|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 31
RESPONDENT: Different texts provide different meanings and interpretations to [Purusha and Prakriti]. Some texts (e.g. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 13 and 14) relate them to the ‘field’ and the ‘knower of the field’. Some other texts mentions Purusha as the ‘Holy Ghost’ and Prakriti as the eternal nature of God the Father. Purusha also is a name given to the ‘Shiva Linga’. The nature embodied in that symbol is ‘Prakriti’. And so on. So one needs to be careful in picking up references for the subjects discussed. In common parlance Purusha refers to Man while Prakriti means nature. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the context of the post that I wrote, the word ‘Purusha’ had nothing to do with ‘common parlance’ as I was discussing ‘Gurus and God-Men’ and their sacred and holy antics. Viz.:
Why do you not consider that ‘consciousness’ and ‘nature’ are the most apt translations of ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’ in reference to the particular subject I was presenting? I ask because, while most modern languages are more or less ‘meaning-specific’ in that each word has one meaning – or two or more meanings dependent upon context – and while some of the words of the Indian Sub-Continent do have this meaning-specific quality, others do not. ‘Prakriti’, in Sanskrit, is a compound consisting of the prepositional prefix ‘pra’, meaning ‘forwards’ or ‘progression’ and ‘kriti’, a noun-form from the verbal root ‘kr’, ‘to make’ or ‘to do’. Therefore ‘prakriti’ means literally ‘production’ or ‘bringing forth’ or ‘originating’ and by an extension of meaning it also signifies the primordial or original state or condition or form of anything as being primary or original substance ... in a word: nature. But let us, by all means, look into this further: I have read that ‘Prakriti’ is also to be considered with ‘vikriti’ ... ‘vikriti’ signifying change or an alteration of some kind or a production or evolution from the ‘prakriti’ which precedes it. Is it not in common usage that ‘prakriti’ may be called nature in general, as the ‘great producer’ of entities or things? And through this nature acts the ever-active ‘Brahma’ or ‘Purusha’? (‘Purusha’ also sometimes stands as an interchangeable term with ‘Brahma’, the ‘evolver’ or ‘creator’). Now, ‘Purusha’, in Sanskrit, is a word meaning ‘man’ as the ‘Ideal Man’ (like the Qabbalistic Adam Qadmon) the primordial entity of space containing with and in ‘prakriti’ (as nature) all the scales of manifested being. But more mystically ‘Purusha’ has significance in a number of different forms: in addition to meaning the ‘Heavenly Man’ or ‘Ideal Man’, it is frequently used for the spiritual person in each individual human being ... therefore it is a term for the spiritual self. Consequently, ‘Purusha’ is spirit and ‘prakriti’ is its productive veil or sheath. Essentially and fundamentally the two are one and whatever ‘prakriti’ – through and by the influence of ‘Purusha’ – produces is the multitudinous and multiform ‘vikritis’ which make the immense variety and diversity in the universe around. And in one or more of the Hindu philosophies ‘prakriti’ is the same as ‘sakti’, and therefore ‘prakriti’ and ‘sakti’ are virtually interchangeable with ‘maya’ or ‘maha-maya’ (‘appearance’ or ‘illusion’). ‘Prakriti’ is often spoken of as matter in very common usage but this is considered inexact as matter is rather the ‘productions’ or phases that ‘prakriti’ brings about: the ‘vikritis’. Furthermore, in the Sankhya philosophy, ‘pradhana’ is virtually identical with ‘prakriti’ and both are often used to signify the producing element from which (and out of) all illusory material manifestations or appearances are evolved. Interestingly enough, the quality of not being meaning-specific is common in many ancient languages including Hebrew and Sanskrit ... and looking up the several meanings of a single word gives not only an understanding of the exoteric and esoteric meaning of phrases, but also some understanding of the cognitive and affective faculties of peoples some millenniums gone by. Those ‘Ancient Scriptures’ (Rig Veda I.164.20; Mundaka Upanishad I.III.1; Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV.6) clearly show that the ‘Gurus and God-Men’ of 3,000 to 5,000 years ago were the same as the current Gurus and God-Men in that they exhibited the same dichotomous qualities in their ‘Divine Nature’ as the ‘human nature’ they have transcended (because transcended does not mean extinguished). In other words, nothing has changed over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years ... yet they are either revered and worshipped or otherwise looked up to as the font of wisdom. RESPONDENT: So maybe we can discuss the nature of man. RICHARD: Okay ... I consistently delineate the nature of human beings with the term ‘Human Condition’ ... which is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of 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 requires the ending of malice and sorrow ... which involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. The Gurus and God-men have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to produce the goods with their ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ solution ... their ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. So, the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom?
RESPONDENT: Different texts provide different meanings and interpretations to [Purusha and Prakriti]. Some texts (e.g. Bhagavad Gita Chapter 13 and 14) relate them to the ‘field’ and the ‘knower of the field’. Some other texts mentions Purusha as the ‘Holy Ghost’ and Prakriti as the eternal nature of God the Father. Purusha also is a name given to the ‘Shiva Linga’. The nature embodied in that symbol is ‘Prakriti’. And so on. So one needs to be careful in picking up references for the subjects discussed. In common parlance Purusha refers to Man while Prakriti means nature. RICHARD: If I may point out? In the context of the post that I wrote, the word ‘Purusha’ had nothing to do with ‘common parlance’ as I was discussing ‘Gurus and God-Men’ and their sacred and holy antics. RESPONDENT: I say I should have kept my mouth shut. I have gleaned over cursorily over what you wrote. I have tremendous respect for your learning and knowledge. But it seems to me from reading that there is too much information presented that is in the nature of linguistics and root of words. RICHARD: Yet I was simply responding to your correcting of my use of the words ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’. Now, as you point out (further below) you do a lot of thinking ... and thinking is done in words. If one does not comprehend the meaning of words – what oneself and others use – then any thinking will go awry ... like your ‘correction’ of my use of ‘Purusha’ and ‘Prakriti’. Please, the roots of words can be immensely valuable ... given that experiential understanding is passed down parent to child, parent to child, parent to child and so on back to the ‘Ancient One’s’ wisdom. This experiential understanding is called tradition. Looking up the several meanings of a single word gives not only an understanding of the exoteric and esoteric meaning of phrases, but also some understanding of the cognitive and affective faculties of peoples some millenniums gone by. RESPONDENT: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time. Again, I admit is also one of my faults for bringing in ‘Prakriti’ and ‘Purusha’ without first asking you what is your central point. RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT: Again, I notice there is so much pain and agony in your posts. Which is fine, but to me the posts also reveal a lot of disputatiousness and resorting to academic terms. This is my first feeling as I read the posts. All these breed some sense of fear. RICHARD: Of course you would see and experience disputatiousness ... of course you would experience fear. This is because everybody – including yourself – is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. Therefore anything I have to say is automatically a dispute of the current wisdom. The ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. * RICHARD: ... <SNIPPED> ... Those ‘Ancient Scriptures’ (Rig Veda I.164.20; Mundaka Upanishad I. III. 1; Shvetashvatara Upanishad IV. 6) clearly show that the ‘Gurus and God-Men’ of 3,000 to 5,000 years ago were the same as the current Gurus and God-Men in that they exhibited the same dichotomous qualities in their ‘Divine Nature’ as the ‘human nature’ they have transcended (because transcended does not mean extinguished). In other words, nothing has changed over the last 3,000 to 5,000 years ... yet they are either revered and worshipped or otherwise looked up to as the font of wisdom. RESPONDENT: This is really heavy stuff. RICHARD: Aye ... it is. So is 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 that they have helped perpetuate for 3,000 to 5,000 years. RESPONDENT: I don’t have time. But am I correct in saying that you are asserting that even the gurus and god men are prone to violence and anger and yet they are excused and worshipped? Let me hear your response to this. RICHARD: Yes, I am stating that loud and clear. * RESPONDENT: So maybe we can discuss the nature of man. RICHARD: Okay ... I consistently delineate the nature of human beings with the term ‘Human Condition’ ... which is a well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies. The term refers to the contrary and perverse nature of all peoples of all races and all cultures. There is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ in everyone ... all humans have a ‘dark side’ to their nature and a ‘light side’. The battle betwixt ‘Good and Evil’ has raged down through the centuries and it requires constant vigilance lest evil gets the upper hand. Morals and ethics seek to control the wayward self that lurks deep within the human breast ... and some semblance of what is called ‘peace’ prevails for the main. Where morality and ethicality fails to curb the ‘savage beast’, law and order is maintained ... at the point of a gun. The ending of 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 requires the ending of malice and sorrow ... which involves getting one’s head out of the clouds – and beyond – and coming down-to-earth where the flesh and blood bodies called human beings actually live. Obviously, the solution to all the ills of humankind can only be found here in space and now in time. The Gurus and God-men have had 3,000 to 5,000 years to produce the goods with their ‘Timeless and Spaceless and Formless’ solution ... their ‘Tried and True’ is the ‘Tried and Failed’. So, the question is: is it possible to be free of the human condition, here on earth, in this life-time, as this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: This is again heavily laden with anguish and agony. That is why at times my mind is filled with fear when I read your posts (this is a result of images). At times there is an element of ‘foxiness’. RICHARD: Indeed it is ‘heavily laden with anguish and agony’ for it is a description of the human condition ... it accurately catalogues the reality for 6.0 billion human beings. Unless this reality is brought up into my face (if I am a normal person) I will never begin to comprehend what is entailed in becoming actually free of the human condition. So when my mind is ‘filled with fear’ as I read Richard’s posts, then that indicates that the reality of my condition – which is identical to the reality of the human condition – is bringing me face-to-face with the reality of both myself and my fellow human being. I notice, from time-to-time, a ‘foxiness’ percolating through my mind and heart and I wonder why or what significance this has. RESPONDENT: Here I offer my understanding: a. That ‘human condition’ which you refer to as ‘well established’, just stays that way as an academic concept. Still there will be wars and violence. RICHARD: Then I notice (if I am a normal person) that the very first manifestation of this ‘foxiness’ that is percolating through my mind and heart is to shift the reality which is ‘heavily laden with anguish and agony’ that Richard put in my face off into the middle distance by making it nothing but an ‘academic concept’ ... and now my mind is not quite so ‘filled with fear’ as it was before. I notice that I can quite composedly say that ‘still there will be wars and violence’ because the term ‘Human Condition’ is only a ‘well-established philosophical term that refers to the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies’. Now, I ask myself (if I am a normal person) what does ‘the situation that all human beings find themselves in when they emerge here as babies’ mean ... apart from the fact that ‘all babies are genetically disposed to suffer’. Because that is all I have understood so far ... is it because ‘there is so much detail in [Richard’s] posts’? Is that why I still ‘cannot get the central point’? RESPONDENT: b. That ‘human condition’ is mentioned as when babies emerge into this earth and all babies are genetically disposed to suffer. That is all I understood so far. There is so much detail in your post, I cannot still get the central point. RICHARD: I ask myself (if I am a normal person) is the ‘central point’ all that stuff that Richard writes about the Gurus? The ‘gurus’? Yes, of course the Gurus have failed ... but ... but that ... that is ‘evading responsibility by essentially transferring the problem to the other’! RESPONDENT: c. I agree that the gurus etc have failed. But that is essentially transferring the problem to the other and evading responsibility. RICHARD: I think to myself (if I am a normal person) that he seems to be ‘overlooking the compassion element in humans’ Ahh ... that’s it ... the ‘compassion that can root out violence in oneself’ ... because ... because ‘this is not a concept but a possibility’ ... just let me explain it to Richard ... ... RESPONDENT: d. You seem to overlooking the compassion element in humans. The compassion that can root out violence in oneself. This is not a concept but a possibility. Let me explain. Animals are aggressive by nature. So what is the difference between animals and humans? The cat kills the mouse. Is this evil? This seems to be a biological action/necessity that is undertaken by nature to achieve balance. BALANCE. Have you considered this possibility? The consciousness of the mouse understands this. So there is really no evil or good at the biological level. This is instinctual. Now coming to the humans. What is it that differs here? It is thought of evil and good. The thoughts that are inter-mixed with the feelings and emotions. It is THOUGHT that is a danger here. And not aggression itself. Now in focussing on aggression, wars etc, are we not avoiding the whole issue altogether? Are we seeing external manifestations of aggression, the crimes? Or is it a worthwhile effort to look within the sources of these tendencies? We then have to understand and explore the thinking processes underlying these aggressive tendencies. Let me suggest a simple experiment. Don’t say ‘Hmm ... well’. Let us engage in meaningful dialog. Have you ever stayed with an aggressive thought? Do you experience aggression in yourself? I am also trying to watch my mind. What do you see? RICHARD: What I see is a Krishnamurtiite blaming thought for all the ills of humankind and not taking one jot of notice of anything that I wrote. You are born with aggression – and fear – and that biological fact has zilch to do with it being ‘THOUGHT that is a danger here’. * RICHARD: Which means: How on earth can I live happily and harmlessly in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are whilst I nurse malice and sorrow in my bosom? RESPONDENT: Yes. This is a fundamental question. Our enquiry starts here. But there is a BELIEF that one is nursing malice and sorrow. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is a fact. You were born with aggression and fear. RESPONDENT: Why are we not looking beyond that? We first have to look into these beliefs. RICHARD: May I ask? Why are you avoiding the fact? You were born with aggression and fear. RESPONDENT: I would suggest to keep things simple and converse innocently like a small child. RICHARD: Small children are not innocent Life is not complicated.
RESPONDENT: As a matter, I really appreciate if you keep things simple and present your ideas one at a time. RICHARD: Yet I do keep things simple because I have only one central point: everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction. RESPONDENT No. 32: It is as if they are looking through a telescope from the wrong end. Just turn it around and you will see the love, compassion, beauty, delight and joy that comes from using the instrument correctly. RICHARD: By saying that ‘they’ are ‘looking through a telescope from the wrong end’ are
you telling me that you are not going 180 degrees in the wrong direction? RESPONDENT: No, he is not telling that. How could he? That telescope is designed only for Richard. RICHARD: Could you elaborate, please, as I am none to clear as to what you want to convey? I say that ‘everybody is going 180 degrees in the wrong direction’ (which is the direction of love and compassion and beauty) and No. 32 writes to tell me to ‘turn it around’ and that I will see ‘the love and compassion and beauty that comes from using the instrument correctly’. As I have been writing to this Mailing List, on and off for about eighteen months or so, about how human love and compassion and beauty can be sublimated and transcended so that these human feelings become divine Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and Truth, I do consider that you must have at least the faintest of an inkling of what I am on about, eh? So, what is the nature of this ‘telescope that is designed only for Richard’? Is it the one that I can see Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and Truth through? The telescope called trust and/or faith? * RICHARD: If so, why do you promote the ‘Tried and Failed’ remedies like love and compassion and
beauty? RESPONDENT: ?? RICHARD: Human love and compassion and beauty can be sublimated and transcended so that these human feelings become Love Agapé and Divine Compassion and Truth as a state of being called by some ‘Spiritual Enlightenment’. This transmogrification of the human passions into divine passions has been going on for at least 3,000 to 5,000 years ... as evidenced by your and my correspondence regarding ‘Purusha’ and Prakriti’. It has been tried and tried again and again and it has failed and failed again and again. Those ancient Gurus and God-men got up to the self-same antics as do the current bunch. Yet they are worshipped and revered or otherwise looked up to as being the font of wisdom ... as the epitome of ‘Goodness’. Why? Can I put it this way: what is the ‘thousand-petalled lotus’ growing in? Which means: from what are the roots of ‘Goodness’ drawing nourishment? * RICHARD: If I may suggest? Discard your telescope and use a microscope instead ... and put love and
compassion and beauty under examination. RESPONDENT: Heisenberg’s principle will not allow that! RICHARD: Given that Mr. Werner Heisenberg’s principle maintains that certain pairs of observables (usually the momentum and position of a particle) cannot both be precisely determined at the same time, are you saying that a fixed and immutable law of physics (abstract mathematics created in the human mind) is what will prevent love and compassion and beauty from ever being put under examination. Why does thought not get this same exemption?
KONRAD: Good luck! RICHARD: I neither need ‘good luck’ nor does ‘luck’ exist outside of passionate human imagination. What I am today is the result of eleven years of diligence, application, patience, perseverance, determination and much internal and external observation, investigation, uncovering and discovering. I know where I am at, where I came from and how I got here. RESPONDENT No. 12: Pay for View Special – $25.00; Richard knowledge vs. Konrad knowledge. Tonight at 9 P.M. RESPONDENT No. 25: Is there a web-site or 1-800 number where I can purchase a ‘Richard the cry-baby-crusher’ or a ‘Konrad the building-block-piler’ t-shirt? I should like to have both! P. S. You gotta problem with wrestling or something? RICHARD: It is obviously much easier to vilify from the peanut gallery, when presented with that which one does not understand (and without knowing that one does not understand or why), than thinking through the why’s and wherefore’s of the performance for oneself. Yet this is a Mailing List purportedly set-up to investigate and explore into the appalling mess that is the human condition. RESPONDENT: Richard, can you kindly explain in simple terms what you are saying? If necessary break long sentences into short ones. RICHARD: In this post, and in posts gone by throughout his sojourn on this Mailing List, No. 25 shows and has shown no indication whatsoever of actually investigating and exploring into why he feels and thinks and acts the way he does ... the very ‘feeling and thinking and acting’ that is the human condition. And he does not seem to be able to see it even when it is played-out in such a graphic form as the on-going performance that Konrad is indulging in ... he calls it ‘wrestling’. It is not; it has never been; it never will be. I am utterly sincere ... I mean business.
RESPONDENT No. 33: Fear as we know is but an after-thought. RICHARD: Pure fear is an affective feeling ... a passion. It has nothing to do with thought. RESPONDENT No. 33: There is just the preparedness of the body to meet with situations. RICHARD: You are way out on your own in the scientific field of biology here, because ‘the preparedness of the body to meet with situations’ is known as the ‘freeze or fight or flight’ reaction ... and the body is brimming with adrenaline. In other words: pure fear. RESPONDENT No. 33: Well, ‘pure fear’ is the description – what happens in such a moment is indescribable under best of the situations, scientific or otherwise. Krishnamurti correctly points out: word fear is not the fear. RICHARD: Of course the word ‘fear’ is not fear itself ... it is a name for it so that we can communicate. Do you take me to be an idiot? Some other correspondent came out with similar twaddle (offering me the word ‘coffee’ instead of the actual substance) and this is just as silly. Look, fear is the adrenaline coursing through your veins; the heart pumping furiously; the palms sweaty; the face blanched white; knuckles gripped; body tensed and so on and so on. Observing this, in both oneself and in others – and in animals – this is ‘observing with the objectivity of a scientist’. RESPONDENT: You mean take you for the word ‘idiot’? RICHARD: No ... I mean take me for the thing that the word ‘idiot’ points to. RESPONDENT: You just said the word is not the thing. RICHARD: Yes, the word is an agreement among human beings that at-the-moment experiences be given names for the purpose of communication. Therefore it is the experience that is conveyed ... unless one is a Krishnamurtiite and wishes to slip away from the experience into a nether-nether land by saying that ‘the word is not the thing’ as if it were some profundity. RESPONDENT: And yet in the next stroke you assume it to be so ... RICHARD: No ... I was referring to the experiencing that the word signifies. RESPONDENT: ... unless there is something else going on ... RICHARD: There is nothing else going on ... I am up-front, out in the open, straight-forward and matter-of-fact. There is no subterfuge going on whatsoever. I mean what I say and I say what I mean. RESPONDENT: The mind does not really accept that the word is not the thing. RICHARD: Maybe for you – and maybe for others – but this mind fully understands that the word is not the thing. I am only interested in the experiencing itself – the actuality of being here now as a flesh and blood human being – and any words I use are for the purpose of conveying that experiencing to my fellow human beings (and vice versa). RESPONDENT: DO you really understand that the word is not the thing? RICHARD: Yes, I actually do. RESPONDENT: If so, you would not have raised the question about being an idiot. RICHARD: Hmm ... I know that I am not an idiot (and I mean the experiencing that this word signifies) and therefore I also understand experientially that the word ‘fear’ is not the experiential reality of what that word ‘points to’. However, the correspondent that I was discussing this issue with was trying to convince me that the thing that the word ‘fear’ points to does not exist outside of thought and the thinking about what the word points to! Which is, apparently, what you are now attempting to do. Therefore I might as well ask you, too: Do you also take me for an idiot? Because all this that you have written here is nothing but what others call ‘K-ism’ at its worst. Fear exists independent of thought.
RICHARD: I know that I am not an idiot (and I mean the experiencing that this word signifies) and therefore I also understand experientially that the word ‘fear’ is not the experiential reality of what that word ‘points to’. However, the correspondent that I was discussing this issue with was trying to convince me that the thing that the word ‘fear’ points to does not exist outside of thought and the thinking about what the word points to! Which is, apparently, what you are now attempting to do. Therefore I might as well ask you, too: Do you also take me for an idiot? Because all this that you have written here is nothing but what others call ‘K-ism’ at its worst. RESPONDENT: Indeed that may what you think. RICHARD: I can only go by what you write ... I cannot know your every thought and every feeling and every urge. And what you wrote was ‘you have just said that the word is not the thing and yet in the next stroke you assume it to be so’ and that if I ‘really understand that the word is not the thing’ then I ‘would not have raised the question about being an idiot’. As these sentences are indeed what others call ‘K-ism’ then I do not merely ‘think’ that it is. Fear exists independent of thought. RESPONDENT: I was trying to examine what we all mean by the ‘word is not the thing’. RICHARD: Well, you have a strange way of ‘examining’ something. RESPONDENT: And you have set a trap by distracting from the enquiry, by asking question: ‘Do you take me for an idiot?’. RICHARD: I did not ‘set a trap’ at all ... I mean exactly what those words say. The correspondent must indeed have been taking me for an idiot (the experience and not the word) by imagining that I would fall for such twaddle. Fear exists independent of thought. RESPONDENT: That question can be interpreted in multiple ways. RICHARD: So I noticed ... why not take it literally? RESPONDENT: So living in your own world of ‘actuality’, you seem to non-cognizant of the ways of the world, the realities of communication. You, like No. 35 is, are looking at some issues with a K-fixation. RICHARD: I can assure you (for what that is worth) that I do not have a ‘K-fixation’. RESPONDENT: Whether it is anti-K or pro-K, it is the same thing. My message is this: I am exploring into what it means to say ‘the word is the thing’? RICHARD: Okay ... given that we are discussing this on a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world, then it would be pertinent to ascertain what he meant by ‘the word is not the thing’. From memory (I last read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1984) he would use it in the context of ‘the word bread does not satisfy your hunger’ (this is not a direct quote). It is in relation to him being the living embodiment of that ‘supreme intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘that which is sacred, holy’) and that the pundits and priests can only offer empty words whereas he provided that which the empty words ‘pointed to’ ... if you would only ‘listen for two minutes’ with all of your being. And by ‘listen’ he meant ‘drink the water’ that he was the embodiment of and do not ‘worship the vase’. This is a far cry from ‘the word fear is not fear’ ... for he would say (correctly) that ‘you are fear and fear is you’. Hence what you came out with was ‘K-ism’ at its worst (given that ‘K-ism’ means to be mouthing words that, not only are you not living, but words that you do not even understand intellectually). RESPONDENT: And for example ‘fear’? In saying so, we are caught in the dichotomy between ‘experience’ and the ‘word’, like a pendulum swinging. RICHARD: Whilst the word ‘fear’ is not the feeling itself, the feeling is very, very real whilst it is happening (like ‘I’ am). Speaking personally, what ‘I’ would do, all those years ago, was to ‘sit with it’ as it were (being with it), whilst it was happening. By ‘being with it’ – without moving in any direction whatsoever – ‘I’ would come to experience ‘being it’ (‘I’ was fear and fear was ‘me’). Thus ‘I’ came to experience ‘myself’ in all ‘my’ nakedness. All ‘I’ was, was that fear ... and fear is but one of the instinctual passions that blind nature bestows on all sentient beings at birth (at conception). Instincts are genetically encoded in the genes ... ‘I’ am the end-point of myriads of survivors passing on their genes. ‘I’ am the product of the ‘success story’ of blind nature’s fear and aggression and nurture and desire. Being born of the biologically inherited instincts genetically encoded in the germ cells of the spermatozoa and the ova, ‘I’ am – genetically – umpteen tens of thousands of years old ... ‘my’ origins are lost in the mists of pre-history. ‘I’ am so anciently old that ‘I’ may well have always existed ... carried along on the reproductive cell-line, over countless millennia, from generation to generation. And ‘I’ am thus passed on into an inconceivably open-ended and hereditably transmissible future. In other words: ‘I am fear and fear is ‘me’ (and aggression and nurture and desire). RESPONDENT: The statement pertains to the process of listening itself. In listening to that actuality of experience, sometimes there is ‘fear’. The ‘word’ is not the thing implies that the ‘word’ represents a distraction from listening. As you listen, words get thrown out in the brain. There is a constant translation of that experience in terms that we know and speak. And then we remain attached to those words, we hold on to those words for fear of losing them because then we will not be able to talk in the future. But that is not the living essence of listening. We are not concerned just with semantics of the ‘word is not the thing’. RICHARD: Honestly ... I cannot make sense of this that you write here. May I suggest, instead, that the next time fear happens that you ‘be with it’ without moving in any direction whatsoever until it becomes apparent that ‘you are fear and fear is you’? It is so much easier than all this intellectualising ... and far more rewarding. Because it will be the end of ‘you’.
RESPONDENT No. 40: The Dharma’s fundamental Dharma has no Dharma; the Dharma of no Dharma is Dharma too; now that the Dharma of no Dharma is understood has there ever been a Dharma? RICHARD: No, there has not ‘ever been a Dharma’ ... the ‘Dharma’ has only ever existed in passionate human imagination (fuelled by the instinctually-driven desire for a specious ‘after-life’ immortality). As for the rest of that verse ... it is nothing but intellectual masturbation. The next verse reads: The Dharma’s fundamental Dharma which is Dharma too has no Dharma; The Dharma of no Dharma which is Dharma too has no Dharma too; now that the Dharma of no Dharma which is Dharma too is understood has there ever been a Dharma? It is all designed to stop thought’s dualistic logic (for those who do not understand infinite regress) and propel one into the affective realm’s ‘Isness’. It is all a bit silly when viewed sensibly, eh? RESPONDENT: You actually responded to No. 4’s words here, not No. 40’s. RICHARD: May I refer you to Message 00131 of Archive 99/10 ... for that is the one I was replying to. RESPONDENT: That shows that you have no ‘feel’ for the person who wrote the words and for the ‘persons’ who did not write those words. RICHARD: I do not go by ‘feel’ ... I have no intuitive faculties at all. I only went by what is in the archives ... and Message 00131 of Archive 99/10 definitely said ‘From: ‘No. 40’ xxx@bigpond.com ’ and not ‘From: No. 4 xxx@aol.com ’ when I accessed it. RESPONDENT: It would be interesting to see No. 4’s response to you. Hello No. 4 are you there? There was never an exchange between you and Richard before. Can you guys converse? RICHARD: I certainly can ... I had a fascinating series of dialogues with No. 4 last year (up until he
told me that he was not going to talk with me anymore). You will find them in the archives, finishing up on the 12/12/98,
RICHARD: He travelled the world imploring people to ‘listen’ ... and he means ‘listen’ as in ‘drink the water’ (which ‘water’ he is the living embodiment of – the ‘supreme intelligence’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ or the ‘otherness’ – which is what the words point to) rather than the ordinary way of listening to words. Which ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT: That listening is of a different order than ‘satsang’. Satsang has got in it the inherent motive: the company of good people ... RICHARD: I only have one language (and rely upon translations via dictionaries and scholarly debate for my understanding of other languages) so by all means correct me if I have misunderstood a word’s cultural or contextual meaning. Until then, I meant the word ‘satsang’ in its ‘in the company of truth’ meaning (which usually implies a living master) rather than ‘the company of good people’ meaning which, when there is no ‘living master’, is also known as ‘sangama’ (‘association’ or ‘fellowship’) ... but of course it can be taken either way (the word ‘satsang’ is derived from ‘satsanhga’ or ‘satsanga’ which is a combination of two Sanskrit words, ‘satya’ which means ‘truth’ and ‘sangha’ which means ‘spiritual community’). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT: ... to attain God-consciousness in the midst of ‘holy’ men. RICHARD: Aye ... that is the way I meant it too. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is a ‘holy man’ who urged those in his company to attain ‘God-consciousness’. Viz.:
Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’. RESPONDENT: Listening has nothing to do with all this. Satsang is ‘exclusive’, listening is not. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti expressly stated that the person listening to him was to exclude everything they had ever heard, read, experienced or otherwise learned in their life-time thus far ... or else they were not ‘listening’. I do not know about you, but that sounds absolutely ‘exclusive’ to me. In fact, according to him, the listener is not to compare, evaluate or judge in any way, shape or form. Viz.:
I see that he is clearly and unambiguously ‘exclusive’ ... he effectively says that if one excludes all the knowledge one has gathered; what one has acquired through books, through experience then one is listening (whereas if one does not exclude all the knowledge one has gathered; the knowledge of what one has acquired through books, through experience, therefore because one is comparing, judging, evaluating then one can’t possibly find the truth). Which is why I said that ‘listening’ is otherwise known (in the world of Gurus and God-Men) as ‘satsang’.
CORRESPONDENT No. 31 (Part Three) 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 |
