|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 42
RICHARD: ... what is in the nature of an ‘all pervasive intelligence’ that it creates, or gives rise to, malicious and sorrowful human beings rather than happy and harmless human beings in the first place? Put simply: in what way is that an intelligent act? RESPONDENT: I would not say that intelligence creates malice. RICHARD: Then it is not an ‘all pervasive’ intelligence (aka truth or god) after all. RESPONDENT: ‘All-pervasive’ can mean pervasive of all existence, excluding illusions (whose content has no existence in matter – though the thought which is the vehicle of the illusion does exist in matter). If malice is born in the self, i.e. an illusion, intelligence can be all pervasive yet free of illusion. Outside the self. RICHARD: You are making the case that the ‘all pervasive’ intelligence (aka truth or god) can pervade everywhere but where it matters most for human beings ... in the area called the human condition wherein lies the cause of all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides and so on. Does this not make it a somewhat limited intelligence? * RESPONDENT: Simply that malice occurs. RICHARD: I get a somewhat similar kind of answer from Christians (who say that their all-powerful creator god did not create evil). Just stating that it ‘occurs’ adds nothing to the enquiry. RESPONDENT: It does, if you proceed to the next sentence. RICHARD: I did proceed to the next sentence only to discover that all you had done was to shift malice (and sorrow) into the domain of the ‘self’ as if that shift exonerates the ‘all pervasive intelligence’ from creating or giving rise to them ... sort of like putting all the nasty stuff into quarantine (as do those Christians I have spoken with) so that god or truth is absolved of all responsibility in the matter. You do seem to be making a rather weak case for an ‘all pervasive intelligence’. * RESPONDENT: But only in the domain of the self. RICHARD: There is no doubt that malice (and sorrow) occurs in the ‘self’ ... the question is what is their source or origin? RESPONDENT: If it ‘only occurs in the self’, its origin or source is also the self. RICHARD: If you shift the origin or source of malice and sorrow onto the ‘self’ then I will similarly shift the question onto the ‘self’: what is the source or origin of the ‘self’? RESPONDENT: Illusions can provide powerful motives for behaviour that leads to misery. RICHARD: Of course ... but what provides the power, or the energy, if it be not the instinctual animal passions? * RESPONDENT: The self is where intelligence cannot exist. RICHARD: Are you referring to human intelligence here or the non-material intelligence? If it is the latter then are you not saying, in effect, that the self is where god or truth cannot exist? RESPONDENT: I don’t think there exists human intelligence as a separate item. RICHARD: Human intelligence does indeed exist ... I even provided a dictionary definition in a previous thread. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Intelligence operates anywhere in the universe except the self. RICHARD: Not as far as space exploration has been able to discover: thus far only the human animal is intelligent (as per the dictionary definition) ... even though crippled by a ‘self’. RESPONDENT: The self has no existence, no reality of its own. It is an illusion. How would god or truth inhabit an illusion? RICHARD: You would see that it could inhabit it quite simply if only you could wrap your mind around the notion that ‘god or truth’ creates or gives rise to it. * RESPONDENT: You sometimes charge me with anthropomorphism ... RICHARD: I actually said ‘anthropocentricism’ ... but you have since explained that the ‘all pervasive intelligence’ you refer to is a non-material intelligence which is not a projection of human intelligence. Whereas I maintain that it is, of course. RESPONDENT: Is the absolute, where we are placing intelligence, our projection, too, then? RICHARD: Yes ... it is a massive delusion which has been institutionalised by virtually every tribe or nation. * RESPONDENT: ... but, in describing animal behaviour in moral terms, aren’t you the anthropomorphist? RICHARD: As I have not described animal behaviour ‘in moral terms’ your question is a non
sequitur RESPONDENT: I don’t think they ‘have’ intelligence. But I see intelligence in the lives of animals ... RICHARD: But what is intelligent about being run by such instinctual passions as fear and aggression and nurture and desire? RESPONDENT: ... and even in the existence of inanimate matter. Even in disasters that may be caused by them. RICHARD: It stretches credibility to the point of absurdity to say that a non-material intelligence is the cause of earthquakes, fires, floods, famines and so on (popularly known as ‘acts of god’). * RICHARD: Whereas what I said was that they were run by their genetically-inherited instinctual passions. RESPONDENT: Of course. But sometimes you go beyond this and project into those animal instincts the causes of our human violence. RICHARD: No ... I am saying that the human animal is as much run by genetically-inherited instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, as other animals are. How is this observation a ‘projection’ ... let alone anthropomorphic RESPONDENT: My view is that they only provide the cement, the construction of violence is the work of the self. RICHARD: And if one rids oneself of ‘the cement’ (the genetically-inherited instinctual passions such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire) what is one left with? Where is the energetic fuel for the ‘self’ then?
RICHARD: On the contrary, as compassion is born out of sorrow, compassion perpetuates ‘me’ (albeit in an aggrandised form). RESPONDENT: That’s quite a mouthful, Richard. The thing that you here call ‘compassion’ does indeed exist: The enhanced ego born from sorrow. But the word compassion usually seeks to describe a very different feeling. A very different mental state. The state of love. Which k says comes out of facing and exploring the state of sorrow. Drinking the bitter cup to the end. RICHARD: You can only say that I am referring to the compassion of an ‘enhanced ego’ by snipping off the sentence immediately preceding the one you have left in ... when the two sentences are read in sequence your response becomes irrelevant. Viz.:
Apart from that oversight ... why do you say that it is ‘quite a mouthful’ when I point out that compassion perpetuates ‘me’ (‘me’ as ‘being’) as various mystical tracts going back many centuries make it quite clear that when the ‘me’ as ‘ego’ dissolves/ collapses/ dies the ‘me’ as ‘being’ is realised (quite often capitalised as ‘Being’)? The whole point of spiritual enlightenment is an awakening into being who you really are ... as was aptly expressed by another subscriber to this Mailing List only recently:
It is the extinction of this transfigured
RESPONDENT No. 04: ... there is an inside as anyone who has mediated has experienced. K on meditation said: ‘First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe. (...) First of all sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax, I will show you. Now, look at the trees, at the hills, the shape of the hills, look at them, look at the quality of their colour, watch them. Do not listen to me. Watch and see those trees, the yellowing trees, the tamarind, and then look at the bougainvillea. Look not with your mind but with your eyes. After having looked at all the colours, the shape of the land, of the hills, the rocks, the shadow, then go from the outside to the inside and close your eyes, close your eyes completely. You have finished looking at the things outside, and now with your eyes closed you can look at what is happening inside’. – Pg 22, 36; ‘K on education’. Go further and the inner and outer dissolve and there is only awareness. RICHARD: Yet when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does ‘go further’ he says the following words (also on page 36): [quote]: ‘Watch what is happening inside you, do not think, but just watch, do not move your eye-balls, just keep them very, very quiet, because there is nothing to see now, you have seen all the things around you, now you are seeing what is happening inside your mind, and to see what is happening inside your mind, you have to be very quiet inside. And when you do this, do you know what happens to you? You become very sensitive, you become very alert to things outside and inside. Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed. (page 36; ‘Krishnamurti on Education’; published by Krishnamurti Foundation India, ISBN 81-87326-00-X). Do you see that where you say ‘go further and the inner and outer dissolve’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that where you say ‘and there is only awareness’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the observer is the observed’? Furthermore, upon reading what ‘the inside’ is (because ‘the outside’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert inside is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? Or, to put that another way, upon reading what ‘the observer’ is (because ‘the observed’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer is ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’. The phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? RESPONDENT: In the context of K’s teachings it’s clear enough. There is no separation. The psychology, the chemistry, is identical. Sorry, I goofed in attaching my answer to the wrong quote. My comment is in answer to: ‘The inner is the outer’. Now, to comment on: ‘The observer is the observed’, this is still unambiguous, but less straightforward, for when the observer is the observed, the observer ends, observation is free of that distortion. Sorry for making such a hash of this matter. RICHARD: First, in regards to ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’, where you found out that there is no separation, that the psychology, the chemistry, is identical, were you a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert ‘inside’ when that happened? And the same applies in regards to ‘then you find out that the observer is the observed’: where you found that the observer ends, that observation is free of that distortion, were you a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert ‘observer’ at that time? Lastly, does not the verb ‘is’ indicate being the very thing referred to?
RESPONDENT: In the context of K’s teachings it’s clear enough. There is no separation. The psychology, the chemistry, is identical. Sorry, I goofed in attaching my answer to the wrong quote. My comment is in answer to: ‘The inner is the outer’. Now, to comment on: ‘The observer is the observed’, this is still unambiguous, but less straightforward, for when the observer is the observed, the observer ends, observation is free of that distortion. Sorry for making such a hash of this matter. RICHARD: First, in regards to ‘then you find out that the outside is the inside’, where you found out that there is no separation, that the psychology, the chemistry, is identical, were you a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert ‘inside’ when that happened? And the same applies in regards to ‘then you find out that the observer is the observed’: where you found that the observer ends, that observation is free of that distortion, were you a non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert ‘observer’ at that time? Lastly, does not the verb ‘is’ indicate being the very thing referred to? RESPONDENT: No Richard, I restricted my comment to your word ‘unambiguous’. That’s why I added ‘in the context of K’s teachings’. RICHARD: It was because you prefaced your reply with ‘in the context of K’s teachings it’s clear enough’ that I enquired as to whether your response was experiential or not ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words, which you had snipped off, were most explicit that this was something to actually do. Viz.:
No. 04 had reported that then the ‘the inner and outer dissolve’ – which is in accord with my experience that there is no inner and outer in actuality – and I was drawing attention to the fact that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s experience was that ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that ‘then ... the observer is the observed’ (and that the verb ‘is’ unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to). But if you prefer book-learning to hands-on learning then that is your business.
RICHARD: ... but if you prefer book-learning to hands-on learning then that is your business. RESPONDENT: It seems to me you’re misrepresenting my attitude. I’m not extolling a limited seeing, but the discarding of limitation may not be as easy as you seem to think. RICHARD: The impression gained from what you write here is that the reason why your previous response was a studied response, and not an experiential response, is that you found ‘the discarding of limitation’ not as easy to have happen, when you did what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed doing in the paragraphs you snipped, as it was assumed by me it would have been for you ... hence I am misrepresenting your attitude if I further assume that your book-learnt response is a preference you have over providing a report of your lived understanding. Meaning that it is not so much a matter of choice, to have to rely upon book-learning, but that it is more of a fall-back position, as it were, in the absence of a substantive hands-on learning. Is this impression correct? RESPONDENT: I’m not persuaded that you have accomplished that. RICHARD: Am I to take it you are persuaded, when I report that there is no inner or outer in actuality, that this is an indication of a ‘limited seeing’ then? RESPONDENT: I appreciate that your handling of k is different than the imitation that one typically encounters here. You’re not bending his teachings out of shape to accomplish your own purposes, as is common practice here. RICHARD: Most certainly not ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s experience is that the outer is the inner (whereas my experience is that there is neither inner nor outer in actuality). RESPONDENT: But a few times when I tested where you deviate from k, I found nothing that made sense to me. RICHARD: As when you ‘tested’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed in the paragraphs you snipped produced no lived understanding for you to talk about then it is no wonder, the few times you have similarly ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from his, that it too would likewise make no sense. The subject under discussion is, when all is said and done, an experiential matter. RESPONDENT: (Below I’m copying a brief post to No. 21 that I just wrote to explain my position here. It may be relevant to this discussion). • [Respondent]: ‘An expression of an opinion is not a claim of ‘seeing truth directly’. My opinion is simply my perspective. Highly relative to be sure, but it’s the only ‘seeing’ I claim. You, on the other hand present your opinions as the ultimate truth. At a k site, this distinction between our limited seeing and some dreamed-of ‘total seeing’ seems crucial. But what happens is that a place like this gets inundated with preachers who really do think their ‘seeing’ has gone beyond that common limitation. Not surprising, come to think of it. We’re genetically predisposed to imitation. So after learning the ‘platitudes of repeated wisdom’, it’s natural that we’d start ‘spouting’. But that, so k keeps telling us, is the worst trap to fall into. If I point out this deception, where I see it, I’m not claiming any absolute seeing. But I can see your need to say so. You need to protect your position. In that sense I have no position to defend’. RICHARD: Hmm ... here are the pivotal words of the topic at hand for your considered appraisal:
Now I ask you: where is your evidence – as in where are the ‘platitudes of repeated wisdom’ – which you are basing your entire case upon?
RICHARD: ... meaning that it is not so much a matter of choice, to have to rely upon book-learning, but that it is more of a fall-back position, as it were, in the absence of a substantive hands-on learning. Is this impression correct? RESPONDENT: It reads like something strenuously concocted. RICHARD: When you tell me that it seems to be a misrepresentation of your attitude, for me to suggest you prefer book-learning over hands-on learning, and that you are not extolling a limited seeing by providing a studied understanding but that the discarding of limitation may not be as easy for you as I assume it would be, of course I want to know if the impression gained from your few words is correct or not ... rather than further assume I now comprehend what you are wanting to convey. To say that my spelled-out request for clarification ‘reads like something strenuously concocted’ adds nothing to the comprehension of whatever it is you want me to know about your attitude ... it only serves to muddy the waters even more. RESPONDENT: As to the snipped paragraph, my snipping of it is not due to a wish to brush it aside. Merely an aid to focusing. RICHARD: As the focus of this thread is upon what happens when actually doing what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposes, and not just reading about it, it is odd, to say the least, to focus upon what is ‘clear enough’ for you ‘in the context of K’s teachings’ rather than finding out for yourself. Viz.:
However, it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and how you live it is entirely up to you, of course. * RESPONDENT: ... a few times when I tested where you deviate from k, I found nothing that made sense to me. RICHARD: As when you ‘tested’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed in the paragraphs you snipped produced no lived understanding for you to talk about then it is no wonder, the few times you have similarly ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from his, that it too would likewise make no sense. RESPONDENT: This reading may be convenient for you, but to me it’s far-fetched and uninteresting. RICHARD: Okay ... you tell me how you ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s then (rather than leave me second-guessing, once again, how you might have gone about it). Then, if you will, perhaps you can explain how you ‘test for yourself’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti presents as being the solution for all the ills of humankind. Viz.:
Speaking personally I did test it for myself, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting – peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritual enlightenment – as anger and anguish, for example, are still in situ in ‘being’ itself. * RICHARD: ... here are the pivotal words of the topic at hand for your considered appraisal: [Respondent No. 04]: ‘Go further and the inner and outer dissolve ...’. [Richard]: ‘There is no inner and outer in actuality ...’. [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Then you find out that the outside is the inside ...’. Now I ask you: where is your evidence – as in where are the ‘platitudes of repeated wisdom’ – which you are basing your entire case upon? RESPONDENT: Again you misunderstand. My reasons for inserting a post to Respondent No. 21 was to provide more explanation why I’m averse to getting dragged into a competition of ‘understanding’. RICHARD: In case you have forgotten this is where you began:
As you have already volunteered your ‘understanding’ of the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ it is a bit late in the piece to now say that you want to provide explanations, as to why you are ‘averse to getting dragged into a competition of ‘understanding’’ with your fellow human being, in lieu of sensibly discussing the topic at hand. Put simply: nobody ‘dragged’ you into this subject – you entered of your own accord – and, as the ‘competition’ you are ‘averse to’ has no existence outside of your skull, you are but tilting at windmills. Continued feinting for shadows smacks of continuing to avoid the issue. RESPONDENT: I added that I don’t see you as one who tosses borrowed platitudes around, I expressly exempted you from what I described as ‘common practice here. RICHARD: Good ... maybe now you might be inclined to examine your understanding of the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ (that there is no separation and that the psychology, the chemistry, is identical) so as to ascertain whether your understanding originates in your own lived experiencing or is borrowed from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s experiential understanding. Either that or perhaps explain to me the difference between a borrowed platitude and a borrowed understanding.
RICHARD: ... to say that my spelled-out request for clarification ‘reads like something strenuously concocted’ adds nothing to the comprehension of whatever it is you want me to know about your attitude ... it only serves to muddy the waters even more. RESPONDENT: To my mind you’re merely continuing that mud bath. RICHARD: In the interests of having an honest conversation I will point out that nine seconds before you posted this to me you posted the following to another:
Yet when I say that the impression gained from what you wrote to me is that you found ‘the discarding of limitation’ not as easy to have happen as it was assumed by me it would have been for you, when you did what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed doing in the paragraph I quoted, and asked you if this impression was correct you answered that ‘it reads like something strenuously concocted’ ... and when I further wrote, that when you tell me that the discarding of limitation may not be as easy for you as I assume it would be, and that of course I want to know if the impression gained from your few words is correct or not, you tell me that ‘to my mind you’re merely continuing that mud bath’. I really cannot proceed whilst you say one thing to one person and another thing to me. * RESPONDENT: As to the snipped paragraph, my snipping of it is not due to a wish to brush it aside. Merely an aid to focusing. RICHARD: As the focus of this thread is upon what happens when actually doing what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposes, and not just reading about it, it is odd, to say the least, to focus upon what is ‘clear enough’ for you ‘in the context of K’s teachings’ rather than finding out for yourself. Viz.: [Richard]: ‘The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? [Respondent]: ‘In the context of K’s teachings it’s clear enough. There is no separation. The psychology, the chemistry, is identical. [endquotes]. However, it is your life you are living, when all is said and done, and how you live it is entirely up to you, of course. RESPONDENT: Thank you. The same applies to you, of course. RICHARD: Well ... no, despite your well-meant assurance ‘the same’ does not apply to me as how I am living my life is due to the identity (‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) psychologically and psychically ‘self’-immolating, in toto, for the benefit of this body and that body and every body. I had nothing to do with that process at all (other than being here all along of course). * RESPONDENT: ... a few times when I tested where you deviate from k, I found nothing that made sense to me. RICHARD: As when you ‘tested’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed in the paragraphs you snipped produced no lived understanding for you to talk about then it is no wonder, the few times you have similarly ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from his, that it too would likewise make no sense. RESPONDENT: Look, our thread carried the k quote several times, so my snipping it can hardly be a major issue. RICHARD: It never was an issue until you made it one (in the section above) as all it ever amounted to was a way of referring to the experiential context which this discussion is indisputably about ... I would guess, with the benefit of hindsight in regards to what you have made of it, I could have pedantically referred to it as being the two paragraphs of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti which Respondent No. 04 quoted and the one paragraph of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti which I quoted, but it just seems a lot easier to say ‘the paragraphs you snipped’. Anyway ... this sentence you are now re-responding to is a hang-over from a previous e-mail (your initial response is being addressed in the section below). RESPONDENT: That you make it such an issue reveals a rather mechanical approach to our discussion ... RICHARD: If I may interject? As it was not me that made it into an issue – let alone a major issue – then if there be any ‘rather mechanical approach’ creeping into this discussion you can rest assured it is not emanating from this keyboard. RESPONDENT: ... turning it into a wrestling match about k and about you. RICHARD: Is that really the way you see it ... or is this but a rhetorical device? RESPONDENT: A neat way to build a pedestal for yourself. RICHARD: In your enthusiasm to apply your well-used grabbing-for-the-podium theory you are overlooking a salient point: this part of the e-mail is about how you ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ... and not about the snipping of his paragraphs which you have turned it into. If you do not wish to tell me how you ‘tested’ it then why not just say so instead of bringing in red-herrings? * RESPONDENT: ... a few times when I tested where you deviate from k, I found nothing that made sense to me. RICHARD: As when you ‘tested’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti proposed in the paragraphs you snipped produced no lived understanding for you to talk about then it is no wonder, the few times you have similarly ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from his, that it too would likewise make no sense. RESPONDENT: This reading may be convenient for you, but to me it’s far-fetched and uninteresting. RICHARD: Okay ... you tell me how you ‘tested’ where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s then (rather than leave me second-guessing, once again, how you might have gone about it). Then, if you will, perhaps you can explain how you ‘test for yourself’ what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti presents as being the solution for all the ills of humankind. Viz.: [Respondent No. 39]: ‘I think you’re right that Richard is implying that K isn’t free of ‘the old brain’. I can’t speak about K personally but others who were close to him, such as our own Respondent No. 33, have said that he did show psychological anger on occasion. [Respondent]: ‘They may have reasons to distort the facts. It seems to me this is something you need to test for yourself. [endquotes]. Speaking personally I did test it for myself, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting – peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritual enlightenment – as anger and anguish, for example, are still in situ in ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: I didn’t say otherwise, but your imputing anger to k when he uses harsh language to describe the state of corruption seems facile and downright silly. Unless you operate with a different definition of ‘anger’ than k does. RICHARD: In regards to you saying that my ‘imputing anger to k when he uses harsh language to describe the state of corruption seems facile and downright silly’ you will need to provide the reference to wherever it is you got it from that I (allegedly) said that, as it is nowhere in any of the records I have of what I have written to this mailing list ... and I have every single one of my e-mails to this mailing list archived on my hard-drive in the sequence they were sent. Also, this is not the first time you have made this allegation ... and I pointed out to you back then that this was not so:
It is this simple: I do not have to find evidence of anger (and anguish) in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words as I know the state of being he talks so eloquently of intimately, having lived that state of being, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting ... peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritual enlightenment as anger and anguish are still in situ in ‘being’ itself. Further to the point: when I looked through all my correspondence to you I found the following exchange (as it is in the earlier archives I cannot provide an on-line reference):
Quite frankly I just do not see how you could have formed the notion that I impute anger to him, when he calls a spade a spade, from what I wrote as I said it be accurately described thus ... besides which I have always found trying to read feelings into anybody’s words to be a futile enterprise to embark upon anyway. RESPONDENT: But that’s not where the discrepancy lies I feel. RICHARD: Okay ... here are my queries again (in case they got buried the text further above):
Some straightforward explanations would save me having to second-guess how you might have gone about it. * RESPONDENT: Again you misunderstand. My reasons for inserting a post to Respondent No. 21 was to provide more explanation why I’m averse to getting dragged into a competition of ‘understanding’. RICHARD: In case you have forgotten this is where you began: [Richard]: ‘The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? [Respondent]: ‘In the context of K’s teachings it’s clear enough. There is no separation. The psychology, the chemistry, is identical. [endquotes]. As you have already volunteered your ‘understanding’ of the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ it is a bit late in the piece to now say that you want to provide explanations, as to why you are ‘averse to getting dragged into a competition of ‘understanding’’ with your fellow human being, in lieu of sensibly discussing the topic at hand. Put simply: nobody ‘dragged’ you into this subject – you entered of your own accord – and, as the ‘competition’ you are ‘averse to’ has no existence outside of your skull, you are but tilting at windmills. Continued feinting for shadows smacks of continuing to avoid the issue. RESPONDENT: You mean to say you don’t see all the windbags here? RICHARD: If you re-read the above you will see that I was specifically referring to you and I sensibly discussing the topic at hand – a subject you voluntarily entered into with no coercion on my part whatsoever – and that I was making it clear that any competitiveness you may also discern on my part has no existence whatsoever outside of your purview. I am entirely sincere ... my only agenda (peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body) is, as it always has been, up-front and out in the open. * RESPONDENT: I added that I don’t see you as one who tosses borrowed platitudes around, I expressly exempted you from what I described as ‘common practice here. RICHARD: Good ... maybe now you might be inclined to examine your understanding of the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ (that there is no separation and that the psychology, the chemistry, is identical) so as to ascertain whether your understanding originates in your own lived experiencing or is borrowed from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s experiential understanding. Either that or perhaps explain to me the difference between a borrowed platitude and a borrowed understanding. RESPONDENT: The ‘borrowed platitude’, as I use the term, is the pretence that the words reflect an actual understanding. What you call ‘my borrowed understanding’ was clearly marked as a discussion of k’s semantics. I’m only discussing the logic of his language. We may grasp the logic of what k says, accept that logic, and yet resist the full implications of that logic. Better to stay in that state of uncertainty than pretend it’s my actuality. RICHARD: For you to know that a borrowed platitude, as you use the term, is a pretence that the words reflect an actual understanding you would first need to know that it is indeed a pretence ... has anyone ever told you, unequivocally, that they are in fact pretending to actually understand? Also, to grasp the logic of somebody’s language – anybody’s language – and to accept that logic yet resist the full implications of it (as in it not being a lived understanding) and to then speak about that grasped and accepted logic to others is to be speaking about a borrowed understanding ... and in this respect I can quote more of the post already partly quoted (further above):
It would appear that this ‘borrowed understanding’ issue has been going on for some time, eh?
RESPONDENT: The amount of material from a variety of posts that you present here becomes unmanageable for me. I have inserted a few brief answers below to some smaller points, but if you’re interested in meeting the issue of your deviations from k and my response to that, perhaps we should start afresh. RICHARD: Sure ... extracting the bare bones of that issue out of ‘the amount of material’ leaves it looking like this:
And the related query is this:
* RESPONDENT: I thought your imputing anger to k was one of them, and when Respondent No. 39 expressed a similar reading of your reaction, I raised that issue. RICHARD: This is the exchange you are referring to:
Respondent No. 39 is reading me correctly ... even where there is no ‘observer’ (‘I’ as ego) there remains the ‘being’ (‘me’ as soul or ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) which exists as a ‘presence’ in the old brain (the reptilian brain) which is why there is still anger – and anguish – in spiritual enlightenment. It is the enlightened state of being I am pointing the finger at and not Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti per se ... if this was a mailing list set up under the auspices of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain’s teachings, for example, I would be supplying quotes of his to evidence my point (I do not want anybody to have to only take my word for it when I report on my experience). RESPONDENT: But now you’re telling me that it is a misreading. RICHARD: As nowhere do I see Respondent No. 39 saying, suggesting or implying that I saw evidence of anger in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘critique of the world’ – that notion was your contribution to the discussion – I do not see how it could be said that he ‘expressed a similar reading’ to yours. As I remarked, in the previous e-mail, I do not have to find evidence of anger (and anguish) in Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words as I know that anger and anguish are still in situ in ‘being’ itself. RESPONDENT: Since our previous discussions date a long way back, and also because they became rather murky in this area of differences, it might be best if you state up front where you differ from k, and then we can discuss it again. It didn’t work in the past. But perhaps it would work now. RICHARD: Okay ... it is, as already mentioned further above, in regards to the matter of ‘being’ itself – an impersonalised ‘presence’ by whatever name – which remains in place in spiritual enlightenment ... only when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is not is there peace-on-earth. There is no inner and outer here in this actual world.
RICHARD: ... [where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s] is in regards to the matter of ‘being’ itself – an impersonalised ‘presence’ by whatever name – which remains in place in spiritual enlightenment ... only when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is not is there peace-on-earth. There is no inner and outer here in this actual world. RESPONDENT: To me it isn’t clear what you are saying about k. RICHARD: Okay ... it is also not clear to me in what way it was which you tested where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s the few times you did so – and neither is it clear to me how you test for yourself what he presents as being the solution for all the ills of humankind either – so if you could explain these two things to me it will then be clear how to go about phrasing what it is that I am reporting in a way that might very well be clear to you. It sure would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails if you could.
RICHARD: [quote]: ‘Then you find out that the outside is the inside, then you find out that the observer is the observed’. (page 36; ‘Krishnamurti on Education’; published by Krishnamurti Foundation India, ISBN 81-87326-00-X). RESPONDENT: Is the observer, then also, the outside? RICHARD: First of all there is a point which needs to be cleared up: you have titled the subject of this e-mail as being ‘is the thinker the outside’ which indicates that what your ‘is the observer, then also, the outside’ query really conveys is the question as to whether the thinker is, then also, the outside ... or not. As you obtained the quote which you start this thread with from the bottom of an e-mail in which three paragraphs were quoted I would draw your attention to the third one:
As you can see Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti specifically says [quote] ‘do not think’ [endquote] which indicates there being no thinker when the outside is the inside ... meaning that there is no thinker when the observer is the observed. Thus the ‘observer’ being referred to is the feeler, not the thinker ... for example (also from the same e-mail):
Put simply: it is an affective state of ‘being’ ... an oceanic
RICHARD: Here is my question: if the thinking self can get such rigorous scrutiny as the mailing list gives it ... why not the feeling self? Is the feeling self sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: Are you using the terms ‘thinking self’ and ‘feeling self’ in the k sense where they seem be extensions of one another or do you see them as different in substance? If it’s the latter, what is their substance? RICHARD: The feeling self (‘me’ as soul) is primal and the thinking self (‘I’ as ego) is derivative and both are, fundamentally, affective in substance: as the essential affective feelings are in situ before thought first arises in infancy – a baby is born already feeling – the feeler, as an embryonic feeling being, is innate in the species ... it is an hereditarily programmed, or genetically encoded, instinctually passionate inchoate presence, a rudimentary survival ‘self’ as it were. Any and all imprinting which happens after birth imprints itself onto, into, and as, this already existing basic set of survival passions that form themselves into being the intuitive presence which, at root, is what any ‘me’ ultimately is ... as does any and all societal, familial, and peer-group conditioning. Both imprinting and conditioning need substance to latch onto, sink into, and be ... it all washes off a clean slate like water off a duck’s back. Innocence is something entirely new to human experience.
RESPONDENT: To me it isn’t clear what you are saying about k. RICHARD: Okay ... it is also not clear to me in what way it was which you tested where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s the few times you did so – and neither is it clear to me how you test for yourself what he presents as being the solution for all the ills of humankind either – so if you could explain these two things to me it will then be clear how to go about phrasing what it is that I am reporting in a way that might very well be clear to you. It sure would save a lot of to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails if you could. RESPONDENT: Fair enough: I used ‘tested’ as in ‘tried to test’, but was unable to find bottom (a clear delineation). RICHARD: When I read this by inserting it into the framework of your initial response (which is where the to-ing and fro-ing of e-mails began) so as to better understand what you are conveying it looks like this:
I am sure you will appreciate that this does not make it any clearer to me in what way it was which you tried to test where my experiencing differs from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s the few times you did so? RESPONDENT: Your second question, how I test k’s words: my trying to understand, or to make sense of them, is the only test that makes any sense to me. RICHARD: Similarly, when I read this in the framework of your response to Respondent No. 39 (which is where this related query stems from), so as to better understand what you are saying, it looks like this:
Again I am sure you will appreciate that this does not make it any clearer to me how you try to understand, or to make sense of, what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti presents as being the solution for all the ills of humankind? The reason why I am interested in what way it is that you try to test, understand, or make sense of, where my experiencing deviates from Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s is because when I write and explain that it differs in regards to the matter of ‘being’ itself – an impersonalised ‘presence’ by whatever name – which remains in place in spiritual enlightenment, and that it is only when identity in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is not that there is peace-on-earth, I am somewhat handicapped by not knowing how to otherwise phrase these words ... to put then in a way that might very well make them clear to you. For example, in regards the matter of ‘being’ itself: when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talks of ‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’, and implies that there is no ego-self in ‘being’ (whereas there is in ‘becoming’), does this then not speak to you of being an impersonalised ‘presence’ (a soul-self by whatever name) ... rather than being an everyday ‘personality’ (ego-self) such as maybe 6.0 billion people are? And when I write of ‘being’ itself ceasing to be as well (meaning no soul-self whatsoever remains) does this then not speak to you of being a flesh and blood body only living freely in the actual world of sensory experiencing – there is no inner or outer in actuality – rather than being either a ‘personality’ (‘I’ as ego) or an impersonalised ‘presence’ (‘me’ as soul) by whatever name? What if I were to say that it is only by going beyond enlightenment (which means that there is no longer any god or goddess – the truth by whatever description – energetically meddling in human affairs) that there is peace-on-earth ... and that peace-on-earth has been here all along anyway? All the tumult and turmoil has never been anything other than the playing out of the human psyche.
RICHARD: ... as you can see Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti specifically says [quote] ‘do not think’ [endquote] which indicates there being no thinker when the outside is the inside ... meaning that there is no thinker when the observer is the observed. RESPONDENT: Perhaps this exchange, too, will collapse in semantics. To my sense the words ‘observer’, ‘thinker’, ‘feeler’ (an ugly sound) describe the self. The presence of self prevents true observation, distorts right thinking, confuses true feeling. I don’t make as much of a distinction between thinking and feeling as you do, and I don’t think k and Bohm did. RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not use the term ‘the feeler’ (not that I have all his words in electronic form so as to conduct a thorough search) although he frequently used the terms ‘the thinker’, ‘the observer’, ‘the watcher’, ‘the experiencer’ and ‘the meditator’ ... and even if it turns out that he did I am most definitely not using ‘the feeler’ as being interchangeable with ‘the thinker’ as he does with ‘the observer’, ‘the watcher’, ‘the experiencer’ and ‘the meditator’. To blur the distinction between the thinker and the feeler is to lose the plot altogether as the feeler only comes into full being when the thinker is not ... the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is well-nigh ubiquitous among spiritualists and their ilk. RESPONDENT: K’s ‘do not think’ in this context seems to simply mean ‘slow down all reactions’. RICHARD: As his words ‘do not think’, in the meditation context they are sitting in, do not mean he wants the listener to not think, but to ‘slow down all reactions’ instead, how would he have to phrase it if he wanted the listener to not think? * RICHARD: Thus the ‘observer’ being referred to is the feeler, not the thinker ... RESPONDENT: The ‘thinker’ interferes with ‘thinking’, as the ‘observer’ interferes with ‘observing’, as a ‘feeler’ interferes with ‘feeling’. RICHARD: And where the feeler interferes with feeling big-time is upon transcendence ... which is where the negative feelings have been sublimated to such a degree that the positive feelings appear squeaky-clean (aka have no opposite). ‘Tis only an appearance, though. * RICHARD: ... for example (also from the same e-mail): ‘It is essential to appreciate beauty. The
beauty of the sky, the beauty of the sun upon the hill, the beauty of a smile, a face, a gesture, the beauty of the moonlight on
the water, of the fading clouds, the song of the bird, it is essential to look at it, *to feel it*, to be with it, this is
the very first requirement for a man who would seek truth. (...) So it is essential to have this sense of beauty, for *the
feeling of beauty is the feeling of love*’. [emphasises added]. (‘Fifth Public Talk at
Poona’ by J. Krishnamurti; 21 September 1958). Put simply: it is an affective state of ‘being’ ... an oceanic RESPONDENT: You may put it that way, but my sense is that you give greater definition to this state than k permits. RICHARD: As I have many times read the ‘definition’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti time and again gives to the state of non-separation – usually to be found in the last few paragraphs at the end of his talks – I am at a loss to see why this way of expressing it would be ‘greater’ than his expression. * RESPONDENT: On the question of ‘thinker + outside’, my feeling is bending towards a yes. When a ‘thinker’ exists, the ‘outside’ is that. When no thinker exists, the outside is no longer outside. RICHARD: And when the outside is ‘no longer outside’ where is it ... is it then inside (as in ‘the outside is the inside’)?
RICHARD: The feeling self (‘me’ as soul) is primal and the thinking self (‘I’ as ego) is derivative and both are, fundamentally, affective in substance: as the essential affective feelings are in situ before thought first arises in infancy – a baby is born already feeling – the feeler, as an embryonic feeling being, is innate in the species ... it is an hereditarily programmed, or genetically encoded, instinctually passionate inchoate presence, a rudimentary survival ‘self’ as it were. RESPONDENT: The senses are ‘genetically programmed’, embryonic feelings are probably due to prenatal experiences, the ‘rudimentary survival self’ is the beginning of learning. RICHARD: If the embryonic feelings are due to ‘prenatal experiences’ – and are not genetically programmed – are you suggesting that feelings arise ex nihilo? RESPONDENT: To introduce the word ‘self’ in this context can only lead to confusion. RICHARD: Not necessarily ... there are those peoples, who are not out to preserve the sanctity of the feeling self at all costs, who tell me it leads to clarity. * RICHARD: Any and all imprinting which happens after birth imprints itself onto, into, and as, this already existing basic set of survival passions that form themselves into being the intuitive presence which, at root, is what any ‘me’ ultimately is ... as does any and all societal, familial, and peer-group conditioning. RESPONDENT: This would be a major departure from k, right? RICHARD: It would be indeed ... a radical
But he does not wonder why it is probable that ‘we have derived this feeling from that little animal’ for very long as soon he has left behind everything that thought had put together and has completely forgotten himself ... so much so that soon there is no longer any sense of being a human being even:
The word ‘dissociation’ seems particularly apt. * RICHARD: Both imprinting and conditioning need substance to latch onto, sink into, and be ... it all washes off a clean slate like water off a duck’s back. Innocence is something entirely new to human experience. RESPONDENT: Why not ‘a quality we, as species lost, as the self displaced it’? RICHARD: Are you suggesting there was an era when the human species had no instinctual survival passions?
CORRESPONDENT No. 42 (Part Five) 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 |
