|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RESPONDENT: ... what are space, time, and form sans perception? RICHARD: May I suggest? Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that space and time and form are still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ or some similar cataleptic trance state and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist when they come out of their exalted state, you will notice that time and space and form was happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that time and space and form keep on keeping on. Or, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that time and space and form existed long before human beings and their ‘perception’ appeared on the scene. RESPONDENT: Time, space, and form, happen to /you/ in all the cases that you mention. Hence, a /you/ is necessary for time, space, and form to happen. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that before you were born (or at least before humans per se) nothing existed? No planet earth? No satellite moon? No central sun? No ‘Milky Way’ galaxy? No universe? No Time? No Space? No form? Nothing at all? * RESPONDENT: I am not doubting what you say: all that I am saying is that your Truth is, ultimately, your own. RICHARD: I do not have a ‘Truth’ to call my own ... I am talking of directly experiencing physical-world actuality. RESPONDENT: If I see it as you say, it is my Truth also. RICHARD: Not so ... it would mean you are directly experiencing physical-world actuality. RESPONDENT: That is about all by way of objectivity that is to it. If you notice, Krishnamurti says the same thing: ‘Sir, this is a fact. Don’t you see it?’ That is, the only proof of the pudding is in the eating. And that has to be the final answer. :-) RICHARD: If the word ‘objectivity’ has to mean seeing the metaphysical as a fact ... then what does the word ‘subjectivity’ come to mean? RESPONDENT: When Krishnamurti talked about something being a fact, he implied that he was not imagining it. RICHARD: Of course ... otherwise he would not be so emphatic that it be a fact for him RESPONDENT: His factual is like your actual – something that exists by itself and is not imagined. RICHARD: Have you noticed that what you call ‘his factual’ is timeless and spaceless and formless ... whilst I speak only of eternal time, infinite space and perpetual form? Just curious. RESPONDENT: He distinguished between reality and imagination: reality (fact, or truth) is what sets a person free, while imagination is a conditioned response. RICHARD: However, the saints and sages and seers, who said there was a ‘reality (fact, or truth) ... what sets a person free’, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/ followers/ readers). Therefore, even though they said there was a ‘reality (fact, or truth) ... what sets a person free’, seeing that they can still get irritated and sorrowful in the freedom of their ‘reality’, it speaks volumes regarding the illusory nature of the freedom their ‘reality’ bestows ... only I prefer to call it a ‘delusory’ freedom as there is all manner of delusions of grandeur subjectively happening for them. RESPONDENT: Re-incarnation is not a powerful theme in Krishnamurti but ‘here and now’, the factual is. RICHARD: First, far from reincarnation being ‘not a powerful theme in Krishnamurti’ the ‘stepping out of the stream’ (of birth, death and rebirth ad infinitum) theme was central to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world ... just as it is in most, if not all, Eastern religions. Second, his ‘here and now’ (what you call ‘the factual’) is neither here in space nor now in time ... is it? Therefore it is not an objective ‘here and now’ ... which is why I asked that if the word ‘objectivity’ has to mean seeing the metaphysical (the non-physical; the not-form; the not-in-time; the not-in-space) as a fact ... then what does the word ‘subjectivity’ come to mean? As you seem to be suggesting that you (‘a /you/ is necessary for time and space and form to happen’) are required, in order that there be time and space and form, it would appear that you are heading in the direction of saying (if not already saying) that the physical-world is subjective and the metaphysical-world is ... um ... objective? RESPONDENT: Your world view may not be all that different from Krishnamurti’s (as his is not all that different from that of a few other thinkers preceding him). RICHARD: I am in full agreement that the ‘Teachings’ which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world were essentially no different to what many of the saints and sages and seers had been saying for some thousands of years prior to the twentieth century (if this is what you are conveying). Whereas what I am sharing with my fellow human beings is 180 degrees in the other direction. RESPONDENT: Will that be a problem for you? RICHARD: As the proposal ‘your world view may not be all that different from Krishnamurti’s’ has no existence whatsoever outside of your mind/your understanding it cannot possibly ever be a problem for me. I do read what I write before I send it ... so I know what it is that I am sharing.
RESPONDENT: ... what are space, time, and form sans perception? RICHARD: May I suggest? Find someone who has a relative or a friend in a coma – a person in a coma is a person ‘sans perception’ – and go and visit them ... and you will notice that space and time and form are still happening irregardless of their perception of it all. Or, go and be with someone in ‘Samadhi’ or ‘Dhyana’ or some similar cataleptic trance state and, though they will swear that time and space and form do not exist when they come out of their exalted state, you will notice that time and space and form was happening all the while. Or, be with somebody on their death-bed ... and afterwards you will notice that time and space and form keep on keeping on. Or, find someone with expertise in ancient rocks and fossils ... palaeontology shows that time and space and form existed long before human beings and their ‘perception’ appeared on the scene. RESPONDENT: Time, space, and form, happen to /you/ in all the cases that you mention. Hence, a /you/ is necessary for time, space, and form to happen. RICHARD: Surely you are not suggesting that before you were born (or at least before humans per se) nothing existed? No planet earth? No satellite moon? No central sun? No ‘Milky Way’ galaxy? No universe? No Time? No Space? No form? Nothing at all? RESPONDENT: It is a tribute to the human faculties that manufacture space, time, and form that we are able to ask a question like the one you do. RICHARD: Goodness me ... and yet it is Richard who is sometimes said to be arrogant (when I describe how superior living in the actual world is to living in the ‘real world’). Is it not obvious that ‘it is a tribute’ to the universe (limitless time and space and form) which ‘manufactures’ the human faculties that such questions are able to be asked? When you look-up ‘self-centred’ in the dictionary ... check out ‘anthropocentric’ as well. RESPONDENT: The question ‘what was there prior to consciousness?’ is asked by human consciousness. The only answer that I can come up with is: I don’t know. RICHARD: Here is the (almost) mandatory humility ... hot on the tail of it arrogant progenitor. RESPONDENT: I don’t know if space, time, or form existed prior to the advent of the human consciousness. RICHARD: I take it that you do not want to find out? * RESPONDENT: When Krishnamurti talked about something being a fact, he implied that he was not imagining it. RICHARD: Of course ... otherwise he would not be so emphatic that it be a fact for him. RESPONDENT: His factual is like your actual – something that exists by itself and is not imagined. RICHARD: Have you noticed that what you call ‘his factual’ is timeless and spaceless and formless ... whilst I speak only of eternal time, infinite space and perpetual form? Just curious. RESPONDENT: If you look closely, ‘eternal time, infinite space and perpetual form’ are not all that different from ‘timeless, spaceless and formless’. RICHARD: They are poles apart: ‘timeless’ (time-less), ‘spaceless’ (space-less) and ‘formless’ (form-less) mean no time, no space and no form ... whereas ‘eternal time’ (never beginning and never ending), ‘infinite space’ (unbounded and unlimited), and ‘perpetual form’ (everlasting and imperishable) mean all time, all space and all form. RESPONDENT: Surely the good old saying: ‘opposites meet’ appears to be true here. RICHARD: Uh huh ... this is because, just as ‘selfless’ (self-less) gets corrupted by recalcitrant egos and compliant souls into meaning ‘an unselfish self’ (rather than ‘no self’), so too can timeless, spaceless and formless come to mean eternity, infinity and perpetuity. Even dictionaries do it. RESPONDENT: What is interesting is, as I pointed out earlier also, your eternal time, space, and form express themselves as perpetual bliss, as do timeless, spaceless and formless of K, B, and others. RICHARD: I have never, ever expressed it as ‘perpetual bliss’ ... you are simply making this up as you go along. Viz.:
Do you see the word ‘bliss’ in there ... amongst the other highly prized, but delusory, affective trinkets? * RESPONDENT: He [K] distinguished between reality and imagination: reality (fact, or truth) is what sets a person free, while imagination is a conditioned response. RICHARD: However, the saints and sages and seers, who said there was a ‘reality (fact, or truth) ... what sets a person free’, all displayed varying degrees of those emotions grouped under the ‘catch-all’ words malice and sorrow. Most commonly they were subject to anger and anguish (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers). RESPONDENT: By his own account, K dwelled in perpetual bliss, as did Buddha, and Sankara by whatever accounts we have of them. RICHARD: They did indeed. However, seeing that the various saints, sages and seers, who have all said more or less the same, can still get irritated and sorrowful in their ‘bliss’, it speaks volumes regarding its illusory nature ... only I prefer to call it ‘delusory’ as there is all manner of delusions of grandeur subjectively happening for them. * RICHARD: Therefore, even though they said there was a ‘reality (fact, or truth) what sets a person free’, seeing that they can still get irritated and sorrowful in the freedom of their ‘reality’ , it speaks volumes regarding the illusory nature of the freedom their ‘reality’ bestows ... only I prefer to call it a ‘delusory’ freedom as there is all manner of delusions of grandeur subjectively happening for them. RESPONDENT: From what I know of K, he was not sorrowful. He may feel sorrow at the situation of the mankind, as you seem to be doing when you talk about wars and domestic violence etc. RICHARD: The only pain I ever experience is physical pain ... all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides do not mentally or emotionally pain me at all. Because I am neither a ‘self’ nor a ‘Self’ I have no feelings – there is no affective faculty whatsoever in this flesh and blood body – and no ones’ animosity or anguish touches me at all (there is no ‘me’ or ‘Me’ to be touched). I do not feel sorry for you – or anyone – for I cannot. I have no compassion whatsoever. To be compassion is to be the blind leading the blind. RESPONDENT: Buddha and Sankara, from whatever accounts we have of them, did find lasting peace in their respective realizations of Void and Brahman. RICHARD: Neither Mr. Gotama the Sakyan nor Mr. Shankara found peace on earth ... their ‘lasting peace’, both from the accounts extant of them and my own personal experience of the enlightened state, is unambiguously an after-death peace. Eastern spirituality is (essentially) concerned with one thing and one thing only: how to avoid rebirth. Despite all their rhetoric, peace on earth is not on the enlightenment agenda. * RESPONDENT: Re-incarnation is not a powerful theme in Krishnamurti but ‘here and now’, the factual is. RICHARD: First, far from reincarnation being ‘not a powerful theme in Krishnamurti’ the ‘stepping out of the stream’ (of birth, death and rebirth ad infinitum) theme was central to the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world ... just as it is in most, if not all, Eastern religions. Second, his ‘here and now’ (what you call ‘the factual’) is neither here in space nor now in time ... is it? Therefore it is not an objective ‘here and now’ ... which is why I asked that if the word ‘objectivity’ has to mean seeing the metaphysical (the non-physical; the not-form; the not-in-time; the not-in-space) as a fact ... then what does the word ‘subjectivity’ come to mean? RESPONDENT: Sure his ‘here and now’ is in space and time. RICHARD: Huh? RESPONDENT: Time and again, he asks his audience: ‘Sir, what happens when the human mind accepts things as they are?’ ‘What happens when the mind does not move from what is?’ There is the instance of the woman who lost a child and goes to K for solace. K to woman: ‘madam, the child is dead. That is a fact’. He doesn’t talk of anything else, no after life, no eternal time or form ... makes a factual statement: ‘the child is dead’. RICHARD: I need only provide but two quotes for now:
Do you ‘see the point’ as well, now? * RICHARD: As you seem to be suggesting that you (‘a /you/ is necessary for time and space and form to happen’) are required, in order that there be time and space and form, it would appear that you are heading in the direction of saying (if not already saying) that the physical-world is subjective and the metaphysical-world is ... um ... objective? RESPONDENT: Your world view may not be all that different from Krishnamurti’s (as his is not all that different from that of a few other thinkers preceding him). RICHARD: I am in full agreement that the ‘Teachings’ which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world were essentially no different to what many of the saints and sages and seers had been saying for some thousands of years prior to the twentieth century (if this is what you are conveying). Whereas what I am sharing with my fellow human beings is 180 degrees in the other direction. RESPONDENT: That is what you may think. RICHARD: No ... it is what I know. RESPONDENT: But your message is not much different from that of K. RICHARD: It is 180 degrees in the other direction ... things cannot get more different than that. RESPONDENT: You seem to be focusing upon small differences between what you are saying and what K said, but the essence of the two thoughts is the same: live in here and now, face the world as it is. RICHARD: Okay ... have it your way then (I am taking a break from providing quotes for a while). * RESPONDENT: Will that be a problem for you? RICHARD: As the proposal ‘your world view may not be all that different from Krishnamurti’s’ has no existence whatsoever outside of your mind/your understanding it cannot possibly ever be a problem for me. I do read what I write before I send it ... so I know what it is that I am sharing. RESPONDENT: No further comments, dear Richard. My own feeling is that all those who think deeply about these issues of the human condition, as you seem to have done, arrive at more or less the same conclusions. All roads seem to lead to good old London. Or Sydney, or Brisbane, or Varanasi, or Madanapalle. RICHARD: This statement is so similar to the tendency that Hinduism has, to absorb all that potentially conflicts under its vast umbrella, that I will make ‘no further comment’ myself. I will leave you to your heritage.
RESPONDENT: What is interesting is, as I pointed out earlier also, your eternal time, space, and form express themselves as perpetual bliss, as do timeless, spaceless and formless of K, B, and others. RICHARD: I have never, ever expressed it as ‘perpetual bliss’ ... you are simply making this up as you go along. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘The ‘reality’ of the ‘real world’ is an illusion. The ‘Reality’ of the ‘Mystical World’ is a delusion. There is an actual world that lies under one’s very nose ... I interact with the same people, things and events that you do, yet it is as if I am in another dimension altogether. There is no good or evil here where I live. I live in a veritable paradise ... this very earth I live on is so vastly superior to any fabled Arcadian Utopia that it would be impossible to believe if I was not living it twenty four hours a day ... and for the last five years. It is so perfectly pure and clear here that there is no need for Love or Compassion or Bliss or Euphoria or Ecstasy or Truth or Goodness or Beauty or Oneness or Unity or Wholeness or ... or any of those baubles. They all pale into pathetic insignificance ... and I lived them for eleven years. Do you see the word ‘bliss’ in there ... amongst the other highly prized, but delusory, affective trinkets? RESPONDENT: Well, then I will settle for the ‘veritable paradise ... so vastly superior to any fabled Arcadian Utopia’ that you live in ‘twenty four hours a day’ as what I had in mind when I used that rather parsimonious expression: ‘perpetual bliss’. RICHARD: Yet this is the location of the ‘veritable paradise’ I am talking of:
Whilst this is the dimension of the ‘Amata’ Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is talking of:
The goal of Buddhism is to find/attain the ‘Deathless’ (‘amata’) ... an after-death realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more reincarnation); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). * RESPONDENT: Buddha and Sankara, from whatever accounts we have of them, did find lasting peace in their respective realizations of Void and Brahman. RICHARD: Neither Mr. Gotama the Sakyan nor Mr. Shankara found peace on earth ... their ‘lasting peace’, both from the accounts extant of them and my own personnel experience of the enlightened state, is unambiguously an after-death peace. Eastern spirituality is (essentially) concerned with one thing and one thing only: how to avoid rebirth. RESPONDENT: Sure there is a lot of reference to rebirth and avoidance thereof in the East. But one needs to delve deeper in to this idea of death and rebirth to grasp the full significance of what is implied. The Sanskrit word ‘Dwija’ (literally: a twice born) is used to describe a ‘Brahmin’ (literally: one who dwells in Brahman). It is the highest avocation, the true calling, of a Brahmin to wakeup to his true nature and dwell in Brahman. That awakening is the second birth of a Brahmin. Contrary to popular belief, a person is not a Brahmin by birth alone: one who has the desire to realize the Brahman is a Brahmin and anyone who wakes up to the Reality of Brahman is a Brahmin (a twice born). This is what Hinduism is essentially concerned with as far as rebirth goes: death of Maya and realization of Brahman. Krishnamurti expresses the same idea as dying to one’s world of desire, imagination, ideas, fancies, etc. and waking up to the world of Truth. Similarly, Buddha’s allusions to after life, in my opinion, need to be taken in their figurative and metaphorical sense and not as literal references to an after life. All three allusions are very powerful because life as we know it is what Maya or imagination, or desire, etc. have created for us. That is the only life that man knows. What better metaphor to use than that of death to allude to an ending of the life of Maya? I am quite confident that you will (as you have done in the past) find enough evidence to support your contention that Buddha, Sankara, K. et al were ‘essentially’ concerned with after life and reincarnation. I think if you are willing to go beyond the literal, you will probably see what I am trying to get at. Does this make sense to you? At least a teeny-tiny bit? RICHARD: This is what makes sense: to see you reverting to praising poesy (such as ‘Buddha’s allusions ... need to be taken in their figurative and metaphorical sense’) and resorting to vagaries (such as ‘if you are willing to go beyond the literal’) when it suits you to do so is such a shallow way to ‘delve deeper’ that I will say nothing further than what I have said already: Despite all the rhetoric peace on earth is not on the enlightenment agenda.
RICHARD: This is the location of the ‘veritable paradise’ I am talking of: [Richard]: ‘The world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. Whilst this is the dimension of the ‘Amata’ Mr. Gotama the Sakyan is talking of: [quote]: ‘There is that dimension where there is neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind; (...) neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. (Udana 8.1; PTS: viii.1; Nibbana Sutta). The goal of Buddhism is to find/attain the ‘Deathless’ (‘amata’) ... an after-death realm that has nothing to do with the physical whatsoever: ‘neither earth, nor water, nor fire, nor wind’ (no physical world); ‘neither this world nor the next world’ (no more reincarnation); ‘neither earth, nor moon, nor sun’ (no solar system). RESPONDENT: Richard, if I may very humbly suggest: read what you yourself copy very, very carefully and read between the lines. The depth and significance of what is quoted above is astonishing, which you are missing out due to your too literal a reading and issue that you seem to have taken with the Buddhist position on reincarnation. Life of most people, as I wrote to you earlier, is a life steeped in Maya. This Maya is taken by people to be as real as the Earth, the Moon, the Stars (i.e., the physical world). For example, people cling as much to an image as to a physical object; to the memory of a dead child as to physically present child. Buddha is trying to convey to his audience the illusory character of Maya through a very powerful metaphor, viz. ‘... neither this world, nor the next world, nor sun, nor moon. And there, I say, there is neither coming, nor going, nor stasis; neither passing away nor arising: without stance, without foundation, without support. This, just this, is the end of dukkha’. Since the world of Maya, of apparent reality is the world of sorrow, that world, howsoever real it may appear, must end for sorrow to end. When that world of Maya ends, what remains is the Void, the indescribable, the Brahman, the Truth, that which cannot be completely captured in words because words too are steeped in Maya, in everyday duality. I think you have (so far) missed the essence of what Buddha, Sankara, K et al have said and I hope you revisit all the writings that you have carefully preserved with an open mind and open heart and read between the lines. I am sure that thus read, those words will convey something deeply profound to you, as they have to me. RICHARD: Perhaps it would help to summarise what you are advising me to do in these last two posts? Viz.:
And, perhaps, it would help to re-post what you wrote in the very first exchange you and I had a couple of years ago? Viz.:
Then, perhaps, it would be timely to revisit the latest exchange? Viz.:
And so another shining light of the ‘K-List’ bites the dust ... and scurries for cover under the ‘words are not the things’ tergiversation. Oh well ... c’est la vie, I guess.
RICHARD: And so another shining light of the ‘K-List’ bites the dust ... and scurries for cover under the ‘words are not the things’ tergiversation. RESPONDENT: Not in the very least, dear Richard. I have tried explaining as clearly as possible the alternative interpretation of what K, Buddha, and Sankara have said and which you are treating too literally as something pertaining to the after-life. Here is one more attempt to put across that which cannot be completely described in words (can not be described completely because language is inherently dualistic and what is being said is non-dualistic): The after-life is the life of awakening, when the world as Maya is realized. (Here is an example of inherent duality of language: who realizes the world as Maya? This question cannot be answered fully because if all is Maya, what is the actuality of the one who realizes? Of course a simplistic answer is ‘this body realizes/experiences/etc.’ ... the Omega of your investigation, which to K, Buddha, and Sankara was the Alpha of their investigation ... ‘who am I?’). So the question is not about materialism, spiritualism, idealism, etc., but a more fundamental question: why do human beings suffer? Why is there dukkha? The journey in to a quest for an answer to that question takes people like K, S, and B inwardly: ‘who is the entity that suffers?’ And all three come to the same conclusion: it is the ego, the aham-bhav (sense of ‘I’), that suffers. But the ego is an illusion, it is Maya. Yesterday I gave you an example of the strong propensity of the human beings to take Maya for real: a person clings to the image of a dead child as much as to a flesh and bone child. Due to this strong tendency to make the illusory appear so real, the life of ego is taken to be real. Here is another example: the line that divides India and Pakistan is but an illusion. If you look at the people on the two sides of that illusionary line, there are no differences (in food, language, culture, etc.). But there is a very substantial wedge between the two people – they are ready to shed real blood for the sake of their identity (as Muslim or Hindu). To two groups of such blood-thirsty people, K, B, or S would ask this question: who or what is the entity that is ready to kill? They know well that they are the flesh-and-blood bodies and therefore they are willing to destroy other flesh-and-blood bodies, but if they pause and ask the question that K, B, and S are asking, they would realize that their identity is an illusion (you use different terms – i.e., affective faculties to convey the same idea – K, B, or S would ask further: who or what is that gets affected?). Anyway, to cut a long story short, you are reading K, B, or S extremely narrowly. And I do not agree for a second that what K, B, or S talked about is not concerned with world peace, because it is. It is only when people realize the nature of their egos as Maya will they not fight for it. Hope this conveys – as clearly as is possible – what I tried conveying. RICHARD: You convey it well enough – just as you did in your other posts – and I am already familiar with what you are referring to anyway. Look, I have scoured many and varied writings of many and various saints, sages and seers for twenty-odd years looking for anything at all that relates to my experience ... but to no avail. I have indeed listened to them without taking them literally and I have indeed read between their lines: I have moved into and accessed their allusions; I have moved into and ambled amongst their allegories; I have moved into and fancied their fables; I have moved into and moseyed through their metaphors; I have moved into and meandered amid their musings; I have moved into and sauntered among their similes; I have moved into and strolled around their suggestions; I have moved into and roamed throughout their references; I have moved into and perambulated along their parables; I have moved into and rambled through their rants; I have moved into and promenaded their poesy; I have moved into and traversed their teachings; I have moved into and pondered their profundities ... I have travelled and journeyed and voyaged through all manner of intimations, indications, inklings and insinuations. But most important of all I lived the enlightened state, night and day, for eleven years ... thus I know it intimately, from the inside, a first-hand experiencing. However, since you have persisted in attempting to convey to me that the saints, sages and seers are concerned with ‘world peace’ I would point you towards something to contemplate from your previous post. When you said that ‘Maya is taken by people to be as real as the Earth, the Moon, the Stars (i.e., the physical world)’ you were, apparently, completely oblivious to or ignoring one important detail ... in ‘Maya’, the earth, the moon, the stars (the physical world) are all ‘Maya’ also. Over to you.
RICHARD: I have scoured many and varied writings of many and various saints, sages and seers for twenty-odd years looking for anything at all that relates to my experience ... but to no avail. I have indeed listened to them without taking them literally and I have indeed read between their lines: I have moved into and accessed their allusions; I have moved into and ambled amongst their allegories; I have moved into and fancied their fables; I have moved into and moseyed through their metaphors; I have moved into and meandered amid their musings; I have moved into and sauntered among their similes; I have moved into and strolled around their suggestions; I have moved into and roamed throughout their references; I have moved into and perambulated along their parables; I have moved into and rambled through their rants; I have moved into and promenaded their poesy; I have moved into and traversed their teachings; I have moved into and pondered their profundities ... I have travelled and journeyed and voyaged through all manner of intimations, indications, inklings and insinuations. But most important of all I lived the enlightened state, night and day, for eleven years ... thus I know it intimately, from the inside, a first-hand experiencing. However, since you have persisted in attempting to convey to me that the saints, sages and seers are concerned with ‘world peace’ I would point you towards something to contemplate from your previous post. When you said that ‘Maya is taken by people to be as real as the Earth, the Moon, the Stars (i.e., the physical world)’ you were, apparently, completely oblivious to or ignoring one important detail ... in ‘Maya’, the earth, the moon, the stars (the physical world) are all ‘Maya’ also. RESPONDENT: Agreed. And that takes us back to what I said earlier: there is no resolution (of what is real and what is not). RICHARD: It is indeed is a closed-circle looping that the many and various saints, sages and seers propose. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing. In fact, I like your posts and appreciate your thoroughness. The main issue, it appears, is what does one go by? RICHARD: The pure consciousness experience (PCE), of course ... in concert with examining and scrutinising all aspects of the experience, and the implications and ramifications thereof, with rational (practical, sensible, down-to-earth, matter of fact) thought, drawing upon all the accumulated experience and knowledge that sets the human animal apart from the other animals, so as to intelligently verify whether one is befooling oneself or not. RESPONDENT: K, B, and S addressed this issue, as I said earlier, by referring to suffering or Dukkha of the human beings: suffering = life of illusion. RICHARD: I have made it very clear that I agree with the diagnosis ‘suffering=life of illusion’ ... the ‘real world’, which perhaps 6.0 billion human beings live in, is indeed an illusion. ‘Tis in the area of various unexamined assumptions made, plus both the prognosis and the remedy offered, where I diverge radically. RESPONDENT: I am not doubting in the least your own experiences with enlightenment and beyond. All that I am saying is that based upon my own very limited experiences and understanding, what K, B, and S are saying appears to be true. Since your own experience points in a direction opposite to mine, I think we need to agree to disagree. RICHARD: Why do we ‘need to agree to disagree’? This e-mail comes at the end of eleven e-mails wherein I provided more than a few experienceable instances (backed by rational discussion) which clearly demonstrate that the physical-world exists in its own right ... and I specifically provided an example whereby the actual world can be ascertained prior to the ‘real world’ obscuring it as per normal human experience. Your ‘we need to agree to disagree’ smacks of being a cop-out (a rejection of experiential observation and rationality) and a witless embracement of heritage. For example, nowhere in this post do you address the implications and ramifications of the issue I raised in the previous post: in the ‘Maya’ prognosis, the earth, the moon, the stars (the physical world) remain ‘Maya’ after awakening. Or, as I have previously written to you:
Hence my statement that peace on earth is not on the enlightenment agenda ... not for nothing do many and various saints, sages and seers say words to the effect ‘I am not the body’. Furthermore, I would draw your attention to the following exchange:
You may or may not recall it ... it was in an exchange of e-mails wherein you wrote advising my co-respondent to print-out what Richard was saying and read it and re-read it until he understood what Richard was saying. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean that I haven’t learnt something useful from interacting with you, as I have, and I thank you for it. RICHARD: Hmm ... just what is it that you have learnt?
RICHARD: Since you have persisted in attempting to convey to me that the saints, sages and seers are concerned with ‘world peace’ I would point you towards something to contemplate from your previous post. When you said that ‘Maya is taken by people to be as real as the Earth, the Moon, the Stars (i.e., the physical world)’ you were, apparently, completely oblivious to or ignoring one important detail ... in ‘Maya’, the earth, the moon, the stars (the physical world) are all ‘Maya’ also. RESPONDENT: Agreed. And that takes us back to what I said earlier: there is no resolution (of what is real and what is not). RICHARD: It is indeed is a closed-circle looping that the many and various saints, sages and seers propose. RESPONDENT: I am not trying to argue with you for the sake of arguing. In fact, I like your posts and appreciate your thoroughness. The main issue, it appears, is what does one go by? RICHARD: The pure consciousness experience (PCE), of course ... in concert with examining and scrutinising all aspects of the experience, and the implications and ramifications thereof, with rational (practical, sensible, down-to-earth, matter of fact) thought, drawing upon all the accumulated experience and knowledge that sets the human animal apart from the other animals, so as to intelligently verify whether one is befooling oneself or not. RESPONDENT: Closed circuit looping cannot be avoided here also: to whom does the PCE happen? (You would say: the body). RICHARD: No, I most definitely would not say that ‘whom’ the PCE happens to is the body as the body is what (note ‘what’) the PCE ‘happens to’ (although, rather, happens as a bodily experiencing) ... and I am not nit-picking words here because this is a fundamental point in comprehending why there is no ‘closed circuit looping’ in what I report. I emphasise this because we are having a rational (a practical, sensible, down-to-earth, matter of fact) discussion, are we not? RESPONDENT: But that takes us right back to the old question: does the body exist as an absolute independent entity? Not much point in repeating the old arguments, I guess. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that there has to be some independent ‘Absolute’ against which change is perceived. In you scheme it is the ‘body’ and ‘PCE’, for Buddha it was Void, for Sankara, Brahman, for K, ‘otherness’. RICHARD: No, ‘the body and ‘PCE’’ are not some ‘independent ‘Absolute’ against which change is perceived’ ... what is absolute (as in beginningless, endless, unchanging, permanent and not relative) is this very moment ... there always has been, already is, and always will be, nothing other than this moment eternally happening. And, perhaps, it may be helpful to see this moment in eternal time as being the ‘arena’ in which people, things and events occur (change) or happen? I am meaning this simile in the same way that, just as this verdant and azure planet is a ‘playground’ hanging (or floating) in infinite space, so to is this moment ‘hanging’ or ‘floating’ (or whatever analogy) in eternal time. * RESPONDENT: K, B, and S addressed this issue, as I said earlier, by referring to suffering or Dukkha of the human beings: suffering = life of illusion. RICHARD: I have made it very clear that I agree with the diagnosis ‘suffering=life of illusion’ ... the ‘real world’, which perhaps 6.0 billion human beings live in, is indeed an illusion. ‘Tis in the area of various unexamined assumptions made, plus both the prognosis and the remedy offered, where I diverge radically. RESPONDENT: And I am saying that what you think is radically divergent, in my opinion, isn’t all that different from what has been said by others. I think we went over this point also a lot, so no point, in my opinion, in going through another iteration. RICHARD: Okay ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done. * RESPONDENT: I am not doubting in the least your own experiences with enlightenment and beyond. All that I am saying is that based upon my own very limited experiences and understanding, what K, B, and S are saying appears to be true. Since your own experience points in a direction opposite to mine, I think we need to agree to disagree. RICHARD: Why do we ‘need to agree to disagree’? RESPONDENT: For the reasons cited above (and that cited previously – your and mine experiences point in different directions). RICHARD: If I may illustrate, by juxtaposition, something rather obvious you may have inadvertently overlooked? Viz.:
But, as I said (above) ... it is your life you are living, when all is said and done. * RICHARD: This e-mail comes at the end of eleven e-mails wherein I provided more than a few experienceable instances (backed by rational discussion) which clearly demonstrate that the physical-world exists in its own right ... and I specifically provided an example whereby the actual world can be ascertained prior to the ‘real world’ obscuring it as per normal human experience. Your ‘we need to agree to disagree’ smacks of being a cop-out (a rejection of experiential observation and rationality) and a witless embracement of heritage. For example, nowhere in this post do you address the implications and ramifications of the issue I raised in the previous post: in the ‘Maya’ prognosis, the earth, the moon, the stars (the physical world) remain ‘Maya’ after awakening. Or, as I have previously written to you: <snip> Hence my statement that peace on earth is not on the enlightenment agenda ... not for nothing do many and various saints, sages and seers say words to the effect ‘I am not the body’. Furthermore, I would draw your attention to the following exchange: <snip> You may or may not recall it ... it was in an exchange of e-mails wherein you wrote advising my co-respondent to print-out what Richard was saying and read it and re-read it until he understood what Richard was saying. Viz.: <snip> RESPONDENT: As I said in the last post also, I have no way to doubt or refute your experience. RICHARD: Hmm ... what about the judicious application of reason (rational, practical, sensible thought) just for starters? RESPONDENT: Furthermore, I think that what you write seems to be well thought of and thorough. That still doesn’t imply that I have to agree with what you are saying. RICHARD: But I am not asking that of you ... I am asking why you wash your hands of the whole discussion (‘we need to agree to disagree’) by dumping it into the too-hard basket for (as yet) unexamined and (ultimately spurious) reasons. RESPONDENT: And on the issue of (apparent) dichotomy between what I wrote in the past and what I write presently, allow me to quote Gandhi: ‘If you find a contradiction between what I say now and what I said earlier, if you trust my sanity, please accept what I say now.’ RICHARD: Humph. * RESPONDENT: That doesn’t mean that I haven’t learnt something useful from interacting with you, as I have, and I thank you for it. RICHARD: Hmm ... just what is it that you have learnt? RESPONDENT: That what K, B, and S said about suffering being caused by illusion appears to be true, and though you may believe that what you found is radically different from what the three of them did, I do not think that you are saying anything much different. RICHARD: So, after 61 e-mails of discussion, totalling 67,992 words on 107 pages of text (or 67,992
words in 1,706 paragraphs), what you have learnt, for which you thank me, is that ‘what K, B, and S said about suffering
being caused by illusion appears to be true’ and that, furthermore, what I ‘believe’ that I have found to be
radically different Well, well, well ... it is just as well that gratitude flows off me like water off a duck’s back.
RESPONDENT: What a day, this one! Upon reading an honest reporting of why yours truly posts on the forum, one shining light of listening-l became physically ill and withdrew from the discussion in the interest of her health; another master poster went in to a posting frenzy in his ludicrous effort to demonstrate inappropriateness of frenzied posting, shot himself in the foot and finally retired; and a third one stretched and twisted the simple conversation that yours truly had with Krishnamurti to suit his stretched and twisted fancy. – I have heard it said that truth liberates, but hardly knew that it does all that too that yours truly happened to witness here on this forum this morning. :-). RICHARD: Yes, but the ... um ... the mistake you made was to report something that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said to ‘those of us who were part of the Schools/Foundations due to a serious interest in his teachings’. To wit:
Perhaps the following quotes may be of assistance:
And:
And:
And:
And:
RESPONDENT: Thanks for providing the quotes. I do not understand what you are trying to say through quotes and emphasis therein. So, please explain. Regarding my post: ‘those of us who were part of the Schools/Foundations due to a serious interest in his teachings’ I have this to say: Rishi Valley had two types of teachers: career teachers, who joined the school as a profession, and others who joined the school out of their interest in K (I was a banker, there were a few engineers, a few Physicists, a mathematician, etc.). The meeting that K had was not with all the teachers, but with those of us who joined the school because of out interest in his teachings. He used to have other meetings where the entire faculty would be invited. Hope this explains my earlier post. Look forward to hearing from you about your posting of quotes and emphasis therein. RICHARD: I was not ‘trying to say’ anything ‘through the quotes and the emphasis therein’ because Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words speak for themselves ... all I did was emphasise the parts which were in accord with your paragraph. Viz.:
However, I will now try to say something ... using but two of the quotes:
Do you see that you have to ‘want to become the very goal’ ... and what is that ‘very goal’? Viz.:
If you had indeed ‘drank at the source’ you would not be asking me what I am ‘trying to say’ as you would already be the living truth/god/life. Now do you comprehend what it is to be ‘the message’ (‘Sir, you are the message’)?
RICHARD: Not only ‘utter stillness of the mind’ ... utter stillness of the heart, as well. To paraphrase: not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the word ‘worried’ or as in the word ‘love’ above). In other words: it is impossible to actually care unless one is carefree. RESPONDENT No. 19: That just may be a catchy phrase to attract adherence to ‘actualism.’ RICHARD: No ... I mean what I say and I say what I mean: how on earth can you actually care unless you be free of cares yourself? Otherwise it is but the blind leading the blind. RESPONDENT: I carefully read what you wrote and thought a good deal about it. For example, the following: ‘Not at all ... I mean what I say and I say what I mean. Here it is again (slightly amended): not only ‘as long as there is one word, one idea, one thought disturbing the mind’ ... but as long as there is one feeling, one emotion, one passion disturbing the heart (as in the phrase ‘love is pure feeling’ above)’. My question: someone like Mother Theresa (reportedly) had a lot of passion for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate. She (apparently) spent a lot of time caring for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate. Do you think she really, deep down, cared for the poor, the downtrodden, and the unfortunate? RICHARD: Of course ... anyone who ‘really, deep down’ has ‘a lot of passion for the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’ most certainly ‘really, deep down, cares for the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’. There are people (and their organisations) all over the world who have ‘a lot of passion for the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’ who ‘really, deep down, care for the poor, the downtrodden, the unfortunate’ and not just the particular person (and their organisation) which you mention. Many, many material benefits (improved living conditions, access to education, improved health through hygiene and medicines, many and various welfare measures to alleviate crippling poverty and disease and so on) are the direct result of this passionate caring by many passionate peoples. None of them can actually care, though because they are not carefree. Hence all the misery and mayhem goes on – despite their well-meant passionate efforts – which means that a new generation of passionately caring peoples will emerge to carry on the good works in order to patch-up the bleeding wound that is the human condition in action. And so down through the centuries will it go on ... and on and on.
RESPONDENT No. 40: But to Richard creativity is suspect. RESPONDENT: Not only to Richard, but to Krishnamurti also creativity is suspect. (SNIPPED FOR SPACE) RESPONDENT No. 00: Do not put creativity – which defies linear thought – into a box with a b and c, and tell us what it is, and ESPECIALLY do not tell us in what ways it is valuable and in what ways it is not! Creativity is a *gift* from the Deities, and to blaspheme it such as you have below goes beyond superficial and trite, it is just plain total ignorance which is glaringly obvious! (SNIPPED FOR SPACE) RESPONDENT: If creativity is really sacred, how do you explain meanness, the greed, the deceit, the entire nine yard of the human condition, that exists in artists? I look forward to getting a straight forward answer. RESPONDENT No. 00: ... I was just kidding around! (fie fi fo fum!). All I really meant to say was that you took a superb and well thought out essay from No. 40 and dashed it into little pieces, which I find singularly uncreative of you! LOL! P.S.: (Good work, No. 40!). RESPONDENT: Thanks for the clarification. In my humble opinion, there was nothing ‘superb’ (in the sense of ‘deeply true’) in what dear friend No. 40 wrote. RICHARD: It may be of relevance to provide you with the information that, although I had many jobs in my life, my main career was as a practising artist (plus I am educated and qualified on the tertiary level to be an art teacher in private schools). Although I worked mainly in ceramics I also painted, drew and sculpted, and enough people were enamoured of the creativity and beauty they saw in my work to enable me to support myself, my wife, four children, pay off a mortgage, meet hire purchase commitments and so on and so on. Thus I am experientially well-versed in all aspects of art, and the art-world in general, as well as having had formal training. Also, I had an e-mail exchange, with the person writing to this Mailing List under the name ‘No. 40’, about many aspects of all that was involved in art and being an artist (back in the days when I considered it was somehow useful to be responding to their fabrications that is) and I can assure you that the entire dissertation you replied to has no relationship with anything I did as an artist, anything I said in any discussions, or anything implied in any observations I have made in general about art ... and it is, of course, a carefully concocted crock from beginning to end (drawing heavily upon various publicly available analyses of Mr. Sigmund Freud). I have no interest in entering to this contrived debate ... I have only written so as to provide some factual background details so any further discussion be grounded in, at the very least, some semblance of substance.
RICHARD: It may be of relevance to provide you with the information that, although I had many jobs in my life, my main career was as a practising artist (plus I am educated and qualified on the tertiary level to be an art teacher in private schools). Although I worked mainly in ceramics I also painted, drew and sculpted, and enough people were enamoured of the creativity and beauty they saw in my work to enable me to support myself, my wife, four children, pay off a mortgage, meet hire purchase commitments and so on and so on. Thus I am experientially well-versed in all aspects of art, and the art-world in general, as well as having had formal training. RESPONDENT: Thanks for the clarification, Richard. I wrote my thoughts on creativity yesterday and I stand by them today. RICHARD: Yes, despite my reservations about being further involved in the discussion, I read what you wrote ... I was particularly taken by the following:
You describe the creative artist that ‘I’ was remarkably well in these two paragraphs.
RICHARD: ... there is no fear here in this actual world. It does not exist here; it never has existed here; it never will exist here. RESPONDENT: As you yourself wrote that you went through all the human condition at one time, statement that ‘it (fear) never has existed here’ doesn’t appear to be a 100% accurate. Any comments/clarifications? RICHARD: It was the ‘I’/‘me’ who was parasitically inhabiting this body that ‘went through all the human condition at one time’ and not me (I use the first person pronoun to refer to this flesh and blood body sans ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul). Fear exists only in the ‘inner world’ ... and the ‘inner world’ is pasted over the actual world as a veneer thus creating an ‘outer world’. Which is why I always draw a distinction between the ‘real world’ (the ‘outer world’ for maybe 6.0 billion peoples) and this actual world. This is because there is no ‘inner world’ and ‘outer world’ in actuality ... there has only ever been this actual world all along (hence my statement regarding fear: it does not exist here; it never has existed here; it never will exist here). I have been here in this actual world for 54 years – as is every other body – it was just that there was this loudmouth who had taken up residence such that I could barely get a word in edgeways ... except in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Put simply: peace-on-earth is already always just here right now ... for the flesh and blood body.
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Seven) 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 |
