|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 31
RICHARD to No 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT No. 19: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RESPONDENT: You echoed that very first question that came to my mind after I read Richard’s response. RICHARD: Given the subject matter of most of my previous posts to this list I would have considered it obvious where my interest lay. RESPONDENT: Maybe Richard was successful in reading and rereading in quasi-infinite regression going back and back. RICHARD: Aye ... but, then again, I would follow with interest anybody’s posts who is prepared to stand on their own two feet and start thinking for themselves. RESPONDENT: But welcome back Richard. RICHARD: Thank you for your welcome.
RICHARD to No. 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT No. 19: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RICHARD: Okay ... this quote will throw some light upon the matter: [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd). RESPONDENT No. 19: That is a wonderful quote, and I full heartedly agree with the message, but what does it have to do with No. 33? RICHARD: Here is the most recent example: [No. 33]: ‘... if the man did not live by his own Teaching, then the Teachings have zero value – zilch, shunya, null, void, cypher’. RESPONDENT: So how would you go about verifying that the man did not live by his teachings? RICHARD: By living them, night and day, for eleven years and observing through such intimate experiencing that the ‘Teachings’ do not deliver the goods (freedom from anger and anguish). This direct experience is then verified by reading the wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about giving voice to his ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: What has this got to do with No. 33’s pronouncements? RICHARD: No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, whilst being at the Rishi Valley school, and thus his report is worth listening to.
RICHARD to No. 33: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT No. 19: It would be interesting to know what sort of ‘interest’ you find in following No. 33’s posts. RESPONDENT: You echoed that very first question that came to my mind after I read Richard’s response. RICHARD: Given the subject matter of most of my previous posts to this list I would have considered it obvious where my interest lay. RESPONDENT: Does that mean that your interest provided an agenda to selectively read some posts, especially that of No. 33’s? RICHARD: No, I read all of the posts that come into my in-box each day ... I read each one to see if there is anything contained therein that coincides with my interest. RESPONDENT: The escribe count for No. 33’s posts runs to greater than 2000, out of which at least half is one line nonsense. Is your agenda in putting the man K down, through the clutch of No. 33’s opiniated pronouncements? RICHARD: No, my agenda is to discuss the ‘Teachings’ ... as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not able to live them then who can? * RESPONDENT: Maybe Richard was successful in reading and rereading in quasi-infinite regression going back and back. RICHARD: Aye ... but, then again, I would follow with interest anybody’s posts who is prepared to stand on their own two feet and start thinking for themselves. RESPONDENT: Well that last phrase is literally borrowed from No. 33’s bravado statements, isn’t it? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... it is a phrase I oft-times use myself (it is a common English expression). RESPONDENT: Why should that be an agenda? RICHARD: Because only a person that can stand on their own two feet and think for themselves is likely to be free of all the ills of humankind.
RICHARD: I have not been doing much writing for some months now (other than posting to my own mailing list) however I am still subscribed to this mailing list. RESPONDENT No. 33: Too bad. Reading your posts was quite a delight. I am not subscribed to your mailing list. May be you should cc: some of your posts to this forum as well. RICHARD: I think not. I would rather write freshly and in response to an existing thread here ... if I was going to write at all, that is. * RICHARD: Everything is excellent, thank you ... as it would seem to be for you (I have been following your posts with interest). RESPONDENT No. 33: Life is busy. Posting on this forum is intellectually stimulating. But the quality of interactions here is not the same as it used to be. The forum is infested with second hand K-clones. RICHARD: I have always appreciated Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s suggestion about questioning everything ... ‘including the speaker’. RESPONDENT: So do you, Richard, question your own experience, your own views? RICHARD: I would not be where I am today if I had not questioned everything ... especially my own experience.
RESPONDENT No. 19: IF the only information No. 33 has of how K lived is second handed and hearsay and his own interpretation of what he ‘saw’ or ‘heard’ K say, why would anyone want to believe him? RICHARD: There is a wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ... No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact (in his case whilst being at the Rishi Valley school) and as such his report would not, at the very least, be dismissed out of hand by any thoughtful person as being merely an ‘interpretation’. RESPONDENT: There are perhaps 1000s of people who have been in contact with K. Do you think that all these experiences must be pooled together and used to put the man K down? RICHARD: I do not know about the 1,000s of people you are referring to – I can only go by the books I have read – and in none of them did I gain the impression that the authors were out to ‘put the man K down’ (as you phrase it) ... they were concerned about trying to understand or comprehend the ‘Teachings’ and of course they looked at the person promulgating them to see if he lived them. It is such an obvious thing to do that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so. RESPONDENT: What is your view of No. 33’s ‘thoughtfulness’ if you would expect thoughtfulness of the dismisser? Is the speaker, called No. 33 backing up his experience with points and sound reasoning? RICHARD: I have read No. 33’s posts for maybe four years now – and when the original archives were on-line I backtracked through to the beginning to find out what had already been published – and I took notice of the general thrust of the thoughtfulness, the backing up with points, and the sound reasoning of what he put forward regarding Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’ over the many years that he has been writing. * RESPONDENT: I question No. 33’s good judgement ... in fact I question all his judgements, which he is full of. RICHARD: Do you similarly question Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s good judgement ... in fact do you question all his judgements, which he is full of? RESPONDENT: Are we exploring K the man, K’s teachings or yourself/myself using whoever (be it K or not) says as a ‘mirror’? RICHARD: No, it is a matter of finding out, in dialogues such as these, why the ‘Teachings’ do not work – why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was unable to free himself of anger and anguish – by the application of clear, rational and sensible thinking.
RESPONDENT: ... how would you go about verifying that the man did not live by his teachings? RICHARD: By living them, night and day, for eleven years and observing through such intimate experiencing that the ‘Teachings’ do not deliver the goods (freedom from anger and anguish). This direct experience is then verified by reading the wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about giving voice to his ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: Where do you get the impression that the ‘Teachings’ are meant to deliver the goods, first of all? RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said, in 1929, that his only desire was to set man free ... and then spent 60+ years giving both public and private talks on the subject. RESPONDENT: How would you accurately go about verifying the ‘wealth’ of information from the people you mention? RICHARD: By reading what they have to report with both eyes open, by crosschecking, and by comparing it to my personal experiencing. RESPONDENT: I could masquerade as one who met K, for example. Would you question me deeply, as well as others to that authenticity of meeting with K? RICHARD: I would not have to ... people who publish books about such meetings are reviewed by their peers in public (I do read the reviews of the books I read). RESPONDENT: Or would you meet K the man, personally, if K was living? RICHARD: Not necessarily. I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books and about 10 books by contemporaries; I have watched about 15 video tapes and I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... I have observed enough to satisfy myself. RESPONDENT: Why is this obsession with K on the negative side? RICHARD: I have only ever been interested in finding the facts of the matter ... I have never had an obsession with the ‘negative side’ only. * RESPONDENT: What has this got to do with No. 33’s pronouncements? RICHARD: No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, whilst being at the Rishi Valley school, and thus his report is worth listening to. RESPONDENT: Well, No. 33 may have met him, but you can never know that actuality. RICHARD: I could if I wanted to ... if anyone ever had any doubts about it the records at the Rishi Valley school could be checked to see if No. 33 was actually there at the time he talks about and whether or not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti visited the school during that period. RESPONDENT: Are you confirming your beliefs about K through others’ experiences? RICHARD: It has nothing to do with ‘beliefs’ ... that is what you make of it (I have already said I am confirming my personal experience of living the ‘Teachings’ over an eleven year period by reading the wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years).
RICHARD: There is a wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ... No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact (in his case whilst being at the Rishi Valley school) and as such his report would not, at the very least, be dismissed out of hand by any thoughtful person as being merely an ‘interpretation’. RESPONDENT: There are perhaps 1000s of people who have been in contact with K. Do you think that all these experiences must be pooled together and used to put the man K down? RICHARD: I do not know about the 1,000s of people you are referring to – I can only go by the books I have read – and in none of them did I gain the impression that the authors were out to ‘put the man K down’ (as you phrase it) ... they were concerned about trying to understand or comprehend the ‘Teachings’ and of course they looked at the person promulgating them to see if he lived them. RESPONDENT: You may not know about the 1000s, obviously, but I am referring actually to your phrase of ‘the wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about speaking of the matters discussed on this list ‘ which amounts to 1000s people that I am referring to. RICHARD: Okay. RESPONDENT: I do see that in your 11 years endeavour you are putting the man K down in that endeavour to see ‘at the person promulgating them to see if he lived them.’ Of course my vocabulary is limited. ‘Put the man K down’ is what comes to my mind. RICHARD: Well, I was never interested in putting someone down ... I only ever wanted to find out for myself the facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: Of course K is dead. RICHARD: Aye, but his words live on and many peoples are influenced by them. RESPONDENT: How in your 11 years did you go about invalidating K’s teachings? RICHARD: By observing moments of anger and anguish. RESPONDENT: Is this not like some sort of a formula? RICHARD: No ... it is called observation. * RICHARD: It is such an obvious thing to do that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so. RESPONDENT: To doing what? RICHARD: To be establishing whether the speaker is living the ‘Teachings’ he promulgates or not. * RESPONDENT: What is your view of No. 33’s ‘thoughtfulness’ if you would expect thoughtfulness of the dismisser? Is the speaker, called No. 33 backing up his experience with points and sound reasoning? RICHARD: I have read No. 33’s posts for maybe four years now – and when the original archives were on-line I backtracked through to the beginning to find out what had already been published – and I took notice of the general thrust of the thoughtfulness, the backing up with points, and the sound reasoning of what he put forward regarding Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’ over the many years that he has been writing. RESPONDENT: Interesting. Have you read the recent escribe archives? RICHARD: I am subscribed to the list and read everything that comes into my in-box. RESPONDENT: What to you is sound reasoning and backing up with points? RICHARD: The kind of reasoning and backing up of points which No. 33 posted which I have been able to read for maybe four years now ... plus what I read in the original archives when they were on-line back when I first subscribed. RESPONDENT: Do you think No. 33 explains to the root about issues? RICHARD: He has many times gone deeply into the issues I have discussed with him over the years. RESPONDENT: Most of his posts are filled with short one liners ... RICHARD: In the last few months, yes. RESPONDENT: ... phrases that indicate non thoughtfulness and evasion of issues. RICHARD: I am only discussing one issue here ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and the ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: Or is it that you take his words literally as you usually verbatim? RICHARD: I do not read between the lines (if that is what you mean). * RESPONDENT: Are we exploring K the man, K’s teachings or yourself/myself using whoever (be it K or not) says as a ‘mirror’? RICHARD: No, it is a matter of finding out, in dialogues such as these, why the ‘Teachings’ do not work – why Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was unable to free himself of anger and anguish – by the application of clear, rational and sensible thinking. RESPONDENT: Now, how do you know K, the man who is free from all that? Besides what you pointed out the wealth of information shared from people? RICHARD: By personally living the ‘Teachings’, night and day, for eleven years ... the proof of the pudding is in the eating of it. RESPONDENT: My basic question is that have you read K’s books that are free from the opinions and views of people around him? RICHARD: I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (if that is what you are asking). RESPONDENT: What was your approach in self enquiry and do you think that approach did not bring results? RICHARD: My approach in self inquiry was to ask myself, each moment again, how I was experiencing this moment of being alive ... and it brought about a remarkable result (after eleven years of being side-tracked into living the ‘Teachings’ that is).
RESPONDENT: How would you go about verifying that the man did not live by his teachings? RICHARD: By living them, night and day, for eleven years and observing through such intimate experiencing that the ‘Teachings’ do not deliver the goods (freedom from anger and anguish). This direct experience is then verified by reading the wealth of information in many books written by differing peoples from all walks of life who were in contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at various stages throughout the 60+ years that he travelled about giving voice to his ‘Teachings’. RESPONDENT: Where do you get the impression that the ‘Teachings’ are meant to deliver the goods, first of all? RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said, in 1929, that his only desire was to set man free ... and then spent 60+ years giving both public and private talks on the subject. RESPONDENT: So is the onus is on the speaker, alone? RICHARD: He certainly gave the ‘impression’ that the ‘Teachings’ were meant to deliver the goods in his 1929 speech and in the public and private talks he gave on the subject over 60+ years. RESPONDENT: What about those 1000s who did not listen, perhaps? Why do you discount the latter? RICHARD: Because I am simply telling you where the ‘impression’ that the ‘Teachings’ were meant to deliver the goods came from ... nothing more and nothing less. * RESPONDENT: How would you accurately go about verifying the ‘wealth’ of information from the people you mention? RICHARD: By reading what they have to report with both eyes open, by crosschecking, and by comparing it to my personal experiencing. RESPONDENT: What is the nature of that comparison? RICHARD: In a word: sincere. RESPONDENT: What is the nature of that experiencing? RICHARD: That the enlightened state does not deliver the goods it (supposedly) promises ... freedom from suffering. RESPONDENT: Can an experiencing be compared? RICHARD: Of course ... when the experiencing has commonality it can be readily compared. * RESPONDENT: I could masquerade as one who met K, for example. Would you question me deeply, as well as others to that authenticity of meeting with K? RICHARD: I would not have to ... people who publish books about such meetings are reviewed by their peers in public (I do read the reviews of the books I read). RESPONDENT: So everything is as written and verbatim? RICHARD: Not necessarily ... I always read with both eyes open, I crosscheck with other sources, and I compare it with my own experience. RESPONDENT: Did you see or listen to K as a ‘mirror’? RICHARD: No ... I had already been living the enlightened state, night and day, for about six months before I first heard of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. To explain: I have never followed anyone; I have never been part of any religious, spiritual, mystical or metaphysical group; I have never done any disciplines, practices or exercises at all; I have never done any meditation, any yoga, any chanting of mantras, any tai chi, any breathing exercises, any praying, any fasting, any flagellations, any ... any of those ‘Tried and True’ inanities; nor did I endlessly analyse my childhood for ever and a day; nor did I do never-ending therapies wherein one expresses oneself again and again ... and again and again. By being born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning. I had never heard the words ‘Enlightenment’ or ‘Nirvana’ and so on until 1982 when talking to a man about my breakthrough, into what I called an ‘Absolute Freedom’ via the death of the ‘ego’, in September 1981. He listened – he questioned me rigorously until well after midnight – and then declared me to be ‘Enlightened’. I had to ask him what that was, such was my ignorance of all things spiritual. He – being a nine-year spiritual seeker fresh from his latest trip to India – gave me a book to read by someone called Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. That was to be the beginning of what was to become a long learning curve of all things religious, spiritual, mystical and metaphysical for me. I examined all this because I sought to understand what other peoples had made of such experience and to find out where human endeavour had been going wrong. I found out where it had been going wrong over an eleven year period ... self-aggrandisement is so seductive. * RESPONDENT: Or would you meet K the man, personally, if K was living? RICHARD: Not necessarily. I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books and about 10 books by contemporaries; I have watched about 15 video tapes and I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... I have observed enough to satisfy myself. RESPONDENT: What do you mean by ‘satisfy’? RICHARD: It is a common English expression meaning that one has done enough observing, or has researched sufficiently enough, so as to be able know, once and for all, what the facts of the matter are. * RESPONDENT: What has this got to do with No. 33’s pronouncements? RICHARD: No. 33 is one of those people who had direct personal contact with Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, whilst being at the Rishi Valley school, and thus his report is worth listening to. RESPONDENT: What about others? I mean those who have questioned No. 33’s proclamations with sane and sound reasoning? RICHARD: I am only discussing one issue here ... whether spiritual enlightenment delivers the goods it (supposedly) promises. RESPONDENT: And what is your feeling about No. 33’s avoidance of discussions with superficial and inane remarks? RICHARD: I do not have any ‘feeling’ about anything (which is just as well as feelings are notoriously unreliable). * RESPONDENT: Well, No. 33 may have met him, but you can never know that actuality. RICHARD: I could if I wanted to ... if anyone ever had any doubts about it the records at the Rishi Valley school could be checked to see if No. 33 was actually there at the time he talks about and whether or not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti visited the school during that period. RESPONDENT: But that alone is not enough. RICHARD: It is for me. I have never been to the South Pole (for example) yet I can take the reports of other people, who have been there, that it exists as described ... one can never personally verify every single thing as being a given by physically being there oneself. RESPONDENT: Anyone could testify No. 33 was there. RICHARD: Anyone who was there at the time could, yes. RESPONDENT: But no one can testify what he did in his bathroom, for example. Now don’t take that literally and verbatim. RICHARD: That is why I read with both eyes open, crosscheck with other sources, and compare with my own experience.
RESPONDENT: I do see that in your 11 years endeavour you are putting the man K down in that endeavour to see ‘at the person promulgating them to see if he lived them.’ Of course my vocabulary is limited. ‘Put the man K down’ is what comes to my mind. RICHARD: Well, I was never interested in putting someone down ... I only ever wanted to find out for myself the facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: Is your fact and actuality a sort of finality? RICHARD: Any fact or actuality is definitive. * RESPONDENT: How in your 11 years did you go about invalidating K’s teachings? RICHARD: By observing moments of anger and anguish. RESPONDENT: Is this not like some sort of a formula? RICHARD: No ... it is called observation. RESPONDENT: What is the nature of that observation? RICHARD: It was watching oneself in action each moment again. RESPONDENT: Are you taking a particular K statement and verifying it in yourself? RICHARD: Not a particular statement, no ... many, many of the descriptions went towards making up the verification that there was a commonality. RESPONDENT: Is K being used as a mirror? RICHARD: No, he was not. RESPONDENT: What is your relationship with K in that observation? RICHARD: It was that of being a fellow human being. RESPONDENT: Where there is a goal in invalidating someone’s teachings is there not a subtle method in operation? RICHARD: There was not the goal of invalidating anything ... I only ever wanted to find out the facts and actuality of the enlightened state (the invalidation was a result not a goal). RESPONDENT: Because when YOU actually DO it, in listening, there is that communion. RICHARD: If by ‘communion’ you mean rapport, accord, affinity, fellowship, togetherness, harmony, agreement, sharing, concord and so then yes, I agree. RESPONDENT: Otherwise that stales into a ‘method’. RICHARD: There was nothing stale about what I did ... it was fresh each moment again. RESPONDENT: What is it that you observe in such moments? RICHARD: In this instance it was the commonality of moments of anger and anguish in the enlightened state. * RICHARD: It is such an obvious thing to do that I wonder why there is so much opposition to doing so. RESPONDENT: To doing what? RICHARD: To be establishing whether the speaker is living the ‘Teachings’ he promulgates or not. RESPONDENT: Again, is that not a distraction in observing, looking? RICHARD: No ... if anything it sharpened attention remarkably. * RESPONDENT: My basic question is that have you read K’s books that are free from the opinions and views of people around him? RICHARD: I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (if that is what you are asking). RESPONDENT: No, I am asking something more than that. Did you follow what I am asking? RICHARD: As you say that you are ‘asking something more than that’ then it would appear that I did not follow what you are asking. RESPONDENT: Or do you want me to rephrase the question for you? RICHARD: It would certainly help if you would explain what the ‘something more than that’ is. * RESPONDENT: What was your approach in self enquiry and do you think that approach did not bring results? RICHARD: My approach in self inquiry was to ask myself, each moment again, how I was experiencing this moment of being alive ... and it brought about a remarkable result (after eleven years of being side-tracked into living the ‘Teachings’ that is). RESPONDENT: Again, I ask, why is this obsession with K’s one time statements (perhaps) about living the teachings? RICHARD: It was not an ‘obsession’ ... it was a simple, straightforward and obvious case of ascertaining whether the enlightened state was a worthwhile state to live in or not. RESPONDENT: Why have you introduced ‘being alive’ as a facet of self-enquiry? RICHARD: Because this moment is the only moment that one is ever alive ... only this moment is actual (the past, which was actual when it was happening, is no longer actual and the future, which will be actual when it is happening, is not actual yet). RESPONDENT: Is that enquiry proceeding from seeing that suffering in humanity or is it a self-centred escape into those questions? RICHARD: It was an enquiry into seeing the suffering of all human beings. RESPONDENT: Are you seeking (or imagined to have sought) that paradise, an escape from suffering? RICHARD: The seeking of paradise (to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) was based on an intense desire to bring an end to suffering forever. RESPONDENT: To keep matters simple, did you hold a K book in hand, as a mirror and examined yourself? RICHARD: Not as a ‘mirror’ ... no. RESPONDENT: Were you thinking of K the man all the time as you enquired? RICHARD: No, I read hundreds and hundreds of books and articles – maybe thousands – by many and varied saints and sages and seers. RESPONDENT: Was there any contact with the spirit of his teachings? RICHARD: More than mere contact ... there was the intimate living of the enlightened state, night and day, for eleven years.
RESPONDENT: A personal issue: Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged in some war era. Perhaps that is one factor to consider. RICHARD: As I have the original of every single e-mail I have posted to this mailing list it is an easy matter to send this computer’s search engine through them all so as to locate any reference I have made to my wartime experience ... the following paragraphs came up eight times:
How you can translate that into being ‘Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged’ has got me stumped ... but just for the record I will unambiguously state that I never received any bullets, shrapnel wounds or blows to the head at all. What I discovered was that the ending of all the wars (and the murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on) 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. As the problem of the human condition is happening here on earth (in space) each moment again (in time) in these flesh and blood bodies (in form) called human beings, then the solution to the human condition quite obviously can only be found here in space and time and form. As the saints and the sages and the seers 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 obviously the ‘Tried and Failed’. Thus far in human history one has had only two choices: being human or being divine. Neither option has brought about peace on earth. 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: I am exploring into the issue of whether one can experience anything without knowing that one is experiencing it. So for example, there may be anger, emotional pain etc, and one does not know that. RICHARD: The medical term, for the symptoms you describe here, has popularly become known as
anosognosia And I have been scrutinised closely by many, many people over the last nine years. RESPONDENT: Given this factor, and given Richard’s condition, why are we (including myself) spending so much energy about proving and disproving his points? RICHARD: But, as both ‘this factor’ and ‘Richard’s condition’ are not the givens which you say they are, the validity of your question falls flat on its face ... you have built your entire case out of nothing. RESPONDENT: Again, I am sorry and I apologize to Richard that this sensitive issue is brought up. I do not intend any harm. RICHARD: I do not find it to be a ‘sensitive issue’ at all as anybody that reports that they have found the answer to all the ills of humankind can expect to have their bona-fides examined. And rightly so.
RESPONDENT: I think in your discussions with Konrad, there was a mention about some thing that happened to your brain. RICHARD: I sent the search engine through my discussions with Konrad and only the following exchange came up:
RESPONDENT: Unfortunately the archives are not available. RICHARD: I have all of my discussions with Konrad at the following link: * RESPONDENT: Of course I cannot question if you deny about the brain damage. RICHARD: Just so long as you realise that I am not in what is called ‘a state of denial’ about any supposed brain damage ... I am unambiguously stating, as a matter of fact, that I never received any bullets, shrapnel wounds or blows to the head at all. RESPONDENT: I could take your word for it. RICHARD: Well now, you are taking my word for it that I was in a war in the first place ... everything I write about myself is a personal report. RESPONDENT: But your posts does not indicate that sanity in the brain. RICHARD: I have not been sane for years ... sanity sucks. As 160,000,000 sane people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by their sane fellow human beings your appeal to the status-quo (humankind’s sanity) cuts no ice with me. RESPONDENT: In your discussions with Konrad there was some acknowledgement about the brain damage, I am pretty sure. RICHARD: You are very welcome to browse through any of my discussions with Konrad at the above URL. * RESPONDENT: No. 35 once asked about Richard’s brain condition too ... RICHARD: You will find these queries and my responses at the following link:
RESPONDENT: I think in your discussions with Konrad, there was a mention about some thing that happened to your brain. Unfortunately the archives are not available. (...) In your discussions with Konrad there was some acknowledgement about the brain damage, I am pretty sure. RESPONDENT No. 20: In that the archives are not available, Konrad’s posts to the list cannot be reviewed. Perhaps it may help if I add what I recall to what you have said. I do not remember any discussion between Konrad and Richard where Richard’s brain damage during the war was mentioned. I remember that Konrad claimed that this is what Richard had told him, and that this supported his theory as to what accounted for Richard’s behaviour. RESPONDENT: So it seems that Konrad was wrong in that claim, despite his assertion that that was what Richard told him, and there is no way of knowing whether it is true or false. RICHARD: Au contraire ... there is a very simple way: write and ask Konrad himself. Just in case you do not get around to it I wrote to him yesterday and received a long e-mail in response ... here is the relevant portion of that post:
So endeth the speculation. Now to get back to your original issue:
You will surely have to acknowledge by now, seeing that ‘this factor’ is not the given which you say it is, that the validity of your question has fallen flat on its face ... that you have indeed built your case out of nothing. I do look forward to your considered response.
RICHARD: ... there is a very simple way [of knowing whether it is true or false]: write and ask Konrad himself. Just in case you do not get around to it I wrote to him yesterday and received a long e-mail in response ... here is the relevant portion of that post: [Konrad]: ‘You have no brain damage whatsoever as far as I know. You have never mentioned to me that you had’. (Re: A Personal Issue; May 19, 2002). So endeth the speculation. Now to get back to your original issue: [Respondent:]: ‘A personal issue: Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged in some war era. Perhaps that is one factor to consider. (...) Given this factor why are we (including myself) spending so much energy about proving and disproving his points?’ (Re: Much Ado About Spiritual Enlightenment; May 14, 2002). You will surely have to acknowledge by now, seeing that ‘this factor’ is not the given which you say it is, that the validity of your question has fallen flat on its face ... that you have indeed built your case out of nothing. I do look forward to your considered response. RESPONDENT: I was not building my case against or for you and out of nothing. RICHARD: You were indeed ... you explicitly said [quote] ‘Richard once mentioned that his brain was slightly damaged in some war era’ [endquote]. As it has now been demonstrated that Richard never, ever mentioned what you said he mentioned you were most definitely building your case out of nothing. All that is needed now is your acknowledgement that this is so and this thread is finished ... over and done with. RESPONDENT: It amazes me why you did not reply as simply you did now (where you post your correspondence with Konrad and No. 20) earlier. RICHARD: What amazes me is that you did not do as I did only yesterday (write to Konrad yourself) instead of speculating whether he did or did not say this or that about me ... it being such a simple and obvious thing to do. As for posting my previous correspondence with Konrad ... I did (but you took no notice). Viz.:
Incidentally ... I have had no correspondence with No. 20 on this issue. RESPONDENT: Instead you posted pages and pages of correspondence in earlier posts that I am still having difficulty wading through, due to lack of time. RICHARD: You had specifically said [quote] ‘unfortunately the archives are not available’ [endquote] so I provided you with a URL to the sixteen pages comprising all of my correspondence with Konrad so that you could see for yourself (after I had sent my search engine through them and provided the only quote (above) regarding ‘damage’). If you had indeed had access to the archives it would have taken you far, far longer to wade through them as they comprise of thousands and thousands of pages. RESPONDENT: ‘Falling flat on its face’ is again your imagination ... RICHARD: I beg to differ ... it has factually fallen flat on its face because of the textual evidence provided. RESPONDENT: ... because there was already a possibility of taking your word for it as far as the brain damage is concerned. RICHARD: We have been down this road before ... you are taking my word for it that I was in a war in the first place (all that I write about myself is a personal report) so, following your rationale, you cannot even start your argument thus:
In your attempt to avoid acknowledging that you were in error, after my first detailed response, you are digging yourself deeper and deeper into a mire of your own making. RESPONDENT: Perhaps what falls flat in the face is your inability to deal with simple questions ... RICHARD: I did deal with the simple question easily and straightforwardly ... I categorically declared, in my first response, that I [quote] ‘unambiguously state that I never received any bullets, shrapnel wounds or blows to the head at all’ [endquote]. Apparently that was not sufficient for you and so on and on this issue has gone (just as it is in this e-mail). RESPONDENT: ... but you deal with it with complex ‘artificial intelligence like’ cut and paste, piecing of words ... RICHARD: If you see my providing of textual evidence to demonstrate a point I am making as being something other than as an aid to sensible discussion then that is your business. You, apparently, would rather rely upon vague recollections that somebody might have said something or another somewhere at at some unspecified time. RESPONDENT: ... self defined semantics software ... RICHARD: I have no clue whatsoever what this phrase is supposed to mean ... I use the standard English language as defined in a dictionary. RESPONDENT: ... that indeed does indicate some brain disorder. RICHARD: I see that you are still trying to find some basis for your original question (no matter how meagre or how silly it has become by now). Viz.:
Maybe the question should now read: ‘why am I (Respondent:) spending so much energy about proving brain damage in Richard?’ Is it because the points I raise are valid points, well-backed by accredited quotes, which cannot be refuted by sensible discussion and that you have had to revert to attempting to discredit the soundness of the brain that is putting forward these points (and quotes) for thoughtful consideration? ‘Tis only a suggestion, though, as I am not a mind reader.
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 |
