|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 33
RICHARD: The end of No. 27’s confusion [as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’
were:] RESPONDENT: I admire your optimism. RICHARD: Good. Because optimism
RESPONDENT: I admire your optimism. RICHARD: Good. Because optimism RESPONDENT: Thanks for the clarification, dear Richard. My ‘admiration for your optimism’ was a tongue-in-cheek comment, tongue-in-cheek as used in the sense of irony/ whimsical exaggeration. RICHARD: But where was the need for ‘a tongue-in-cheek comment, tongue-in-cheek as used in the sense of irony/ whimsical exaggeration’ about the dissolution of No. 27’s confusion? The solution was simple. No. 27 had been questioning what the core of the ‘Teachings’ were and there was, apparently, some confusion about the issue; No. 10 is a staunch advocate of solving confusion by increasing it (or throwing words in the air); No. 19 endorsed No. 10’s solution (and subsequently left the list); No. 04 proposed that that if confusion is present then that is the ‘truth’ (and promptly said he was confused); No. 27 then either decided to be confused or became confused (and suggested cutting ‘Truth is’ off the ‘Truth is a pathless land’ statement) ... so I provided a radio-link URL to the very words, from the horse’s mouth as it were, that would end the confusion, as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ were, once and for all. Viz.:
As you responded to my post by saying ‘I admire your optimism’ – which apparently now means (in effect) ‘your optimism sucks’ – I recommended the emulation of such an admirable quality that optimism is (as per the specific definitions I provided). May I ask? Are you a pessimist, perchance ... or just a cynic?
RICHARD: But where was the need for ‘a tongue-in-cheek comment, tongue-in-cheek as used in the sense of irony/ whimsical exaggeration’ about the dissolution of No. 27’s confusion? The solution was simple. RESPONDENT: I felt a need for the tongue-in-cheek comment because having interacted with No. 27 over years I had a feeling that he was not going to accept the fact that indeed Krishnamurti had a ‘core’ message. RICHARD: Yet acceptance or rejection of a fact does not alter the fact one iota ... a fact just sits there making anyone’s acceptance or rejection look silly. Living with a fact is another thing entirely. * RICHARD: No. 27 had been questioning what the core of the ‘Teachings’ were and there was, apparently, some confusion about the issue; No. 10 is a staunch advocate of solving confusion by increasing it (or throwing words in the air); No. 19 endorsed No. 10’s solution (and subsequently left the list); No. 04 proposed that that if confusion is present then that is the ‘truth’ (and promptly said he was confused); No. 27 then either decided to be confused or became confused (and suggested cutting ‘Truth is’ off the ‘Truth is a pathless land’ statement) ... so I provided a radio-link URL to the very words, from the horse’s mouth as it were, that would end the confusion, as to what the core of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ were, once and for all. Viz.: [quote]: ‘The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ‘Truth is a pathless land’. (written by J. Krishnamurti, October 21, 1980, for ‘Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment’ by Mary Lutyens, the second volume of his biography). As you responded to my post by saying ‘I admire your optimism’ – which apparently now means (in effect) ‘your optimism sucks’ – I recommended the emulation of such an admirable quality that optimism is (as per the specific definitions I provided). RESPONDENT: The comment ‘I admire your optimism’ was not aimed at you but at No. 27 – you provided the right evidence, but knowing No. 27, I have a feeling that he is not going to see the evidence. Hence the comment. RICHARD: A fact can be overlooked, glossed-over, ignored, dismissed, argued about ... but a fact cannot argued with. * RICHARD: May I ask? Are you a pessimist, perchance ... or just a cynic? RESPONDENT: In general I am an optimist, in the sense that I believe that it is within my control to improve my situation and that things (for me) will generally get better rather than get worse. RICHARD: Good ... that is a clear-enough description. What about the specific definition I provided (further below) ... ‘being the best’ rather than your ‘generally getting better’? RESPONDENT: When it comes to people on this list understanding what Krishnamurti was trying to say, I am quite frustrated. RICHARD: Okay ... harking back to pessimism and/or cynicism, then: would it then be a fair question to ask whether you are pessimistic and/or cynical (or any other, perhaps more accurate, description of your attitude) about the outcome of what you post to this list? And bear in mind that I am asking this of an optimist in regards their own life. RESPONDENT: Most people posting here, in my opinion, do not have a basic understanding of what he said. To make matters worse, they think that they know what K was trying to say and have near zero humility to learn something new and different and/or unlearn what they erroneously believe to be Krishnamurti’s teachings. RICHARD: Even if it were to be true, any or all of this what you say here, how could it ever affect optimism (as per the specific definition I provided) such as to bring about frustration? If something is worth doing it is worth doing for its own sake and thus has its own intrinsic – and immediate – reward (complete and with no strings attached) ... what others do with it is their business. There are 6.0 billion other people ... is it not ‘within [your] control’ to not have other people’s responses rule your life?
RESPONDENT No. 12: Love is impersonal, it is when the self is not. RICHARD: Is it ‘directly seen’ by this timeless mind what the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ is that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? What is intelligent about arising in such an insalubrious manner? RESPONDENT No. 12: There is the human belief that a self exists separately in time that observes the world, the body, the thoughts, etc. From the centre established by brain activity as observer, another kind of attention with qualities that are impersonal is glimpsed. It is then imagined that this attention and these attributes are those of a ‘higher’ separate entity or supreme being separate from man. In essence, man creates god in his own image. If there is no self-image, there is no god-image either. What is occurring in terms of brain activity may be confused or may be the operation of intelligence in the limited field of the human organism. Now what is it that you are asking? RICHARD: Just three straightforward questions: 1. What is it that occasions matter (all time and all space and all form) to arise from ‘the ground or energetic source’ anyway? 2. What is the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? 3. As there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘ground or energetic source’ is arising the way it currently is ... does it not make mockery of the very meaning of what the word ‘intelligence’ stands for? RESPONDENT: There is cruelty in the world because people are ignorant. They haven’t yet realized compassion or truth within themselves. I.e., they are given to their base nature and haven’t risen above it. It requires monumental effort to rise above one’s base nature, and most people are not up to the task. Reading Krishnamurti becomes an excuse for not putting in the required effort as choiceless warriors conveniently conclude that no effort is required. RICHARD: I cannot see how you have addressed the fundamental question about a supposedly intelligent non-material
source ... and, curiously enough, I have touched upon this subject with you before
Unless, of course, the ‘truth’ is not intelligent after all? * RICHARD: Basically, as it is you that is adding an extra element to life by asserting that life arises from ‘the ground or energetic source’, and not me, I am asking you to explicate the ramifications of what is implicit in such an addition. RESPONDENT: Positing the ‘the ground or energetic source’ is one of the many ways of avoiding to look directly in to one’s own nature and rising above it. RICHARD: And in what way does positing the ‘truth’ (and specifically as needing to be ‘realised’) differ from positing ‘the ground or energetic source’ ... other than being different nomenclature?
RICHARD: ... I have discovered something that no other human being has discovered thus far in human history (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body). RESPONDENT No. 34: Is that so? Are you really the first and only one ... so far? RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: The world population, as of now, is six billion strong. No one can meet/know all the people in the world. RICHARD: Indeed not. RESPONDENT: Hence your claim that you are ‘the only one’ can not be true. RICHARD: Where is this person/where are these people, then? If you could provide names and addresses or book titles or URL’s ... or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever it is that you are cognisant of I would be most pleased. I have scoured the books for twenty years ... to no avail. RESPONDENT: Why did you make that claim? RICHARD: By default, of course, until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... surely you are not suggesting that one is to make a door-to-door survey of every man, woman and child alive today? ‘Tis a physical impossibility.
RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples ... so as to compare notes, as it were. RESPONDENT: The world population, as of now, is six billion strong. No one can meet/know all the people in the world. RICHARD: Indeed not. RESPONDENT: Hence your claim that you are ‘the only one’ can not be true. RICHARD: Where is this person/where are these people, then? RESPONDENT: What is the point of this question? Can you be more specific? Thanks. RICHARD: Sure ... if you could provide names and addresses or book titles or URL’s or refer me to the relevant magazine articles, newspaper reports, manuscripts, pamphlets, brochures or whatever it is that you are cognisant of – which would demonstrate that I am not the only person thus far in history to be actually free of the human condition – I would be most pleased. Because I have talked with many and varied a person and scoured the various media for twenty years ... to no avail. * RESPONDENT: Why did you make that claim? RICHARD: By default, of course, until evidence to the contrary shows otherwise ... surely you are not suggesting that one is to make a door-to-door survey of every man, woman and child alive today? ‘Tis a physical impossibility. RESPONDENT: Well, it is incorrect to say, in my opinion, ‘I have discovered something that no other human being has discovered thus far in human history (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body)’ unless you define your discovery as unique to your own flesh-and-blood body. So, if you mean imply that there is only one Richard who ever existed and what he experienced is unique to him, I have no further questions or objections to what you wrote. RICHARD: It would appear then that you are going to have ‘further questions or objections’ because I am not defining it as something so trite as you are making it out to be (something peculiar to the particular configuration which constitutes this ‘flesh-and-blood body’ alone). It is now possible for anybody and everybody to be free of the human condition ... anybody that sincerely wants to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, that is, so as to ensure that the ‘Savage Ages’ will pass into the dust-bin of history as did the ‘Dark Ages’. I am only currently ‘unique’ in this respect.
RESPONDENT: ... it is incorrect to say, in my opinion, ‘I have discovered something that no other human being has discovered thus far in human history (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body)’ unless you define your discovery as unique to your own flesh-and-blood body. So, if you mean imply that there is only one Richard who ever existed and what he experienced is unique to him, I have no further questions or objections to what you wrote. RICHARD: It would appear then that you are going to have ‘further questions or objections’ because I am not defining it as something so trite as you are making it out to be (something peculiar to the particular configuration which constitutes this ‘flesh-and-blood body’ alone). It is now possible for anybody and everybody to be free of the human condition ... anybody that sincerely wants to live in the already always existing peace-on-earth, that is, so as to ensure that the ‘Savage Ages’ will pass into the dust-bin of history as did the ‘Dark Ages’. I am only currently ‘unique’ in this respect. RESPONDENT: Well, if you are not talking about the unique DNA that Richard is, you have some explaining to do. You know the question: how do you know that you are the ‘only one’? So, please explain. RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. Thus with all the resources available to me I have both researched the subject and continue to research the subject (the internet has a global reach) and until there is evidence to the contrary I am indeed the only person thus far in human history to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth ... and I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples (so as to compare notes, as it were). Somebody has to be the first to discover anything in any field of human endeavour ... why is this so difficult to comprehend?
RESPONDENT: ... if you are not talking about the unique DNA that Richard is, you have some explaining to do. You know the question: how do you know that you are the ‘only one’? So, please explain. RICHARD: I have travelled the country – and overseas – talking with many and varied peoples from all walks of life; I have been watching TV, videos, films, whatever media is available; I have been reading about other people’s experiences in books, journals, magazines, newspapers (and latterly on the internet) for twenty years now, for information on an actual freedom from the human condition, but to no avail. Thus with all the resources available to me I have both researched the subject and continue to research the subject (the internet has a global reach) and until there is evidence to the contrary I am indeed the only person thus far in human history to be living in the already always existing peace-on-earth ... and I would be delighted to hear about/meet such a person or such peoples (so as to compare notes, as it were). Somebody has to be the first to discover anything in any field of human endeavour ... why is this so difficult to comprehend? RESPONDENT: The difficulty is not what you think it to be (my failure to comprehend that some one has to be the first). RICHARD: Am I to take it, then, that you do understand that somebody, somewhere, is always going to be the first – and therefore the only person thus far in human history – to discover something new to human experience in any field? RESPONDENT: My objection is to your claim that you are the only one. RICHARD: So I gather ... what I am wondering is why this should be such an issue for you. RESPONDENT: However much you may have researched/travelled/etc., you can’t claim that you are the only one to have discovered what you discovered, for the simple reason that you explored only a miniscule number of people despite all the global communication medium at your disposal. RICHARD: I did ask if you were suggesting that a pioneer needs must do a door-to-door survey of every man woman and child alive today on the planet ... and as you did not respond I could only take it that you were not setting that requirement as the only acceptable verification. However, as you now raise it again (‘you explored only a miniscule number of people’) I will take this opportunity to point out that such a course of action is a physical impossibility. RESPONDENT: The only claim that you can reasonably make is that you have discovered something that appears to be unique (based on your research/travel/etc.). RICHARD: I did say that until there was an example, or examples, to the contrary then there is indeed no other person thus far ... is this not me allowing the possibility that there be such a person or persons (if this is the qualification you are looking for that is)? RESPONDENT: To claim that you are the only one is, in my opinion, to commit a logical faux pas. RICHARD: I am no logician – and I am no great fan of logic anyway – but you may very well be the one that is erring as there is such a thing as knowledge by extension: one cannot know (nor need not know) by face-to-face interaction with every single person, thing or event in order to know, for just one example, what and where the highest mountain in the world is. To have to personally verify every single person, thing or event in order to satisfy the demands of your logical conclusion only serves to show the limiting strait-jacket that such an abstract logic is. Although there are still some adherents to Mr. Karl Popper’s conceptual logic, that nothing can ever be known for sure, his theories have, by and large, been refuted and discarded by more than a few peoples many years ago (logically it can never be proved that a One-Eyed One-Horned Flying Purple People Eater does not exist, for example). Yet it is entirely reasonable to acknowledge that there is a limit to the rarefied demands of such theoretical logic. An academic theorist says ‘is it a logical proposition’ ... whereas a field engineer says ‘does it work in practice’.
RESPONDENT No. 12: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ... there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: So, what happened in the land from where compassion (supposedly) originated? RICHARD: What happened was the first-hand experience of the end result of thousands of years of love, compassion, intelligence and truth being touted by all the many and various saints, sages and seers ... of it being spoon-fed into the newest recruits to the human race from birth, even (or imbibed with the mother’s milk as it were) and not come at latterly via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. ‘Twas a sobering seeing ... they were as mad and as bad and as sad as the rest of the globe.
RESPONDENT No. 12: ... Now what is it that you are asking? RICHARD: Just three straightforward questions: 1. What is it that occasions matter (all time and all space and all form) to arise from ‘the ground or energetic source’ anyway? 2. What is the nature of ‘the ground or energetic source’ that it be arising maliciously and sorrowfully (thus requiring an after-the-event impersonal love and compassion) ... rather than arising happily and harmlessly (sans self in its totality) in the first place? 3. As there are a lot of tangible (and you assert that ‘the tangible is the intangible’) wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on happening because this ‘ground or energetic source’ is arising the way it currently is ... does it not make mockery of the very meaning of what the word ‘intelligence’ stands for? RESPONDENT: There is cruelty in the world because people are ignorant. They haven’t yet realized compassion or truth within themselves. I.e., they are given to their base nature and haven’t risen above it. It requires monumental effort to rise above one’s base nature, and most people are not up to the task. Reading Krishnamurti becomes an excuse for not putting in the required effort as choiceless warriors conveniently conclude that no effort is required. RICHARD: I cannot see how you have addressed the fundamental question about a supposedly intelligent non-material source ... and, curiously enough, I have touched upon this subject with you before. I could phrase it thisaway: 1. Why are peoples ‘ignorant’ (and thus cruel) to begin with? 2. Why is it that peoples have to realise ‘compassion or truth’ (rather than being happy and harmless in the first place). 3. Why is it that (a) it requires ‘monumental effort’ ... RESPONDENT: I will answer 1 and 2 together. The way in which the human consciousness has evolved, there are a lot of animal instincts in people, which do not serve any useful purpose. For example, aggression, a lot of which is misguided and is a mere legacy of the human animal past. Instincts are very powerful: whether it be instinct for anger, aggression, possession, child-rearing ... whatever. People act from those instincts, a lot of which are not entirely needed. That is the basis for cruelty. Because these instinctive responses are very deep rooted in the human psyche, they have a very strong hold on people. There are no quick fixes or band aids that will wipe out instincts from the human psyche. Therefore, something equally powerful has to be realized deep down in a person’s guts, in his core, that will change his primal responses. Hence, truth or compassion has to be realized at those very depths at which aggression and other instinctive responses operate. RICHARD: But to elicit the aid of ‘truth or compassion’ (or to be ‘truth or compassion’) is to be eliciting the aid of the arsonist (or to be the arsonist) ... thus the fire is never put out. The enlightened ones really mean it when they say that the lotus has its roots in mud (aka good has its roots in evil). * RICHARD: ... and (b) that most people are ‘not up to the task’ anyway? RESPONDENT: It requires monumental efforts for the reasons mentioned above. Instinctive responses are very deep rooted and are not easy to wipe out. Take a simple example: someone cuts ‘X’ on a highway. The instinctive response of anger and aggression rises instantaneously. Rooting out such responses from your blood, so to speak, is, in my opinion, one of the most arduous tasks. Most people are not up to it because instinctive responses, historically, evolutionary, have been associated with survival. Giving them up is like asking people to give up their means of survival. Something monumental must happen that will help people give up those responses. RICHARD: Aye ... and you may have gathered by now that I am proposing that the ‘something monumental’ is not ‘truth or compassion’. That course of action has been touted by the saints, sages and seers for thousands of years and they say that ‘truth or compassion’ is the very agent that creates/manifests/sustains all time, all space and all matter (which includes the ‘instinctive responses’ of course) in the first place ... hence my comment regarding the arsonist. Something totally new to human history is required if there is to be an end to the ‘instinctive responses’. * RICHARD: Unless, of course, the ‘truth’ is not intelligent after all? RESPONDENT: Truth is intelligent and this how it expresses itself: through these interactions, through people like K and others, through a mailing list like this. For the reasons mentioned above, there is a lot of resistance to truth, but it has its own attractive power as well. RICHARD: This brings me back to my initial query: in what way is it intelligent for ‘truth’ to be creating/manifesting/sustaining all this in the first place?
RESPONDENT No. 12: If ‘you’ are there assessing and evaluating, that is just thought evaluating its own content. RICHARD: There was no ‘me’; there was no assessing; there was no evaluating; there was no content to thought ...
there was only love. For three years, by the calendar, there was only love ... and its compassion poured forth endlessly, unstoppable. Then love
flew to India ... the rest is history. RESPONDENT: So, what happened in the land from where compassion (supposedly) originated? RICHARD: What happened was the first-hand experience of the end result of thousands of years of love, compassion, intelligence and truth being touted by all the many and various saints, sages and seers ... of it being spoon-fed into the newest recruits to the human race from birth, even (or imbibed with the mother’s milk as it were) and not come at latterly via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. ‘Twas a sobering seeing ... they were as mad and as bad and as sad as the rest of the globe. RESPONDENT: How long were you in India? RICHARD: Six months. RESPONDENT: Allow me to add the following from my own experience: I have lived in the US of A for the past ten years, my job brings me in contact with the locals daily, I have an American wife and two American step sons as well as many American friends. Still, I do not understand America fully. RICHARD: Aye ... and you probably never will. Quite possibly no one born and raised in the country will either ... there are too many nuances of differing local cultures and ethnic backgrounds for any one person to understand fully. The same applies to India ... perhaps more so given the enormous cultural diversity which exists on that subcontinent. If you consider you understand India fully you may be well advised to reconsider the extent of your understanding. RESPONDENT: So, what was the depth, the intensity, and the duration of your interaction with India that made you come to the above conclusion? RICHARD: It was of a sufficiency such as to readily see that they were as mad and as bad and as sad as the rest of the globe (which also included yours truly at the time). ‘Twas a sobering seeing. RESPONDENT: Will you consider the possibility that what you concluded might have been based on inadequate contact with and exposure to a foreign land? RICHARD: No ... what was seen was seen with both eyes open: what was seen was the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. Such that there is no need to ever visit any other country.
RESPONDENT: ... what was the depth, the intensity, and the duration of your interaction with India that made you come to the above conclusion? RICHARD: It was of a sufficiency such as to readily see that they were as mad and as bad and as sad as the rest of the globe (which also included yours truly at the time). ‘Twas a sobering seeing. RESPONDENT: Will you consider the possibility that what you concluded might have been based on inadequate contact with and exposure to a foreign land? RICHARD: No ... what was seen was seen with both eyes open: what was seen was the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. Such that there is no need to ever visit any other country. RESPONDENT: So, India could have been any other country ... say, Australia, and the conclusion that you arrived at would have been the same. Right? RICHARD: Yes ... generally speaking, any country will serve the purpose of displaying the human condition in all its sickness. RESPONDENT: Then, why single out India for your awakening or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was where I happened to be at the time that I saw the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. It was in the fifth month of being on the subcontinent ... in a small hamlet, in the foothills of Uttar Pradesh, a thousand feet or so above the town of Almora, near the Nepalese/ Tibetan border, with the local deity was Kasa Devi (feminine). There had been a cumulative build-up of imprints in the months prior, of course. RESPONDENT: Not that I mind it, I am curious. What was different about India that caused your awakening, or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was not an ‘awakening’ (the awakening into love, compassion, intelligence and truth had already occurred three or so years previously) ... it was directly seeing the human condition in action irrespective of any culture or society. What was different about India was that the whole purpose of the visit had been to see, first hand, what others had made of similar awakenings (what is generally called spiritual enlightenment). As such I doubt that it would have occurred so readily in Australia ... given that information regarding such experiences comes to the monotheistic-based Australian culture via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. Whereas India is steeped in the spirituality of the nature such as this Mailing List is predicated upon.
RESPONDENT: Then, why single out India for your awakening or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was where I happened to be at the time that I saw the human condition in action beneath the cultural and/or exoteric and esoteric differences. It was in the fifth month of being on the subcontinent ... in a small hamlet, in the foothills of Uttar Pradesh, a thousand feet or so above the town of Almora, near the Nepalese/ Tibetan border, with the local deity was Kasa Devi (feminine). There had been a cumulative build-up of imprints in the months prior, of course. RESPONDENT: Interesting. That is my ancestral place, right there in the Himalayas. The very cradle of the non-dualistic thought. RICHARD: As ‘non-dualistic thought’ ultimately stems from the Upanishads you must be referring to the sages and seers who were active circa 1000 BCE-600 BCE when you say ‘the very cradle’... are you speaking of the Himalayas in general or specifically the area I visited? The same for ‘my ancestral place’ ... specifically the area I visited or the Himalayas in general? Also ... what do you mean by ‘ancestral’ (traceable via a definitive family tree or vaguely as in lost in the mists of time)? * RESPONDENT: Not that I mind it, I am curious. What was different about India that caused your awakening, or whatever you call it? RICHARD: It was not an ‘awakening’ (the awakening into love, compassion, intelligence and truth had already occurred three or so years previously) ... it was directly seeing the human condition in action irrespective of any culture or society. What was different about India was that the whole purpose of the visit had been to see, first hand, what others had made of similar awakenings (what is generally called spiritual enlightenment). As such I doubt that it would have occurred so readily in Australia ... given that information regarding such experiences comes to the monotheistic-based Australian culture via expatriate saints, sages and seers or books or tapes or mailing lists such as this. Whereas India is steeped in the spirituality of the nature such as this Mailing List is predicated upon. RESPONDENT: The above paragraphs are not clear to me. What are you saying? RICHARD: It cannot put it more succinctly than this: the human condition was seen, in all its sickness, irrespective of any culture or society (any exoteric and esoteric differences). RESPONDENT: You seem to be acknowledging that the spirituality of India helped you realize something. In what way? RICHARD: It was seen that essentially there was no difference in kind (only a difference in degree) between Western spirituality and Eastern spirituality ... and that the many and various saints, sages and seers (which included yours truly at the time) were as mad and as bad and as sad as anyone, anywhere, anytime. RESPONDENT: If the realization is that there is only this body ... RICHARD: There was no realisation ‘there is only this body’ ... it was nothing more and nothing less than a direct seeing as has already been described above. RESPONDENT: ... why would any spiritual tradition, monotheistic or of any other denomination, would be necessary? Please explain your point fully. Thanks. RICHARD: Perhaps I could explain it this way: a seed was planted in India as described above (in 1984); it germinated whilst living in isolation on an uninhabited tropical island off the north-eastern Australian seaboard (in 1985); it flourished during an intimate relationship with a remarkable woman (commencing 1986); fruition came in 1992 (and it was not until 1992 that it became obvious that what I was is this flesh and blood body). There never was a realisation ... the actual became apparent of its own accord in 1992 (because of what was seen in 1984). It took this long as it was a monumental undertaking to break through maybe 3,000-5,000 years of atavistic wisdom.
RESPONDENT No. 42: K, when asked during WWII to condemn the enemy, always advised the questioners to look into themselves and eradicate anger there. Not many people listened. RESPONDENT: That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else. RICHARD: Would this ‘anger in X, Y, or Z’ be what expressed itself in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the real-life litigious relationship with his erstwhile associate Mr. Desik Rajagopal, rather than what two friends sitting together under a tree would ideally be expressing?
RESPONDENT No. 42: I sense a desire to tag k with labels. The label ‘pacifist’ k has always rejected, in fact it is Ghandi’s pacifism that he criticizes, even ridicules. He rejects it as he rejects any pre-formulated attitude which would prevent one from responding appropriately to a given situation. RICHARD: Are you so sure about this? Here is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti has to say on the subject: [quote]: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. (‘Freedom From The Known’ © 1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd). RESPONDENT: Although he (apparently) ridiculed Gandhian pacifism, he is not saying anything different than what Gandhi himself said. RICHARD: Yes, and this is clearly a recipe for a pre-formulated attitude ... it is even stressed how extraordinarily important it is to understand this principled response irregardless of the circumstances. Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world ... and all so that the pious peoples have guaranteed their one-way ticket to Heaven or Mahasamadhi or Parinirvana (or whatever name the after-death timeless and spaceless and formless realm goes by) via earning their god’s good graces. * RESPONDENT No. 42: On the issue of k’s anger. Well, it’s o.k. with me if you want to express that opinion and try to gain other adherents, but I think it is based on a confusion of language. Of course k may use angry language, but look at the context and you will find the language expresses exasperation of the moment. RICHARD: It is this simple: if there is ‘exasperation’ (synonyms: frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, anger) then there has been no eradication of anger. RESPONDENT: Shall we say that K wrote an excellent recipe book, but, at times, didn’t cook by the book himself? A lot of the chefs do that, by the way. RICHARD: I fail to see what is excellent about a recipe book that did not work, does not work and never will work to bring about peace-on-earth.
RESPONDENT No. 42: My point is simply (and I think that was k’s point) that the only place to deal with anger in my own heart. RICHARD: Sure ... but in what way ‘deal with anger’ (in one’s own heart)? If one does not ‘eradicate’ it, never to return, then in what other way is one to be free of that? RESPONDENT: Dealing with anger is to take control of anger before anger controls you. For example, you see the anger building up inside you and you take a pause and ask: what good will this anger do? And then the intensity of anger diminishes. Same holds true of other emotions as well. ‘Thinking one’s emotions’ is what I would call dealing with emotions. RICHARD: Whereas eliminating anger, so that it never returns, obviates the necessity for the on-going vigilance you advise ... and the same holds true of other emotions (and passions) as well. Of course this will mean the end of ‘you’ ... ‘I’ am the emotions and the passions are ‘me’.
RESPONDENT No. 42: K, when asked during WWII to condemn the enemy, always advised the questioners to look into themselves and eradicate anger there. Not many people listened. RESPONDENT: That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else. RICHARD: Would this ‘anger in X, Y, or Z’ be what expressed itself in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the real-life litigious relationship with his erstwhile associate Mr. Desik Rajagopal, rather than what two friends sitting together under a tree would ideally be expressing? RESPONDENT: First off, I do not know if K entered in to litigation with R with anger or as a duty, something that had to be done, and without anger. RICHARD: There are many references to angry argumentation and conflict in ‘Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ ... I understood that you had read it? RESPONDENT: It is entirely possible, in my opinion, for human beings to disagree with one another without getting angry. RICHARD: Of course. RESPONDENT: Secondly, your observation, in general, is accurate. I have myself seen K show signs of anger, as have many others. My feeling, as I have expressed them a few times in the past also: K had some good insights in to the workings of the human mind. He most likely did not live by those insights 100% himself. RICHARD: If there was anger then it is more than ‘most likely’, eh? RESPONDENT: To cheer up the K-fanatics of the list, let me offer the following analogy: it is perfectly rational and OK to talk against alcoholism, but have an occasional drink or two. RICHARD: Which brings me to my oft-expressed ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’ agenda ... you have recently written:
To transcend the base passions does not eradicate them ... and they ‘bleed-through’ from time to time with obvious results.
RESPONDENT No. 42: As for the ‘elimination of anger’, I have no problem with it. RICHARD: Good ... the phrase ‘elimination of anger’ is unambiguous, is it not? RESPONDENT No. 42: But I wonder if we’re using the word ‘anger’ in the same way. As I said in another place, you may be using the word to describe an angry reaction. I see a big difference between anger as a psychological complex and anger as a momentary reaction. RICHARD: So ‘anger as a psychological complex’ has been eliminated but being prone to ‘anger as a momentary reaction’ has not been, eh? RESPONDENT: Yes. One is like being an alcoholic; the other an occasional wine drinker. Big difference, in my opinion. RICHARD: Any amount of anger is too much. RESPONDENT: Don’t you get angry once in a while? RICHARD: No ... nor any gradation (such as exasperation, irritation, annoyance, vexation, resentment, impatience, edginess and so on) RESPONDENT: You said you travelled in India. When trains run late and buses do not show up and when shop-keepers demand more money than what you ought to be paying or when you pocket gets picked ... etc., exasperation, under such situations is as natural as a baby sucking on mother’s breast. Right? RICHARD: It is natural ... yes. I am proposing something unnatural.
RESPONDENT No. 42: On the issue of k’s anger. Well, it’s o.k. with me if you want to express that opinion and try to gain other adherents, but I think it is based on a confusion of language. Of course k may use angry language, but look at the context and you will find the language expresses exasperation of the moment. RICHARD: It is this simple: if there is ‘exasperation’ (synonyms: frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, anger) then there has been no eradication of anger. RESPONDENT: Shall we say that K wrote an excellent recipe book, but, at times, didn’t cook by the book himself? A lot of the chefs do that, by the way. RICHARD: I fail to see what is excellent about a recipe book that did not work, does not work and never will work to bring about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: The value of the recipe book lies in the message that war originates in the heart of man and that is where the solution to the problem needs to be sought. RICHARD: What solution? The eradication of that which is the root cause of war ... or some watered-down version? RESPONDENT: K made that point clearly and forcefully and at least one human being got that message. RICHARD: Got what message ... that some watered-down version is okay?
RESPONDENT No. 42: K, when asked during WWII to condemn the enemy, always advised the questioners to look into themselves and eradicate anger there. Not many people listened. RESPONDENT: That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else. RICHARD: Would this ‘anger in X, Y, or Z’ be what expressed itself in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in the real-life litigious relationship with his erstwhile associate Mr. Desik Rajagopal, rather than what two friends sitting together under a tree would ideally be expressing? RESPONDENT: First off, I do not know if K entered in to litigation with R with anger or as a duty, something that had to be done, and without anger. RICHARD: There are many references to angry argumentation and conflict in ‘Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ ... I understood that you had read it? RESPONDENT: Yes, but do not ready recall angry argumentation. You posted something from the book and it appears from that quote that there was tension between K and R.. RICHARD: There is much, much more ... the whole book, in its entirety, is available to be read on-line at the following URL: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=0595121314&page=fm1 There are too many quotes for me to post them here. RESPONDENT: I do not know how K dealt with tension, but this is what I do: I give attention to the source of tension and usually find that the source is inside me. RICHARD: Why not eradicate ‘the source of tension’ once and for all? Then you never, ever have to go through the whole procedure you describe (below) each time again. RESPONDENT: Once I was involved in litigation with my ex-wife. She ran away with our only daughter despite a court order to not to leave the US. In India I was shunted from the pillar to the post to even get to meet my daughter whose custody belongs to me. While my ex- resorted to all the dirty tricks including buying the justice system, I steadfastly refused to play any of those games. In the end I got nothing from the judicial system, except bills of the lawyers. But what I learnt in the process was invaluable: that this world of attachments and heartaches and heart burns and joys and sorrows is but an illusion. RICHARD: Do you mean ‘this world (...) is but an illusion’ in the same way as what the word ‘maya’ points to? RESPONDENT: There was no acrimony towards my ex- or my daughter or the legal system. Everything was (is) just as it is, with no qualifiers. That was K’s teaching in action. May be he did not live by his own teachings in dealing with R. RICHARD: Or maybe – just maybe – the ‘Teachings’ do not work when push comes to shove? * RESPONDENT: ... your observation, in general, is accurate. I have myself seen K show signs of anger, as have many others. My feeling, as I have expressed them a few times in the past also: K had some good insights in to the workings of the human mind. He most likely did not live by those insights 100% himself. RICHARD: If there was anger then it is more than ‘most likely’, eh? RESPONDENT: I don’t think I would have learnt the invaluable lesson mentioned above if I had not read K. So, to that extent, he did communicate an insight to me and I am thankful to him. RICHARD: Okay ... if that insight is what satisfies you then that is the end of the matter. * RESPONDENT: To cheer up the K-fanatics of the list, let me offer the following analogy: it is perfectly rational and OK to talk against alcoholism, but have an occasional drink or two. RICHARD: Which brings me to my oft-expressed ‘the lotus has its roots in mud’ agenda ... you have recently written: [Respondent]: ‘The question, therefore, is: can a person rise above his/her instincts? The answer is: yes, but very, very rarely. Rising above one’s instinctive responses is what transformation /realization-of-truth /satori/ samadhi /the-nameless/the-suchness /the-non-suchness /the-unspeakable /the-speakable /the-transcendental /the-super-transcendental /the-Supreme /the-Very-Supreme /the-Ultimate /the-Very-Ultimate /coca-cola /the-un-cola /foo /un-foo etc is all about, in my humble opinion’. [endquote]. To transcend the base passions does not eradicate them ... and they ‘bleed-through’ from time to time with obvious results. RESPONDENT: That is possible. RICHARD: It is indeed ... and it demonstrates the ultimate futility of ‘rising above one’s instinctive responses’ (transcending the base passions): it never has worked, it does not work, it never will work. RESPONDENT: At the same time, we ought to give credit where it is due. RICHARD: And just what credit is due? For failing to eradicate the roots but ‘rising above’ them instead? RESPONDENT: Personally, as narrated above, I learnt a great deal from K. RICHARD: I would be the last to deny that you learnt a great deal ... but in the long run is it worth learning if it does not work? RESPONDENT: It doesn’t really matter to me whether he himself lived the Teachings: I am glad that I did. RICHARD: Yet all this while the already always existing peace-on-earth is just here right now in this actual world for the living of it.
RESPONDENT: I am completely, 100%, secular in my outlook. Not every Hindu is (and so aren’t other religions). RICHARD: So as to assist my comprehension of what you are wishing to convey could you explain what the word ‘secular’ means to you? Here is what a dictionary has to say on the subject:
Also, what does the word ‘Hindu’ signify when you use it above in conjunction with the phrase ‘... and so aren’t other religions’ (as the name ‘a Hindu’ can refer to a race of peoples generically)? Viz.:
And the word Hinduism is described this way:
Furthermore, as you have recently told me that you got the message Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was speaking of would you likewise say that he was secular in his outlook? Viz.:
And since you have often equated what he spoke of for 60-plus years as being the same or similar to what Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and Mr. Shankara were describing would you also say that they too were secular in their outlook? I only ask because it is usually understood that there is a vast, and unbridgeable, distinction between the secular and the sacred.
CORRESPONDENT No. 33 (Part Eight) 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 |
