year, I have made comments that I use this list as a means of expressing my feelings, whatever they may be at the time. RICHARD: Yea verily ... and just look what happened when you expressed those feelings to me, eh? Viz.:
Methinks you are pretty well hooked into feelings, eh? I am reminded of Mr. Samuel Johnson’s comment (‘patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel’) and Mr. Ambrose Bierce’s addendum: ‘With all due respect I beg to submit that it is the first’. Whereas I am inclined to substitute ‘feelings’ for ‘patriotism’. RESPONDENT: Apparently, those feelings do not impress you. RICHARD: Hmm ... you have noticed, eh? Nor also was I impressed by the feelings expressed in a book called ‘Mein Kampf’ that I read many, many years ago. You see, it is a freed intelligence that enables the already always existing peace-on-earth to become apparent ... freed from both the affective ‘me’ and ‘my’ feelings. RESPONDENT: Having already heard your thoughts about feelings, I’d only be surprised if they did. RICHARD: You did not just ‘hear’ them, ... you ‘felt’ them. And they ‘felt wrong’. Therefore, you still have not actually heard what I have to say. RESPONDENT: The trouble is that on listening to you, what another hears as feelings, beliefs, interpretations, you call something else. RICHARD: Never mind about those people you call ‘another’ ... let us stay with you. My guess is that because you value feelings so highly, you cannot contemplate that it is possible to live – and live well – without them. It is simply inconceivable to you. Therefore, Richard must have feelings ... only he calls them ‘something else’. So ... what does he call them? And – when you can successfully answer that conundrum you have created – will you please demonstrate that this is so in order that I too can see this foolish mistake that I am making (and do not tell me that it is a ‘feeling’ that you have about me). RESPONDENT: My purpose in writing is to express my feelings, not to justify or even prove that they are not distorted. RICHARD: Oh, they are more than just distorted ... they are pernicious. RESPONDENT: As you do, you respond to what I feel, and on hearing that response, I tend to write another post, expressing what I feel about it. RICHARD: Not so ... this is called ‘projecting’. I do not respond this way – ‘what I feel about it’ – at all. It is you who relies upon notoriously unreliable feelings to be the arbiter of what is so and what is not so ... not me. Your ‘interpretations’ are predicated upon feelings being reliable – your interpretations are your feelings – and the resultant posts show that you are just outrageously way off the mark. Whereas I am only interested in facts and actuality. * RICHARD: I have repeatedly asked you to illustrate where it is a belief system and you steadfastly decline to answer. RESPONDENT: What I feel is that you have a belief system sort of based on ego death (enlightenment) and soul death (actualism). RICHARD: Indeed there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul extant in this flesh and blood body ... but where is the ‘belief system’ that you say is ‘sort of based’ upon this? As ‘belief’ etymologically means ‘fervently wish to be true’, what is it that I write about that is wished to be true – according to you – be it fervently or otherwise? Are you saying that you know that I wish it to be true that an individual peace-on-earth is already always here now ... even though it is factual? Are you saying that you know that I wish it to be true that this verdant earth is a paradisaical play-ground when there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul ... even though it is factual? Are you saying that you know that I wish it to be true that there is no ‘good or ‘evil’ here in this actual world even though it is factual ... and so on and so on? Therefore, I ask you again: can you illustrate where it is a ‘belief system’ that Richard is propagating? RESPONDENT: The actual details no longer even interest me. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it interests you so much that you enter into a discussion I am having with another poster in order to tell the List – and me – where I am going wrong in my ‘interpretation’. You even quote Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to back your interpretation ... with disastrous results. RESPONDENT: If you want to hear me express something more substantial than feelings, I suspect you’ll be waiting some time. RICHARD: I want you to back your allegations with facts ... hiding behind your feelings is a cowardly way to deal with one of your fellow human being’s report about how he is experiencing life. After all, world-wide there are 27 wars occurring as you read this. Someone is being murdered somewhere right now. Torture is happening at this moment according to ‘Amnesty International’. Someone, somewhere is being beaten up in a domestic violence situation as you read this. Somewhere some child is being brutalised in yet another incidence of the endemic child abuse. All over the world sadness, loneliness, grief, depression and suicide is going on in uncountable numbers ... and the best you can come up with is: ‘I feel that you have a belief system’! And so all the wars and rapes and murders and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicide will go on for ever and a day. * RICHARD: Just repeating ‘your belief system’ again and again in each post does not make it so ... you do need to back your allegations with substantive information in order to be taken as being sincere. RESPONDENT: Well, I mentioned ‘belief system’ again, but being recognised as sincere, or as a writer of great depth and substance, is not my intention. RICHARD: Aye ... it is just as well. You have so much egg on your face it is difficult to make out your features. RESPONDENT: I express my feelings as best I can. RICHARD: I am sure that you do. Look, it is not the expression that makes you look foolish ... it is the very feelings themselves that do that. You express them quite well. RESPONDENT: When I write I start with whatever I’m feeling, and continue to express until I just feel like saying: Regards ...... RICHARD: Just like this sentence (immediately above), eh? It sort of peters-out at the end and does not actually convey anything other than the confusion that being run by one’s feelings invariably brings. RESPONDENT: P. S. I feel that, like everyone else, we are just expressing our feelings. RICHARD: Easy on this ‘we’ business. I am part of this ‘everyone else’ of yours ... and I can assure you that I am not expressing feelings. I do not have any. Therefore you are wrong – once again – in what your feelings tell you. RESPONDENT: But due to the fleeting nature of feelings, you have given your particular feelings more substance ...... RICHARD: Whoa up there! You are valuing your feelings about what Richard experiences over and above what Richard actually experiences. Your feelings are leading you astray. RESPONDENT: ... by moulding them into a ‘---- system’ which you regularly relate to us. (Sorry! I nearly said that word again) RICHARD: And so you should be – sorry for yourself that is – because what a pathetic cop-out this is. May I ask? What manner of a person do you see when you look into a mirror? Can you look yourself in the eye? Do you see a dignified, rational and mature adult standing full in the world ... confident and at ease with himself? Can you trust yourself completely in any situation? Can you rely upon yourself totally? Try asking the reflection: If not me ... whom? If not now ... when?
RICHARD: The end of No. 27’s confusion [as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’
were:] RESPONDENT No. 33: I admire your optimism. RICHARD: Good. Because optimism RESPONDENT No. 33: Thanks for the clarification, dear Richard. My ‘admiration for your optimism’ was a tongue-in-cheek comment, tongue-in-cheek as used in the sense of irony/whimsical exaggeration. RICHARD: But where was the need for ‘a tongue-in-cheek comment, tongue-in-cheek as used in the
sense of irony/ whimsical exaggeration’ about the dissolution of No. 27’s confusion? The solution was simple. No. 27 had
been questioning what the core of the ‘Teachings’ were and there was, apparently, some confusion about the issue; No. 10 is a
staunch advocate of solving confusion by increasing it (or throwing words in the air); No. 19 endorsed No. 10’s solution (and
subsequently left the list); No. 04 proposed that that if confusion is present then that is the ‘truth’ (and promptly said he
was confused); No. 27 then either decided to be confused or became confused (and suggested cutting ‘Truth is’ off the ‘Truth
is a pathless land’ statement) ... so I provided a radio-link URL to the very words, from the horse’s mouth as it were, that
would end the confusion, as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ were, once and for all. Viz.: [quote]:
‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’.
(written by J. Krishnamurti, October 21, 1980, for ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment’
by Mary Lutyens, the second volume of his biography). RESPONDENT: Thanks for the link, even though I do recall reading them once. There is a link to that speech on the page, and after only glancing through the long speech due to a physical problem with my eyes, from my memory I do not recall any mention of the ‘core’ in that speech, correct me if I’m wrong ... RICHARD: Certainly. The ‘core’ you are looking for is in the very first sentence of the first of the five short paragraphs at the URL I posted (‘the core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’) ... and not in the ‘long speech’ that you went off the page to read yet only glanced through. I will await your considered response before proceeding any further.
RICHARD: ... No. 27 had been questioning what the core of the ‘Teachings’ were and there was, apparently, some confusion about the issue; No. 10 is a staunch advocate of solving confusion by increasing it (or throwing words in the air); No. 19 endorsed No. 10’s solution (and subsequently left the list); No. 04 proposed that that if confusion is present then that is the ‘truth’ (and promptly said he was confused); No. 27 then either decided to be confused or became confused (and suggested cutting ‘Truth is’ off the ‘Truth is a pathless land’ statement) ... so I provided a radio-link URL to the very words, from the horse’s mouth as it were, that would end the confusion, as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ were, once and for all. Viz.: [quote]: ‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. (written by J. Krishnamurti, October 21, 1980, for ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment’ by Mary Lutyens, the second volume of his biography). RESPONDENT: Thanks for the link, even though I do recall reading them once. There is a link to that speech on the page, and after only glancing through the long speech due to a physical problem with my eyes, from my memory I do not recall any mention of the ‘core’ in that speech, correct me if I’m wrong ... RICHARD: Certainly. The ‘core’ you are looking for is in the very first sentence of the first of the five short paragraphs at the URL I posted (‘the core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’) ... and not in the ‘long speech’ that you went off the page to read yet only glanced through. I will await your considered response before proceeding any further. RESPONDENT: But that was written by Mary Lutyens. She said, not K as far as I can tell, ‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: Truth is a pathless land’. RICHARD: May I ask? How can you ‘tell’ that it was ‘written by Mary Lutyens’ when the page at the URL I posted specifically states that it was written by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Viz.:
RICHARD: May I ask? How can you ‘tell’ that it was ‘written by Mary Lutyens’ when the page at the URL I posted specifically states that it was written by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Viz.: The Core of the Teachings. home / teachings /the core of the teachings. J. Krishnamurti. The following statement was written by Krishnamurti on October 21, 1980. ‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique’. (snip). (www.kfa.org/thecore.htm). RESPONDENT: Since you mentioned ‘by Mary Lutyens’ ... RICHARD: Oh? Are you referring to the words ‘by Mary Lutyens’ which come several words after the ‘written by J. Krishnamurti’ accreditation I provide in the original quote ... and which references her as being the author of the biography she wrote and not to the quote I provided? If so, how does that reference enable you to say ‘but that was written by Mary Lutyens’ (further above)? RESPONDENT: ... and the expression ‘he said’ is not normally what a person says if he is speaking for himself. RICHARD: So? Nor is ‘the speaker’ what a person normally says if he is speaking for himself, either. What is it that definitively enables you to ‘tell’ that it was ‘written by Mary Lutyens’ when the page at the URL I posted specifically states that it was written by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Viz.:
You will also notice that the first sentence in question is contained within the same quotation marks as encloses the remaining four paragraphs.
RESPONDENT: (E-mail to kfa.org): To Whom it may Concern. I have been interested in the authorship of the first sentence on this page. i.e. ‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. I realise that it states at the top of the page ‘The following statement was written by Krishnamurti’ but as it is not normal practice for someone to say ‘he said’ when speaking about themselves, and someone else mentioned that it was written by J. Krishnamurti, October 21, 1980, for ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment’ by Mary Lutyens, the second volume of his biography, is the KFA absolutely certain that the first sentence was not written by Mary Lutyens or someone else. This may seem a trivial question, but I feel that it is very important to find out if words are being attributed to Krishnamurti, when their is a questionable doubt about who actually wrote them. RICHARD: If you do not receive a satisfactory response, or if you would like an alternate confirmation, here is a link to another organisation which displays an excerpt of the same-same ‘Truth is a pathless land’ core of the teachings statement on-line (only there it is described as ‘the heart of his teaching’) which you may be inclined to write to also: (www.kfoundation.org/aboutk.htm). Whilst waiting for a response ... would you be interested in thinking for yourself (examining the internal evidence)? Why not remove the contentious sentence entirely ... and see what remains? Viz.:
What is this ‘it’ which a person cannot come to through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique? What is this ‘it’ which a person has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of their own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection? Bearing in mind that you proposed leaving ‘Truth is’ out of the ‘Truth is a pathless land’ statement one could try the following as a substitute ‘Core Of The Teachings’:
Or, so as to be more up-front, you may find it salutary to investigate why you wish to remove the ‘Truth’ from the core and/or heart of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. For is this not the real issue?
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 |
