|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 48
RESPONDENT: However impassioned K grew in the course of his talks, I can’t recall a single instance when he resorted to such expletives as ‘jerk,’ ‘asinine,’ and ‘crap’ to describe those with whom he was speaking. This is not simply a matter of his personal style – which for the most part was politely formal (hence all the ‘Sirs’). The fact is that such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed. RICHARD: Simply in the spirit of balance and objectivity, and to see how he actually wrote and spoke, it did not take me long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows:
Further to this line of enquiry as to how to how Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke to his fellow human beings, in August 1998; Hans and Radhika Herzberger of the Rishi Valley Study Centre wrote:
I will not copy and paste here as their Web Page specifically warns that ‘these materials have been edited in ways that suit the special purposes of this series and may not be copied or quoted in their present form in any other publications’. However, I can provide the URL so that you can read for yourself: www.kfa.org/RV-wp-9moralpassion.html If you are indeed inclined to access the page and digest its contents, then what is of interest to me is whether, upon sober reflection and considered deliberation, you would you still maintain that ‘such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed’? Surely this is an apt way to check whether your integrity is your own integrity or not, eh?
RESPONDENT: However impassioned K grew in the course of his talks, I can’t recall a single instance when he resorted to such expletives as ‘jerk’, ‘asinine’, and ‘crap’ to describe those with whom he was speaking. This is not simply a matter of his personal style – which for the most part was politely formal (hence all the ‘Sirs’). The fact is that such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed. RICHARD: Simply in the spirit of balance and objectivity, and to see how he actually wrote and spoke, it did not take me long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows: <SNIP> Further to this line of enquiry as to how to how Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke to his fellow human beings, in August 1998; Hans and Radhika Herzberger of the Rishi Valley Study Centre wrote: <SNIP> I can provide the URL so that you can read for yourself. If you are indeed inclined to access the page and digest its contents, then what is of interest to me is whether, upon sober reflection and considered deliberation, you would you still maintain that ‘such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed’? Surely this is an apt way to check whether your integrity is your own integrity or not, eh? RESPONDENT: Thank you for taking the trouble to do some research about Krishnamurti’s language and for giving us an actual example of how others have interpreted his manner of speech. I have no reason to doubt that K used the long list of words you cited. However, it is necessary for us to have the actual context in which they were written or spoken to understand fully what he meant. I’ve read most of K’s books, have watched innumerable videotapes, and have also heard a broad sampling of the audiotapes, which led me to make the first statement you cited below. As far as I can tell, K did not make it a practice to denigrate those with whom he spoke directly. If your believe I’m incorrect, then I’d appreciate your providing some actual examples which reveal K using overtly disparaging speech with individuals – at least enough material to show that there is a recurrent pattern. I’m well aware that K described human beings in general, and even certain religious or political groups and figures with some of the words you list, but what I’m asking for is an example of K saying something like the following directly to someone’s face: ‘You’re an asinine jerk who does nothing but spout crap. Quite frankly, you suck out loud’. Something like the following is not what I mean: ‘Sir, if I may say so, you are not listening to what the speaker is saying, He is asking you to look at the image you have of yourself, which is making you feel bored, dull, mediocre. Can you just be quiet, Sir, and observe that image without accepting or rejecting it?’ The quote taken from the Hans and/or Radhika Herzberger is a personal interpretation of K and his teachings, attributing words to K without citing specific contexts. Their description is worshipful, even to the point of equating K to a biblical prophet. This is a telling illustration of the extreme veneration to which K was subject by some of his admirers, but not a particularly objective description. It is interesting to note, however, that the Hertzbergers report that K applied his critical language to actions, practices, character traits, and social institutions. There is no mention of his directly hurling epithets at an individual to whom he was speaking. It is one thing to use strong language to critique murder, wife-beating, female infanticide, and communism, but quite another to use such language to belittle someone with whom one is speaking directly. Had K made a regular practice out of the latter, it would have thoroughly contradicted his view that images impede communication. Whatever the case may be, I don’t think rational discourse is well served by insult-mongering and hate-speech. RICHARD: By posting the list of words that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti regularly used (and also providing a reference page URL for further investigation) I was essentially suggesting that we look at your topic of rudeness and politeness. We are rude and we say we must not be rude. The politeness is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be rude. So you make politeness into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform rudeness into that ideal. But the politeness has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. I see from your response that you do not easily agree with me because it is very difficult to eject ideas or ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (Editorial note: This response is a direct take of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own words ... only substituting the word ‘rude’ for the word ‘violence’. [quote]: ‘Let us look at violence and non-violence. We are violent and we say we must not be violent. The non-violence is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be violent. So you make non-violence into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform violence into that ideal. But the non-violence has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. You do not easily agree with me at first because it is very difficult to eject ideas, ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea’. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘First Public Talk at Poona’, 7 September 1958; ©1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America; www.kfa.org/poona58.html).
RICHARD: By posting the list of words that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti regularly used (and also providing a reference page URL for further investigation) I was essentially suggesting that we look at your topic of rudeness and politeness. We are rude and we say we must not be rude. The politeness is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be rude. So you make politeness into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform rudeness into that ideal. RESPONDENT: I’m not saying we mustn’t be rude, only that polite speech is generally more conducive to rational discourse than unfriendly speech – including name-calling – which generally isn’t. Yes, if we project the ideal of polite speech and on the basis of that ideal try to transform our image of rudeness, we’re only muddying waters which are already polluted. To see rudeness as a fact is to transform it. RICHARD: Very well then, and because you have seen ‘rudeness as a fact’ and the rudeness has been ‘transformed’ for you, you then take the topic deeper into the violence that underpins rudeness where you say (further below): ‘sensitive people don’t make a habit of impolite gestures, like punching someone in the nose or kicking another in the shins’. Therefore, in this new, deeper context you have introduced, what you are (effectively) saying in your reply above is: I’m not saying we mustn’t be violent, only that non-violence is generally more conducive to [human interaction] than violence. Consequently, as you are (effectively) condoning violence as a viable alternative in some instances, although you ‘do not make a habit of punching someone in the nose or kicking another in the shins’ , you still have violence in you. As you still have violence in you, therefore the non-violence which is generally more conducive to [human interaction] than violence is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be violent. So you make non-violence into an ideal because it is generally more conducive to [human interaction] than violence and then proceed to try to transform violence into that ideal. Thus the non-violence has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. I see again from your response that you do not easily agree with me because it is very difficult to eject ideas or ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. Again, I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea. * RICHARD: But the politeness has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. I see from your response that you do not easily agree with me because it is very difficult to eject ideas or ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea. RESPONDENT: I think I clarified my understanding of the matter already. Projecting an ideal of how we should speak to one another is absurd. That only takes us away from observing what we are. It’s also absurd for us to imagine that if we call each other names, we aren’t really being rude. Sensitive people do not make a habit of impolite speech, unless, of course, they suffer from Tourette’s Syndrome and simply can’t help themselves. By the same token, sensitive people don’t make a habit of impolite gestures, like punching someone in the nose or kicking another in the shins. If you intentionally slap me in the face, don’t expect me to believe you when you tell me I merely have an image that you are rude. That would be a total cop-out, an irresponsible ruse to focus the blame on me for your insensitivity. Wasn’t it George Wallace, the former governor of Alabama, who insisted that the real bigots were those who called other people bigots? He used that bit of illogic to defend himself from accusations that he was racially prejudiced. ‘Call me a bigot and that makes you one – not me.’ Name-calling is a form of image-making. If you call me a ‘fool,’ you are sending me the message that you think I am a fool, that you have an image in your mind that I am a fool. If I tell you, ‘Since you called me a fool, you have an image that I’m a fool,’ I’m making a logical inference from your statement. Unless you explain that you intended otherwise, my inference – although not cast in stone – is still plausible. What if you turn the tables on me and say: ‘You are wrong to assume that because I called you a fool that I have an image about you. Your problem is that you have an image that I think you are a fool. Stop projecting your image onto me!’ That makes about as much sense as your rear-ending a car and accusing the driver of the car you rear-ended of backing into you! RICHARD: Okay, you say that ‘sensitive people do not make a habit of impolite speech’ ... which insight of yours is the outcome of seeing ‘rudeness as a fact’ (which ‘transformed’ you into a ‘sensitive person’). Being a ‘sensitive person’, you then took the topic deeper into the violence and non-violence that underpins rudeness and politeness where you say: ‘sensitive people don’t make a habit of impolite gestures, like punching someone in the nose or kicking another in the shins’. Therefore, what you are (effectively) saying is: sensitive people do not make a habit of violence. But, as you are (effectively) condoning violence as a viable alternative in some instances, even though you do not make a habit of it, you still have violence in you. Thus the non-violence has no reality! As I have observed twice before, no ideal has any reality, obviously. So I see from your response yet again that you still do not easily agree with me ... because it is very difficult to eject ideas or ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. I will say it again: you are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. And, once again, I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• Editorial note: Again this response is expanding on the direct take of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own words ... only putting the word ‘violence’ back in for the word ‘rude’ this time. [quote]: ‘Let us look at violence and non-violence. We are violent and we say we must not be violent. The non-violence is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be violent. So you make non-violence into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform violence into that ideal. But the non-violence has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. You do not easily agree with me at first because it is very difficult to eject ideas, ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. I am not insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea’. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘First Public Talk at Poona’, 7 September 1958; ©1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America; www.kfa.org/poona58.html). There was, however no response as the respondent quit the Mailing List within a day or two after this was posted.
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 |
