|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 42
RESPONDENT No. 19: [Richard to No. 10]: I have taken the liberty of snipping your disingenuous question [No. 19: when will we end it?] off the end of the quote so as to not confuse the latest issue [No. 19: which is?] with the previous one [No. 19: want?]. Plus it would appear that you are currently incapable of recognising insincerity [No. 10: As to sincerely wanting, that is almost a need, just at the edge between need and want, however it remains a want] even when it is looking you straight in the face anyway. [No. 19 getting lost]: Is the issue here ‘sincerity,’ or is the issue ‘want?’ Or, is the issue really that No. 10 not only saw that ‘want’ was in a need of a person to ‘want;’ or, even beyond that, is it that No. 10 saw that ‘sincerely wanting’ still remains a ‘want’ – demanding an ‘ego’ ‘wanting’ – even though it is ‘barely a want’? What is the actual issue Richard? Do you know the truth of it? Is it perhaps that No. 10’s ‘eagle eye’ may just see a little bit clearer than yours? Are you just interested in beating No. 10 in a debating contest, or might you just be interested in looking along with him to bring about your so desirable state of ‘peace on Earth in this lifetime?’ RICHARD: The actual issue is ending ‘the play’, of course (‘we are trapped in acting out last
week’s play’) ... and it was when I proposed sincerely wanting it to end that it became obvious that the question (‘when
will we end the play’) was not a sincere question in the first place. The rest is history. RESPONDENT: Sincerity of mind seems like an impossibly high standard. RICHARD: Sincerity is not a high-minded standard at all – any imposed standards or principles or values or morals or ethics inhibit sincerity – as all one needs to do is actually care about personal and communal salubrity. The key to success is to comprehend that we are all fellow human beings totally immersed in being alive on this verdant and azure globe called planet earth. I was reading a tract the other day which said, amongst other things, that in England the Manchester Guardian Weekly reported that in the wars of the decade between 1985 and 1995 alone, 2,000,000 children were killed; over 4,000,000 children were disabled; 12,000,000 children were made homeless; more than 1,000,000 children were orphaned or separated from their parents and another 10,000,000 children were emotionally traumatised. Sincerity and naiveté go hand-in-hand ... and naiveté is the closest a self can come to innocence whilst being a self. To be naïve is to wander through the world in wide-eyed wonder.
RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: Your words in regards to eradicating anger have caught my attention ... and I see that you mentioned this advice in another post:
Could you provide the full quote ... preferably referenced?
RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: Your words in regards to eradicating anger have caught my attention ... and I see that you mentioned this advice in another post: [Respondent]: ‘K sat out the second world war and rejected all condemnation of the enemy that was expected of him. He just said ‘look into your own heart and see if you are free of that’. [endquote]. Could you provide the full quote ... preferably referenced? RESPONDENT: Sorry Richard, I really don’t remember. My guess would be the various biographies by Mary Lutyens might contain verbatim quotes. I probably got it from the American k bulletin. But I’ve also had occasions to talk with Mark Lee who has often commented on k’s various activities in those years, and the late Pat Quinn who spent a lot of that time with k, keeping bees and looking after a cow. If I come across any relevant quotes, I’ll let you know. A CD Rom might be a place to explore. I don’t have one. RICHARD: Okay ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ which caught my attention as that is unambiguous (whereas ‘... free of that’ could be referring to being free of condemnation). The word ‘eradicate’ means eliminate, get rid of, wipe out, exterminate, do away with, remove ... as in gone forever and never to return.
RESPONDENT: 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 No. 33: 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: That’s a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k. From my perspective it seems unlikely. RICHARD: If ‘acquaintance’ is the requirement then here is just one excerpt from someone who did indeed have much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’:
RESPONDENT: 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 No. 33: 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. 19: Why are you so bent on assigning a failure to Krishnamurti to have realized the actuality that you have? RICHARD: As always I am only interested in having an end to all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and suicides and so on which beset the human race. RESPONDENT No. 19: It seems that every turn, you try to prove that K was not of ‘your’ level of freedom. RICHARD: Yet this is a mailing list set up to discuss these very issues ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself said to question everything, including the speaker. RESPONDENT No. 19: It is this fanatical drive of yours to prove K ‘wrong’ and you ‘right’ that throws such a cloud over your own ‘would be ‘teachings’.’ This constant barrage of attacks on K shows that you have an almost desperate need to be the only one on Earth to know what you know. I’m not saying that ‘know’ isn’t true, but it is quite ‘suspicious’ because of your mean-ness. RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder there is very little questioning of these basic issues ... just look at the response when somebody does so (‘fanatical drive’ and ‘would be ‘teachings’’ and ‘constant barrage of attacks’ and ‘an almost desperate need’ and ‘mean-ness’). RESPONDENT No. 19: For example, the evidence you offer above to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger. RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon? RESPONDENT No. 19: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question. RESPONDENT: Your hunch may be right. RICHARD: I can assure you, for whatever that is worth, that it is not ‘right’ as there was nothing ‘pretend’ about the question at all ... I meant every word of what I said. RESPONDENT: I took Richard’s first question for some documentation to be sincere. RICHARD: Then you took it correctly ... I would have appreciated the verbatim words as peace-on-earth is my top priority. Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found here on earth:
RESPONDENT: But when he didn’t respond to my explanations, it occurred to me that all he cared about was to impugn k comments on the nature of anger. RICHARD: Not ‘the nature of anger’, no ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ (eliminate, never to return) which caught my attention as that is an unambiguous statement.
RESPONDENT No. 19: ... the evidence you offer to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger. RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon? RESPONDENT No. 19: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question. RICHARD: I asked the question because of the nature of what I was responding to. Viz.: [No. 33]: ‘That is the toughest part: to look within. Anger in X, Y, or Z is *the same anger that expresses itself everywhere else*’. [emphasis added]. Generally speaking, the anger that the various saints, sages and seers have come out with from time to time has been designated as ‘Divine Anger’, for example, and I was allowing the possibility that any anger displayed by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti may have thus been exempt from the normal or garden variety. Specifically written into the question is, basically, that there is the ideal (sitting together as two friends under a tree discussing matters) and there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a former associate’s documents: of course there is implicit in the question that anger was involved ... it is anger that clouds clarity. Which is why I suggested that you look again at what I wrote because the issue I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. Lastly, what is indeed ‘hypocritical’ is advising others to do what one has not done oneself. Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘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’. [emphasis added]. And it is the ‘not many people listened’ statement which is the telling comment ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not listen to his own ‘Teachings’. But, then again, he oft-times distanced himself from the ‘Teachings’ ... as do the many and varied saints, sages and seers (popularly phrased as do not look at the finger but look at what the finger is pointing to). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). Eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding re-birth ... not about peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: I’m leaving the old text above, but (in my stoned way) I want to respond to the animus of Richard’s text as much as to the specifics. RICHARD: Why is questioning, investigating, exploring and uncovering to be seen as ‘animus’? RESPONDENT: 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:
Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: 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: K’s discussion of ‘anger’, refers to stored up emotion that hasn’t been exposed to the light of day. It derives from stored hurt, which k describes as the most disastrous handicap to carry through life. That kind of anger I think you will not find in k. RICHARD: So ‘stored up emotion’ has been eradicated but being prone to ‘exasperation of the moment’ has not been, eh? RESPONDENT: The matter of the court case surely is more complicated that that it could be used as evidence of anger. RICHARD: I have never let something being ‘complicated’ cause me to not investigate and uncover, explore and discover. RESPONDENT: But thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k. RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000:
As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion.
RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: Your words in regards to eradicating anger have caught my attention ... and I see that you mentioned this advice in another post: [Respondent]: ‘K sat out the second world war and rejected all condemnation of the enemy that was expected of him. He just said ‘look into your own heart and see if you are free of that’. [endquote]. Could you provide the full quote ... preferably referenced? RESPONDENT: Sorry Richard, I really don’t remember. My guess would be the various biographies by Mary Lutyens might contain verbatim quotes. I probably got it from the American k bulletin. But I’ve also had occasions to talk with Mark Lee who has often commented on k’s various activities in those years, and the late Pat Quinn who spent a lot of that time with k, keeping bees and looking after a cow. If I come across any relevant quotes, I’ll let you know. A CD Rom might be a place to explore. I don’t have one. RICHARD: Okay ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ which caught my attention as that is unambiguous (whereas ‘... free of that’ could be referring to being free of condemnation). The word ‘eradicate’ means eliminate, get rid of, wipe out, exterminate, do away with, remove ... as in gone forever and never to return. RESPONDENT: I cannot be sure of the exact wording. So I’ll take the responsibility for that. 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: 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 No. 33: 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: That’s a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k. From my perspective it seems unlikely. RICHARD: If ‘acquaintance’ is the requirement then here is just one excerpt from someone who did indeed have much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’: [quote]: ‘Life changed considerably with the Second World War. (...) It is those war years that stand out most clearly in my memory. Where most people’s lives were pulled apart, ours were bound together as they had never been before and never would be again. (...) Those who were closest to us then, those still living, must wonder what went so wrong that such apparent harmony and vitality of spirit and mind and physical enterprise should disintegrate disastrously into a war of litigation. How three people, who for nearly half a century seemed so inevitably bound together in totally unselfish lives, could be involved in bitter and ugly charges brought by one of them against another. How the high ideals of the brotherhood of man, the eschewing of killing or injury to any creature, the search for freedom from ambition, guilt and fear, could dissolve into such discord. The seeds of conflict must have been sown somewhere along the way, beyond my memories’. (‘Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ ©1991, 2000 by Radha Rajagopal Sloss; ISBN 0-595-12131-4: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=0595121314&page=3 ). RESPONDENT: The subject doesn’t interest me enough to spend any more time on learning about it. RICHARD: Then why write to another person commenting on the ‘politics of not responding’ when I had not yet got around to composing my reply? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: My feeling was that Rajagopal had fantasies of taking over the teachings and that that was the reason why k in the end separated from him. Radha’s book doesn’t strike me as a reliable treatment. Not that I ever read it carefully. I’m not arguing that others should spend further time on it, it’s just not for me. RICHARD: So if the question I asked of another (further above) is deemed by you to be ‘a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k.’ and if the information provided by a person who had much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’ is deemed by you to be not ‘a reliable treatment’ then what is, according to you, a reliable conclusion and/or treatment? Is it the case that only a conclusion and/or treatment which is complimentary to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is what gains your approval? There is to be no questioning? No investigation? No exploration? No uncovering? No discovering? Why then did you want me to respond?
RESPONDENT: I took Richard’s first question for some documentation to be sincere. RICHARD: Then you took it correctly ... I would have appreciated the verbatim words as peace-on-earth is my top priority. Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found here on earth: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: But when he didn’t respond to my explanations, it occurred to me that all he cared about was to impugn k comments on the nature of anger. RICHARD: Not ‘the nature of anger’, no ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ (eliminate, never to return) which caught my attention as that is an unambiguous statement. RESPONDENT: k’d phrase (in your quote) ‘not in the world but away from it’ to my mind doesn’t say the same thing as your phrase ‘here on earth’. ‘World’ I take to be a synonym for consciousness. RICHARD: So Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti should have written it differently then (according to you)? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: 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: 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: (I’m not sure how long I can hang in here, because I’m leaving soon and will be away for several weeks). RICHARD: ‘Twas you who made an issue about Richard not responding ... not me.
RICHARD: ... I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice and sorrow can both utilise physical force/restraint (be involved in a war) and take out lawsuits (be involved in litigation) where clearly applicable ... there is no difference in kind between the physical force used in a war and the physical force used in a court-case. RESPONDENT: 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). Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent and decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot. RESPONDENT: 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: K’s discussion of ‘anger’, refers to stored up emotion that hasn’t been exposed to the light of day. It derives from stored hurt, which k describes as the most disastrous handicap to carry through life. That kind of anger I think you will not find in k. RICHARD: So ‘stored up emotion’ has been eradicated but being prone to ‘exasperation of the moment’ has not been, eh? RESPONDENT: The matter of the court case surely is more complicated that that it could be used as evidence of anger. RICHARD: I have never let something being ‘complicated’ cause me to not investigate and uncover, explore and discover. RESPONDENT: But thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k. RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000: [Richard]: ‘The evidence of history shows that the saints and sages and seers have been unable to extricate or isolate love and compassion out from malice and sorrow and vice versa ... innocence is totally new to human experience. No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent. All the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers) despite preaching peace and harmony. [endquote]. As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion. RESPONDENT: I didn’t respond because there is nothing there that I can respond to. You’re making assertions that have no meaning for me. They don’t resonate. I’m not interested in a shouting match. RICHARD: I am not asking you to shout ... I am pointing out that it is a strange type of innocence that has within it anger and sorrow (even if it be the ‘anger of the moment’ that you approve of in a previous e-mail). And as a follow-on question ... would sorrow of the moment be acceptable to you also? RESPONDENT: I would say our disagreement on the meaning of ‘psychological anger’ and ‘pacifism’ is also a matter where I have no farther to go. RICHARD: Why? You make an issue about me not responding in another e-mail (‘the politics of not responding’) and when I do respond you then say that you ‘have no farther to go’? RESPONDENT: Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind ... RICHARD: How is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s plan of action somehow exempt from ‘a rigid formulaic response’ then? Viz.:
That clearly reads of a pre-planned response to any future event ... not a living response in the moment. RESPONDENT: ... not the living energy of the exasperation of the moment or the understanding of violence. RICHARD: If I may point out? If there is indeed a ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ then all the careful ‘understanding of violence’ (with its pacifistic conclusion) has been a total waste of time ... it has amounted to nothing. Zilch.
RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: Your words in regards to eradicating anger have caught my attention ... and I see that you mentioned this advice in another post: [Respondent]: ‘K sat out the second world war and rejected all condemnation of the enemy that was expected of him. He just said ‘look into your own heart and see if you are free of that’. [endquote]. Could you provide the full quote ... preferably referenced? RESPONDENT: Sorry Richard, I really don’t remember. My guess would be the various biographies by Mary Lutyens might contain verbatim quotes. I probably got it from the American k bulletin. But I’ve also had occasions to talk with Mark Lee who has often commented on k’s various activities in those years, and the late Pat Quinn who spent a lot of that time with k, keeping bees and looking after a cow. If I come across any relevant quotes, I’ll let you know. A CD Rom might be a place to explore. I don’t have one. RICHARD: Okay ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ which caught my attention as that is unambiguous (whereas ‘... free of that’ could be referring to being free of condemnation). The word ‘eradicate’ means eliminate, get rid of, wipe out, exterminate, do away with, remove ... as in gone forever and never to return. RESPONDENT: I cannot be sure of the exact wording. So I’ll take the responsibility for that. 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: K has said enough about that question. RICHARD: Yes, which is why your words ‘eradicate anger’ caught my attention ... as that is unambiguous. RESPONDENT: But if you’re operating with a different understanding of what anger is, it is bound to remain meaningless to you. RICHARD: Anything short of the complete and utter elimination of all the gradations and varieties of anger is meaningless.
RESPONDENT: ... 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: K has said enough about that question. RICHARD: Yes, which is why your words ‘eradicate anger’ caught my attention ... as that is unambiguous. RESPONDENT: But if you’re operating with a different understanding of what anger is, it is bound to remain meaningless to you. RICHARD: Anything short of the complete and utter elimination of all the gradations and varieties of anger is meaningless. RESPONDENT: If you refuse to see that a psychological state of anger may be something entirely different from a response of exasperation to a particular questioner, then unfortunately you are dismissing what I feel to be the clearest voice on record. RICHARD: As I am not interested in dismissing something if that something is worthy of consideration perhaps this may be an opportune moment to ask what ‘exasperation’ means to you? The dictionary definition says that to exasperate is to irritate (a person) to annoyance or anger; to infuriate, incense, madden, enrage, provoke, irk, vex, gall, pique, try the patience of, get on the nerves of or make one’s blood boil or (informal): to bug, needle, get to or rile. (© 1998 Oxford Dictionary). And perhaps a quote or two from ‘the clearest voice on record’ which explains the distinction you draw betwixt a ‘psychological state of anger’ and a ‘response of exasperation’ would help even more?
RESPONDENT: 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 No 33: 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: That’s a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k. From my perspective it seems unlikely. RICHARD: If ‘acquaintance’ is the requirement then here is just one excerpt from someone who did indeed have much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’: [quote]: ‘Life changed considerably with the Second World War. (...) It is those war years that stand out most clearly in my memory. Where most people’s lives were pulled apart, ours were bound together as they had never been before and never would be again. (...) Those who were closest to us then, those still living, must wonder what went so wrong that such apparent harmony and vitality of spirit and mind and physical enterprise should disintegrate disastrously into a war of litigation. How three people, who for nearly half a century seemed so inevitably bound together in totally unselfish lives, could be involved in bitter and ugly charges brought by one of them against another. How the high ideals of the brotherhood of man, the eschewing of killing or injury to any creature, the search for freedom from ambition, guilt and fear, could dissolve into such discord. The seeds of conflict must have been sown somewhere along the way, beyond my memories’. (‘Lives in the Shadow with J. Krishnamurti’ © 1991, 2000 by Radha Rajagopal Sloss; ISBN 0-595-12131-4: http://books.iuniverse.com/viewbooks.asp?isbn=0595121314&page=3 ). RESPONDENT: The subject doesn’t interest me enough to spend any more time on learning about it. RICHARD: Then why write to another person commenting on the ‘politics of not responding’ when I had not yet got around to composing my reply? Viz.: [Respondent]: ‘I took Richard’s first question for some documentation to be sincere. But when he didn’t respond to my explanations, it occurred to me that all he cared about was to impugn k comments on the nature of anger. (...) The politics of not responding?’ RESPONDENT: I wasn’t thinking of you when I made that comment in a post to No. 03. RICHARD: As I am not a mind reader I can only go by what you write ... and you made that comment at the top of a post from No. 19 to Richard (not No. 42 to No. 03) and specifically mentioned my name and made use of the word ‘also’ when referring to two other posters. Viz.:
If you writing does not reflect what you are thinking then perhaps it might help to read what you write prior to clicking ‘send’? RESPONDENT: Your are quoting from separate posts to separate people. RICHARD: No, I am quoting from only the one post ... the first one (from Respondent to No. 19 at the top of a post from No. 19 to Richard) as detailed above. Meanwhile ... back to the question:
Over to you. * RESPONDENT: My feeling was that Rajagopal had fantasies of taking over the teachings and that that was the reason why k in the end separated from him. Radha’s book doesn’t strike me as a reliable treatment. Not that I ever read it carefully. I’m not arguing that others should spend further time on it, it’s just not for me. RICHARD: So if the question I asked of another (further above) is deemed by you to be ‘a conclusion that an observer might come to who had no or little acquaintance with k.’ and if the information provided by a person who had much more than a ‘little acquaintance with k’ is deemed by you to be not ‘a reliable treatment’ then what is, according to you, a reliable conclusion and/or treatment? Is it the case that only a conclusion and/or treatment which is complimentary to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is what gains your approval? There is to be no questioning? No investigation? No exploration? No uncovering? No discovering? Why then did you want me to respond? RESPONDENT: The teachings of k take a lot more attention than Radha’s book. RICHARD: Of course ... I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘K-readers’ face-to-face. RESPONDENT: And merit that attention. RICHARD: Indeed ... I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable responsiveness ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to intimately know – directly experience – and now I do. RESPONDENT: I still think all this is beside the point. RICHARD: Given that the point is the eradication of anger it is anything but ‘beside the point’. RESPONDENT: That, to me, is your rejection of what k understands as anger and then imputing that he failed his own teachings. RICHARD: Not only Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... no one has lived the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world RESPONDENT: Your proof seems to lie in that misinterpretation. RICHARD: How can anybody misinterpret the unambiguous words ‘eradicate anger’?
RESPONDENT: I took Richard’s first question for some documentation to be sincere. RICHARD: Then you took it correctly ... I would have appreciated the verbatim words as peace-on-earth is my top priority. Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found here on earth: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: But when he didn’t respond to my explanations, it occurred to me that all he cared about was to impugn k comments on the nature of anger. RICHARD: Not ‘the nature of anger’, no ... it was the words ‘eradicate anger’ (eliminate, never to return) which caught my attention as that is an unambiguous statement. RESPONDENT: k’s phrase (in your quote) ‘not in the world but away from it’ to my mind doesn’t say the same thing as your phrase ‘here on earth’. ‘World’ I take to be a synonym for consciousness. RICHARD: So Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti should have written it differently then (according to you)? Viz.: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in consciousness but away from it’. RESPONDENT: If he wanted to play by your rules. RICHARD: If I may point out? It is your ‘rules’ not mine ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti wrote ‘world’ and you replaced it with ‘consciousness’. RESPONDENT: But k always uses ‘world’ as in ‘you’re the world’ as synonymous with consciousness. RICHARD: Not in this context ... he was writing about the physical violence going on in the physical world. RESPONDENT: So do most poets and philosophers, viz Wordsworth; ‘The world is too much with us’. Not ‘earth’ as you seem to suggest. RICHARD: If you wish to take words as being poetic that is your business ... I will continue to take them literally, however. * RESPONDENT: 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: 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, minus that little sneer. I question your use of the word ‘prone’. RICHARD: Where is the ‘little sneer’ in the words ‘prone to’ (synonyms: inclined to, given to, subject to, susceptible to, likely to, liable to, apt to, disposed to, predisposed to)? RESPONDENT: Is that really what you see in k? RICHARD: In this instance I am going by what you said (‘I see a big difference between anger as a psychological complex and anger as a momentary reaction’). I simply see anger. * RESPONDENT: (I’m not sure how long I can hang in here, because I’m leaving soon and will be away for several weeks). RICHARD: ‘Twas you who made an issue about Richard not responding ... not me. RESPONDENT: But you doctored the issue by jamming separate quotes together (as above). RICHARD: I ‘doctored’ nothing ... I quoted from only the one post as detailed in the preceding e-mail.
RESPONDENT: ... thanks for drawing a clear line between your self and k. RICHARD: You and I had an extensive discussion on where I am speaking from before ... here is but one excerpt from the last e-mail of that exchange on December 04 2000: [Richard]: ‘The evidence of history shows that the saints and sages and seers have been unable to extricate or isolate love and compassion out from malice and sorrow and vice versa ... innocence is totally new to human experience. No one who I have spoken to; no one who I have read about; no one who anyone has ever told me about; no one I have seen on film, video or television has ever been innocent. All the saints, sages and seers – who are held to be innocent – have displayed malice and sorrow in one form or another (disguised/designated as being ‘Divine Anger’ and ‘Divine Sorrow’ by themselves and their devotees/followers/readers) despite preaching peace and harmony. [endquote]. As you never did respond that was the end of the discussion. RESPONDENT: I didn’t respond because there is nothing there that I can respond to. You’re making assertions that have no meaning for me. They don’t resonate. I’m not interested in a shouting match. RICHARD: I am not asking you to shout ... I am pointing out that it is a strange type of innocence that has within it anger and sorrow (even if it be the ‘anger of the moment’ that you approve of in a previous e-mail). And as a follow-on question ... would sorrow of the moment be acceptable to you also? RESPONDENT: Your heavy sarcasm is not a very promising start. RICHARD: If you receive my unequivocal words as ‘heavy sarcasm’ that is your business, not mine. RESPONDENT: But yes, k shows deep sorrow on witnessing human suffering. RICHARD: Okay ... then sorrow per se has not been eradicated either. RESPONDENT: But that is not the psychological condition of sorrow, depression, anger, etc. RICHARD: Aye ... the sorrow of the many and varied saints sages and seers is not the common or average sorrow (and the same applies to their anger). Which is the point I was making in an e-mail to another in this same thread. Viz.:
I am proposing that all varieties of sorrow and anger can be eradicated ... this does mean the end of ‘I’/‘me’ though as ‘I’ am the emotions and the passions are ‘me’. * RESPONDENT: I would say our disagreement on the meaning of ‘psychological anger’ and ‘pacifism’ is also a matter where I have no farther to go. RICHARD: Why? You make an issue about me not responding in another e-mail (‘the politics of not responding’) and when I do respond you then say that you ‘have no farther to go’? RESPONDENT: Jumbled quotations. RICHARD: There were no ‘jumbled quotations’ ... there was only the one quotation as explained in a previous e-mail. * RESPONDENT: Both terms describe a rigid formulaic response of the mind ... RICHARD: How is Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s plan of action somehow exempt from ‘a rigid formulaic response’ then? Viz.: [quote]: ‘You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight ...’. That clearly reads of a pre-planned response to any future event ... not a living response in the moment. RESPONDENT: Not to me. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. Howsoever the words ‘refuse to join the army’ and the words ‘refuse to fight’ are unambiguous. RESPONDENT: ... not the living energy of the exasperation of the moment or the understanding of violence. RICHARD: If I may point out? If there is indeed a ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ then all the careful ‘understanding of violence’ (with its pacifistic conclusion) has been a total waste of time ... it has amounted to nothing. Zilch. RESPONDENT: You’re welcome to your opinion, but I don’t share it RICHARD: So I have noticed ... nevertheless as there is only ever this moment then the ‘living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ is certainly not living this moment peacefully by any criteria.
RESPONDENT No. 20: Does that not depend on your definition of violence? RICHARD: Try seeing it more in the terms of living peacefully, each moment again, and the meaning of peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, will become much more clear. A moment wasted in exasperation (or frustration, irritation, annoyance, vexation, disappointment and etcetera) is to waste this moment forever. There is only ever this moment. RESPONDENT: This is a formulaic reading of ‘this moment’. RICHARD: You may, of course, spend this moment anyway you choose ... given all the mayhem and misery which epitomises the human condition being happy and harmless is the preferable choice any day of the week. RESPONDENT: ‘This moment’ could be k faced with the resistance of a questioner. RICHARD: Speaking personally I am oft-times ‘faced with the resistance of a questioner’ ... why would I waste this moment being exasperated with some issue that has 3,000 to 5,000 years of recorded history (and maybe 50,000 years of pre-history) weighing heavily in that person’s consciousness? I do not expect anyone to shrug-off the human condition overnight, as it were. RESPONDENT: Is he to react with dull peacefulness? RICHARD: Why does ‘living peacefully’ all-of-a-sudden become ‘dull peacefulness’? RESPONDENT: There is an energy in that moment which surely shouldn’t be choked off. RICHARD: How come ‘the living energy of the exasperation of the moment’ has all-of-a-sudden become ‘an energy in the moment’? It is the nature of the energy of the moment which this discussion (eradicating anger) is all about. ‘Tis a sheer delight to be alive on this verdant and azure paradise.
RESPONDENT No. 25: While I seldom war with others, all too often I condemn myself. Perhaps that is part of the vicious circle of self-perpetuation – this hording of space for ‘me.’ Can that chase end? RESPONDENT: Perhaps it’s false politeness. The great thing about k is his lack of inappropriate politeness. Seen by Richard as a sign of anger. RICHARD: Not so ... it is what is proposed in the ‘Teachings’ (a state of being popularly known as spiritual enlightenment) that I go by. There are many other varied saints, sages and seers who have also displayed anger (and anguish) from time-to-time. This just happens to be a mailing list set-up under the auspices of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti.
CORRESPONDENT No. 42 (Part Three) RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
