|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Life after Death and Immortality
RICHARD: There is no actual ‘me’ to either ‘die’ or to have ‘Eternal Life’. RESPONDENT: In the highest sense of the word ‘Immortal’ doesn’t mean ‘endless life’ but means ‘beyond life and death’. That which is mortal experiences life and death. But that which is immortal is unborn and undying. RICHARD: The only factual thing that remotely meets the qualification ‘beyond life and death’ is inanimate matter – a rock, for example. It only meets the qualification by virtue of the fact that it has never been alive, therefore it can never be dead. So, whenever the word ‘Immortal’ (the opposite to ‘mortal’) is used, no one, to my knowledge, has ever referred to the physical, inanimate universe itself ... they have always indicated something metaphysical, by whatever name, be it personal or impersonal. As anything alive will inevitably die (this is a fact), then the word ‘Immortality’ refers to supernatural stuff (which is belief). The only ‘thing’ that is ‘unborn and undying’ is God. God, by any other name, is still God ... and with God we are back in the realm of belief. But you and I have already exhausted this particular topic in another thread ... where it was established
that you, who fancied yourself as a logician, valued belief higher than reason. RESPONDENT: Here then are last night’s/this morning’s questions. I have written a helluva lot here. I realise it will take a long time to answer them all (guilt/ hope surfaces ... plough on) ... if the universe is experiencing itself through this flesh and blood body ... RICHARD: If I may interject? The universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body (and the distinction is not trivial). RESPONDENT: ... and if actual pleasure comes from just being that experience without possession or identity, doesn’t it follow that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself (in other forms)? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: And if that, is it not possible to say that in some way ‘I’ continue after the flesh and blood body dies? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I don’t mean ‘I’ as a psychic or spiritual entity, a ‘realised state’, rather ‘the universe experiencing itself’ continues; ‘the experience of this’ that is actually known remains. RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: I still don’t understand your answers to death. You said that the end of the flesh and blood body does not leave behind anything which continues to experience itself in other forms. RICHARD: By replying in the negative to your query – wherein you posited that (1) if the universe is experiencing itself *through* this flesh and blood body and (2) if actual pleasure comes from just being *that* experience without possession or identity and then asked whether it follows that the end of the flesh and blood body leaves behind something which continues in some way to experience itself in other forms – all I am saying (after first pointing out that universe experiences itself *as* this flesh and blood body) is it does not follow that the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body continues in some way at the end of this flesh and blood body by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: That doesn’t make any sense to me at all. RICHARD: Well now ... I did say, did I not, that the distinction between ‘through’ and ‘as’ is not trivial? RESPONDENT: Are you saying that the entire ‘infinite and eternal’ universe started when I was born and will finish when I die? RICHARD: No ... all I am saying is that at the death of this flesh and blood body the universe’s experience of itself as this flesh and blood body will not continue in some way by this flesh and blood body leaving behind something for this universe to experience itself as this flesh and blood body in other forms. RESPONDENT: Thus everyone else I perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to me will, as soon as I die, stop experiencing the universe. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying thus everyone else you perceive, who seem, details aside, to be pretty similar to you will, as soon as you die, stop experiencing the universe. RESPONDENT: In fact, if I die, you, Richard, will stop being actual. RICHARD: No ... I am not saying in fact, if you die, I, Richard, will stop being actual. RESPONDENT: Isn’t what you are saying a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game? RICHARD: No ... what I am saying is not a bit like the old ‘tree falling in an empty forest doesn’t exist’ philosophical mind-game. RESPONDENT: When I leave this room for example, the chair I am sitting on may cease to exist as a physical fact for me, but it obviously continues to exist, because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times in the past. RICHARD: Whereas when I leave this room, for example, the chair I am sitting on does not cease to exist as a physical fact (as an always-on camera would readily demonstrate) for me as it obviously continues to exist ... if only because here I am sitting on it again after having left it many times previously. RESPONDENT: I suppose the answer to these questions is tied up with your comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz? RICHARD: No ... the answer to those questions is not tied up with my comments on the ‘real world’ being ersatz. RESPONDENT: How do you know that nothing continues after your body dies though? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that nothing continues after this flesh and blood body dies your query has no answer. RESPONDENT: And how is it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death? RICHARD: As I never even implied, let alone said, that it liberating to know that absolutely nothing survives after death that query of yours also has no answer. RESPONDENT: I have read quite a lot about death on your site, but cannot understand the answers. RICHARD: Given the way you read my replies (at the top of this page) that is not at all surprising. RESPONDENT: They just seem to be affirmations that it is so. RICHARD: What, specifically, just seems to you to be affirmations that it is so? RESPONDENT: But why? RICHARD: As I am not cognisant of what, specifically, just seems to you to be affirmations that it is so your query cannot be answered. RESPONDENT: How does it follow that my inevitable and imminent extinction on ALL fronts (including pure spiritual unbounded universal (etc) awareness) is a liberating fact? RICHARD: It follows in regards to endurance and, therefore, seriousness. As no body endures, and thus no identity does either, it means that nothing really matters in the long-term and, as nothing actually is of enduring importance (in this ultimate sense), it is simply not possible to take life seriously ... sincerely, yes, but seriously? No way ... life is much too much fun to be serious! RESPONDENT: Doesn’t it lead to a crazy rush to suck the juice out of life before it’s all gone, and to hang on to pleasurable things and identities for as long as one can? RICHARD: No. RESPONDENT: That’s the mystic take on it anyway. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you realise that what you are saying is, in effect, that the very fact the death of a flesh and blood body means the simultaneous extinction of identity is being denied by mystics just so there be no crazy rush to suck the juice out of life, before it is all gone, and to hang on to pleasurable things and identities for as long as one can? Mystics, whilst being entirely delusional, are not essentially moralistic killjoys ... they instinctually intuit, affectively feel, and therefore seriously think they are timeless ‘being’ itself (pure spirit). RESPONDENT: I’d still sort of thought of it all like that though, that something which in some fundamental sense I am will continue – without mind, body and vibe. RICHARD: The very stuff of what you are (‘what’ not ‘who’) continues ... matter itself, being neither created nor destroyed, is eternal. RESPONDENT: I will kind of dissolve back into the infinite eternal universe. RICHARD: Various bits and pieces of what you are (such as flakes of skin for an obvious instance) are falling off you each moment again ... physical death simply means all of what you are is available at once for recycling. RESPONDENT: How exactly is that wrong, if it is? RICHARD: What exactly is wrong is that who you are (‘who’ not ‘what’) has no existence in actuality ... let alone being able to dissolve into it upon the death of the body you have a parasitical residence in. * RESPONDENT: Many spiritual teachers say in a similar (although, I don’t know, perhaps a subtly and vitally different) way to you that there is a difference between the spiritual or deeply psychic ‘realisation’ and consequent (and stunningly subtle) false identity, and an actual and real enlightenment where all identity disappears. RICHARD: Any spiritual teacher who says that [quote] ‘all identity’ [endquote] disappears upon spiritual enlightenment/mystical awakenment is being disingenuous. RESPONDENT: Could it be that when they have used words that you reject, Self, God and so on ... RICHARD: I do not reject words such as Self, God and so on ... I lived that/was that, which those words aptly refer to, night and day for eleven years, and found it wanting. RESPONDENT: ... [Could it be] that sometimes they are referring to the same state as you? RICHARD: No, it could not be ... not at all. RESPONDENT: If not, why? RICHARD: Because of this (for instance):
Or this (for another instance):
And this (just in case there still be some ambiguity):
RESPONDENT: Tony Parsons for example, while pointing to a crucial event in his life (a ASC? a PCE?) ... RICHARD: An altered state of consciousness (ASC). RESPONDENT: ... and while using words like enlightenment, liberation, fulfilment, freedom, oneness and so forth, all of which might be evidence of his misguidedness, says that ‘the open secret’ is in fact absolute death of ‘I’. RICHARD: Oh? How about this, then:
RESPONDENT: Richard, now I question from my own mind: I remember Vineeto saying she is ‘100% certain’ that there is no God or afterlife. I remember thinking then (and still basically thinking the same thing) that it is impossible to ‘100%’ prove a negative. RICHARD: Or so the epistemologists are prone to claim ... yet as one can indeed prove, for oneself and beyond any doubt whatsoever (not just beyond reasonable doubt), that no afterlife/deity does or can even possibly exist there is at least that (major) exception to their rule. RESPONDENT: Of course I don’t believe in Gnomes or trolls (internet trolls are a fact of course) and as an actualist I don’t consciously engage in any kind of believing, but that does not ‘100% prove’ that they do not exist. RICHARD: Indeed not, but what disbelief does prove, however, is that belief is not an essential prerequisite for a comparatively successful life (and thus society) – comparable to believer’s lives (and thus societies) that is – and that is not something to be dismissed lightly. RESPONDENT: It is of course very improbable that Trolls or a God exists. RICHARD: Yet improbability is not proof per se, eh? RESPONDENT: Don’t get me wrong, I find the notion of believing in God, and afterlife, or any spiritual belief to be unobjective, nonfactual, and a silly waste of one’s precious time. RICHARD: Given that believers do not have a corner on (relatively) successful lives/successful societies that is demonstrably true. RESPONDENT: I understand that the notion of anything apart from this physical universe is unconceivable in a PCE, but that still does not seem to warrant Vineeto’s ‘100% certainty’ argument (which seems strangely fundamentalistic in the manner of fundamentalist Christianity to me). RICHARD: Ahh ... in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is not so much that it is inconceivable, that there be anything other than this physical universe, it is patently obvious there be not. RESPONDENT: I don’t remember you saying exactly ‘I’m 100% certain there is no God’ ... RICHARD: I may not have said it in those words. RESPONDENT: ... (as you may have guessed this does go into the Karl Popper view that 100% certainty is impossible for certain topics/ questions). RICHARD: For certain topics/ questions ...yes (in an infinite and eternal and perpetual universe there just might be a one-eyed one-horned flying purple people-eater somewhere and somewhen); for the topic/question of an afterlife/a deity ... no, not at all impossible. RESPONDENT: I remember you saying something to the affect of ‘As for myself, I am certain there is no God or afterlife’. Now to me that is not exactly the same statement as Vineeto’s. RICHARD: I would rather say it this way: here in this actual world it is as plain as the nose on one’s face that all deities/ any afterlife have no existence whatsoever outside of the human psyche. It is all so peaceful, here, where there are no gods/ goddesses to meddle in human affairs. RESPONDENT: It seems to me that you did not entirely dismiss the Popperian view that some things cannot be known with 100% certainty. RICHARD: The following may be of interest in this regard:
RESPONDENT: To me what you were saying is that you are sensibly certain (not 100%/godlike/ absolutic certain) that there is no God or afterlife. RICHARD: Ha ... it is not an omniscient certainty, if that is what you mean by ‘godlike’, for that is what Mr. Karl Popper’s logic is based upon (no human can ever be all-knowing). RESPONDENT: Speaking of the God and afterlife debate, I can easily see the ridiculousness of the idea of an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-loving Being. RICHARD: Aye, the religionist versus rationalist debates, both on the internet and elsewhere, have flogged that topic to death via the ‘existence of evil’ dilemma. RESPONDENT: As for an ‘afterlife’ I suppose there could be some small probability for a physical/ energetic ‘survival’ of some aspect of human consciousness. RICHARD: About a year and a half ago someone posted reams and reams of words on this mailing list from a web site which proposed that an afterlife was to be found in the (theoretical) dark matter of the (mathematical) universe. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: It would not be ‘spiritual’, but rather a different manifestation of this physical universe. Now, since I don’t engage in believing, I am not proposing that I believe this (not only do I not, I never will again), just saying I don’t see the possibility or even need for an actualist to say with ‘100%’ certainty that such a course of events is impossible. RICHARD: Oh, there is indeed the possibility to say that ... as for the need to: as more than a few peoples have been horrifically put to death (ostensibly so as to save their immortal souls) over the years, and as more than a few wars have been religious wars, there are certainly some very beneficial reasons to do so. RESPONDENT: Of course, if my identity ever self-immolates, perhaps I would see things differently. Yet, I presently think I’d reject this ‘100% certain’ notion even after I had attained a actual freedom (or a virtual freedom for that matter). I’d simply say: ‘As for myself, I am sensibly certain that there is no God or afterlife, and that is that’. RICHARD: Someone once earnestly said to me, quite a few years ago and after having utilised their interaction with me over many, many months to their advantage, that were they to become free they would never speak of it, never mention it to another, but go about living their life in humble obscurity (no doubt being strongly influenced by that ‘he who knows does not speak/he who speaks does not know’ aphorism). Upon me saying it was just as well that was not the case with me, then (else they would never had even heard
of such a freedom), there was a stunned silence. RESPONDENT: I should like to ask you if you are interested for me to bring in the list a new subject, the so called, metaphysical? Is something that science can’t explain it, but they are overall phenomena. There are many frauds in this area, but this does not mean that there are not genuine ones. Science for example can not explain the reason of many illnesses, but this does not mean that the diseases does not exist. I am copying and paste a subject that I founded interesting. The first question that will arise to your brain is, what is there to be reincarnated? RICHARD: You may find a review of the following exchange helpful:
RESPONDENT: I really DON’T KNOW, but because I don’t know I can’t reject the evidence altogether. RICHARD: The only way to know it is experientially. RESPONDENT: I had put in the list some subjects on metaphysical facts. RICHARD: If you are referring to the 12, 027 words you copy-pasted from an after-death survivalist’s web site then you are using the word ‘facts’ very, very loosely ... so loosely that your usage of it is indistinguishable from what the word ‘beliefs’ commonly refers to. For example, the author you quoted at length first proposes there are two bodies (the finite physical body which contains the brain that dies and an infinite etheric body which contains a mind which does not die) and two worlds (the physical world and an etheric world) and then proposes that etheric body/ mind is made-up of the sub-atomic particles of quantum theory and that etheric world is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics ... specifically the neutrino. In short: an after-death abode which lies in an invisible nine-tenths of the universe. Moreover the author then proposes that invisible universe is what is creating the visible universe:
As his proof for survival after death comes from materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums I did not consider there was anything in what you copy-pasted to answer ... especially as nowhere on his web page did I see any mention of the meaning of life, peace on earth, happiness and harmlessness, freedom from malice and sorrow, or anything else of that ilk. Not that those subjects are of particular interest to you, of course, but they are to me. RESPONDENT: You was not bothered to answer, that means that you are stubborn in your beliefs. RICHARD: Oh? So it has got to the stage now that all you have to do is post reams and reams of words about after-death survival, classify them as being metaphysical facts, and if Richard does not respond then that means Richard is being stubborn in his beliefs, eh? RESPONDENT: Is your right to think the way you think ... RICHARD: If I may point out? The way thinking happens here has nothing to do with a ‘right’ to think that way as there is the direct experience of the actual – this which is actually happening – and thoughts form themselves in accord to that wherever necessary. For example these words are being typed as the very thing referred to is actually occurring – they are coming directly out of actuality – and not from some nebulous beliefs such as you would have be the case. RESPONDENT: [Is your right to think the way you think], but I strongly believe that you are in an altered state of consciousness ... RICHARD: Now here is a curious thing: I have never heard anyone say they weakly believe something. RESPONDENT: : [Is your right to think the way you think, but I strongly believe that you are in an altered state of consciousness], even if you are defined it like PCE. RICHARD: This is not the first time you have believed this:
Apparently all that has happened in the ensuing three months is that you now strongly believe it. RESPONDENT: Is your personal interpretation. RICHARD: No ... indeed one of the things I did before I went public with my discovery was to ascertain whether people from many walks of life could recall having had a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – as distinct from an altered state of consciousness (ASC) – for obvious reasons and without fail they all verified that what I had to report is correct. More to the point I have been able to ascertain that anybody that I have been with whilst they were having a PCE is indubitably experiencing the same-same experience as is my on-going experiencing ... plus they have tended to say things such as they now see what I have been saying all along for themselves; that everything I have ever said is accurate; that they understand what I have been getting at; that they know why it is difficult for others to comprehend; that they can now talk on an equal footing with me; that life is indeed grand ... amazing, marvellous, and truly wondrous. I usually ask pertinent questions: for example very early in the piece I asked my current companion, once the PCE was definitely happening, what she had to say now about love (always a hot topic): ‘Love?’ she said, ‘Why there is no room for love here!’ She went on to expand, saying there was no need for love as everything was already perfect, and there was no separation, and so on ... but she had said enough in her initial response to both satisfy and delight me. RESPONDENT: No one can say you are right or wrong ... RICHARD: Au contraire ... somebody who is having, or can recall having had, a PCE can indeed say so. RESPONDENT: [No one can say you are right or wrong], but the fact that Vineeto and Peter, that are so close to you, did not arrived yet there is the proof that everything you are experiencing could be your hallucination. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you realise that, as you ‘strongly believe’ I am in an ASC, you have just classified such a state of being as an hallucination? Apart from that: the fact that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public only means that nobody has become actually free in the six years since I first went public – anything else is speculation – and to focus upon such speculation is to miss the truly remarkable virtual freedom that is possible by applying the actualism method ... and as a virtual freedom is way beyond normal expectations anyway then, irregardless of whatever happens in the future, my having gone public will not have been in vain. And even further to this point there are some people who, having taken in the gist of what I have to report about spiritual enlightenment, have dropped spiritualism for the crock it is and reverted to materialism ... so it is even of benefit to have gone public if only for the disillusionment of those who had hitched their star to some massively deluded person. All in all I am already well-pleased ... and, as it is only early days yet, I will probably be even more pleased one day. RESPONDENT: After all with what right Vineeto and Peter are defending you in the moment they don’t have personal experience? RICHARD: They do not have to have any ‘right’ – for what they have to report/say comes out of PCE’s and not just out of what I have to report/say – and it is rather telling that you would describe it as ‘defending’ me ... rather than, for instance, confirming what I have to report/say. RESPONDENT: That means they obey you ... RICHARD: It is the PCE which is a person’s lodestone ... not me and/or my words. Me and/or my words provide confirmation of what the PCE makes evident ... and provide the affirmation that a fellow human being has safely negotiated the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you] because of belief ... RICHARD: No, a PCE is the direct experience of actuality ... belief plays no part in it whatsoever
(nor does faith, hope, trust, and certitude RESPONDENT: [That means they obey you because of belief] and might destroy other peoples’ life. RICHARD: If you can satisfactorily explain to me how being happy and harmless (virtually free from malice and sorrow) 99% of the time might destroy other peoples’ life I would be more than a little surprised ... which brings me to the obvious question: what is your objection to people being happy and harmless? My guess, and it is but a guess, is that the latter part of your last sentence would be more in accord with the truth if it were put something like this:
‘Tis only a guess, mind you. RICHARD: Moreover the author then proposes that invisible universe is what is creating the visible universe. Viz.: [Mr Michael Rolls]: ‘The great strength of the powerful materialists who control orthodox, scientific thinking is that they are banking on the fact that most people are not making an effort to understand even basic subatomic physics. Even a cursory glance at the subject shows that the physical universe is being produced from the invisible – the etheric universe’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: Do you find anything unscientific in this, anything schizophrenic? RICHARD: To say the etheric world of paranormal mediums is made-up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics – specifically the neutrino – obviously has nothing to do with facts ... so to say it is a fact that their paranormal world is producing the physical world, and to then ask me what is unscientific in this, borders on being risible. So much so that I wonder what you will come up with next. * RICHARD: As his proof for survival after death comes from materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums I did not consider there was anything in what you copy-pasted to answer ... RESPONDENT: Why, these are not physical phenomena? RICHARD: The few times I have looked-up the subject of scientifically observed materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums – and there are plenty of instances to look at – it has always turned out to have been a fraud ... as I have no expertise on the subject, nor have any intention of gaining any, you may find the following to be of interest:
And there are many other people, who have also made it their business to investigate the materialisations of physically dead people via paranormal mediums, as well. RESPONDENT: Was not the ether accepted by Newton and then was abandoned because of the relativity theory? RICHARD: Irregardless of Mr. Isaac Newton accepting the concept of ether, and Mr. Albert Einstein abandoning it, neither of them ever said the etheric world of paranormal mediums was made up of the missing dark matter of theoretical physics – let alone that the mediums’ paranormal world is producing the physical world – which is what Mr Michael Rolls proposes and which you say are facts. RESPONDENT: Einstein thought before he died said that the ether must exist. RICHARD: What Mr. Albert Einstein thought before he died does not make Mr Michael Rolls’ proposals into the facts you say they are. RESPONDENT: The ether is around any body (body including also the earth etc). You can make a simple experiment, very well known. If you put in a glass tube sterilised cotton and distilled water and a seed just sprouting and then you close it so that air can’t get in, by wax and weight it, then if you weight it again after a week you will notice a difference in the weight, that can not be explained with any law or theory of physics, that exist today. It can be explained only by ether, who can penetrate everything. RICHARD: Even if (note ‘if’) this were to be correct in what way does it make the etheric world of paranormal mediums the missing dark matter of theoretical physics? Are you not aware there are other explanations, other than the missing dark matter of theoretical physics, for why galaxies are not flying apart? * RESPONDENT: You was not bothered to answer, that means that you are stubborn in your beliefs. RICHARD: Oh? So it has got to the stage now that all you have to do is post reams and reams of words about after-death survival, classify them as being metaphysical facts, and if Richard does not respond then that means Richard is being stubborn in his beliefs, eh? RESPONDENT: You don’t try to disprove or prove anything ... RICHARD: Indeed not ... I make it perfectly clear that actualism is experiential (and only provide complementary scientific discoveries about a particular issue so nobody has to take my word for it). RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything] you reject the whole science ... RICHARD: I do not reject science ... I reject pseudo-science and/or science fiction masquerading as
science and factoids RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything, you reject the whole science], you don’t discuss them ... RICHARD: What is the point of discussing something which does not exist outside of imagination? RESPONDENT: [You don’t try to disprove or prove anything, you reject the whole science, you don’t discuss them], you only go ahead based in your PCE’s. RICHARD: What did you expect on a mailing list set-up to discuss an actual freedom from the human condition ... discussions about abstract mathematical theories? RESPONDENT: I thought that actualism, comes from actuality, that means to see things as they are. RICHARD: Aye, actualism is the direct experience of the world as-it-is. RESPONDENT: Based on common sense in science etc. RICHARD: Ha ... since when has there been any commonsense in the quantum theory Mr. Michael Rolls bases his propositions on? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Not only in PCE’s. RICHARD: As it is the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which makes it patently obvious there is no after-death survival it is entirely sensible to base any such seeing of ‘things as they are’ on the PCE. RESPONDENT: You can not define everything through a PCE. RICHARD: Hmm ... do you want me to pretend to be normal so that you can have a normal (and thus
fruitless) discussion? RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 18): Good boy of the list, when I provide so many proofs about JK, being against reincarnation, did you asked Richard to fix his site, because is lie what he writes about JK and reincarnation? RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following exchange? Viz.:
You may have missed my response the first time around (on July 19 2003), you may have missed my response the second time around (on October 01 2003), but there is no way you can miss this third response of mine. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did *not* speak out against reincarnation ... he spoke against the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, reincarnation (just as he spoke against the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, the god or truth he found, recognised, and realised and the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, the after-death immortality such finding, recognising, and realising bestowed upon him). You are but tilting at a windmill. * RESPONDENT: You have not understood nothing of JK teachings. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to arrange the topic sequentially? Viz.:
If you can satisfactorily respond to all four points (No’s. 1, 2, 3, and 4) with clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answers (with referenced quotes and/or URL’s if necessary) I will publicly acknowledge that you are correct in saying that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ and that, furthermore, I have been grossly in error. If you cannot (or will not) then the website stays exactly as it is. * RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 27): May be the parts Richard is reporting are before 1927. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘may be’ when I provided the dates for you at your express request only a few months ago? Viz.:
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 27): I asked him to give the whole speech, but he never did. RICHARD: I provided those dates because you said [quote] ‘I have his books and not the volumes can you please give me the date of the speech, because I should like to read it all of it’ [endquote] further above ... that you now say ‘may be’ the quotes are before 1927 indicates that, not only did you not take any notice of the dates I provided for you at your request, but that you never did read the volumes for yourself either, and are now using my not giving you the ‘whole speech’ as some kind of way out of addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said. ‘Tis no wonder he went on and on so much about how to listen, eh? * RICHARD: I provided those dates because you said [quote] ‘I have his books and not the volumes can you please give me the date of the speech, because I should like to read it all of it’ [endquote] further above ... that you now say ‘may be’ the quotes are before 1927 indicates that, not only did you not take any notice of the dates I provided for you at your request, but that you never did read the volumes for yourself either, and are now using my not giving you the ‘whole speech’ as some kind of way out of addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said. ‘Tis no wonder he went on and on so much about how to listen, eh? RESPONDENT: Richard, we all know the life story of JK. He past through many stages. I have all his speeches from 1933 till the last talk. His early writings are of no value. RICHARD: This is what I wrote immediately below the response I provided for you a few months ago when you expressly asked me for the dates so that you could read the whole speech for yourself:
As you ignored it back then you will probably ignore it now ... howsoever, do you notice that you shifted your cut-off date, as to what you consider is of value or not, from 1927 to 1933 when it turned out that your previous excuse for not addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said fell flat on its face? If so, you may – just may – be inclined to examine exactly what is going on in your mind ... to watch to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in order to avoid what is being presented. Because there are still the quotes from after 1933 to address yourself to yet. * RESPONDENT: Richard, we all know the life story of JK. He past through many stages. I have all his speeches from 1933 till the last talk. His early writings are of no value. RICHARD: This is what I wrote immediately below the response I provided for you a few months ago when you expressly asked me for the dates so that you could read the whole speech for yourself: [Richard]: ‘For those who dismiss his earlier words I provide the following quote: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘You asked a question: Has there been a fundamental change in K from the 1930’s, 1940’s? I say, no. There has been considerable change in expression’. [endquote]. As you ignored it back then you will probably ignore it now ... howsoever, do you notice that you shifted your cut-off date, as to what you consider is of value or not, from 1927 to 1933 when it turned out that your previous excuse for not addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said fell flat on its face? If so, you may – just may – be inclined to examine exactly what is going on in your mind ... to watch to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in order to avoid what is being presented. Because there are still the quotes from after 1933 to address yourself to yet. RESPONDENT: I found another clearer declaration of JK: (snip quote speaking against the*idea* of rebirth). What else must JK tell to convince you that he does not support reincarnation? RICHARD: Did you watch your mind as suggested (to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in
order to avoid addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said)? * RICHARD: .... if you can satisfactorily respond to all four points (No’s. 1, 2, 3, and 4) with clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answers (with referenced quotes and/or URL’s if necessary) I will publicly acknowledge that you are correct in saying that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ and that, furthermore, I have been grossly in error. If you cannot (or will not) then the website stays exactly as it is. RESPONDENT: Richard, I did not wait from you that are so exact with definitions through dictionaries to write me: [Richard]: ‘I have read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection as well ... and ‘belief’ is the operative word for, despite your ‘to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti’ claim he never denied after-death states – both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it) – because, just as he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, a god or a truth and denounced all such idealising as being a hindrance to realisation (including the god he had discovered, recognised, and realised), he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, an after-life and dismissed all such idealising as being irrelevant to true religiousness (including the after-life he was convinced he held a one-way ticket to). In other words: his ‘Teaching’ was that if it were not a living reality for the person concerned all things esoteric had no existence for them’. [endquote]. We are speaking for reincarnation not of after death states. You are off. RICHARD: Here is a quote from the text *you* provided to this mailing list on May 27 2003 (in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: One question from Greece2’):
If that is not an after-death state I would like to know what is ... and here is another instance of similar ilk (after the assassination of Ms. Indira Ghandi):
As for me saying ‘both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it)’ in the passage of mine, which you referred to as ‘so exact with definitions through dictionaries’ you re-quoted further above, I was of course, in the context of the e-mail exchange we had a few months ago which it came from, referring to the following (also from that exchange):
The phrase he used often in his later years (‘stepping out of the stream’) is but another way of conveying what Indian spirituality has been on about for millennia (stepping off, or stopping, the ‘wheel of birth and death’ he refers to above):
As for the method of stepping off, or stopping, the wheel of otherwise endless rounds of existence, proposed in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (a Vedic Scripture) as ‘when through the grace of Brahma it realizes its identity with him’ and achieves immortality, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly stated he had discovered, recognised, and realised god or truth. Viz.:
This is what discovering, recognising, and realising god (or truth) means in unambiguous language:
And this is what it means to be god (or truth):
And, again from the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text which *you* provided to this mailing list, he makes it clear that reincarnation is the stream:
How you can say that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ has got me beat. * RESPONDENT: Has the Christian belief anything to do with reincarnation? You was off. RICHARD: Ha ... as it was a quote you posted to me on Saturday 12 July 2003, wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection, which I was referring to (in the passage of mine you re-quoted further above), then if anybody is off it is you. Viz.:
May I ask whether you actually read the quotes you send to me? RESPONDENT: Be exact. RICHARD: If I may point out? I am being exact: I read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) and nowhere did I see Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speak out against reincarnation itself ... all he spoke against was any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, the concept or ideal of reincarnation. RESPONDENT: When we speak about tomatoes we can’t answer about potatoes. RICHARD: Indeed not and, in keeping with your analogy, I am speaking about tomatoes (the reality, for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, of reincarnation, a god/truth, an after-death immortality, and a peace which is not on earth) and you are speaking about potatoes (the belief, concept, or ideal of reincarnation, a god/truth, an after-death immortality, and a peace which is not on earth, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke against) ... which potato-speaking is what you go on to do more of in the quotes of his you provide this time around (some of which you have sent previously anyway). So as to initiate some focus here again is what I am asking:
When, or rather if, you can satisfactorily respond to that point, with a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answer, then you might be able to see your way clear to direct your attention to the other three points I raised in response to your allegation that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’. Viz.:
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings are essentially no different from eastern spirituality in general – which is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and are not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body. Viz.:
Put succinctly: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both. The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life. * RESPONDENT: We are speaking for reincarnation not of after death states. You are off. RICHARD: Here is a quote from the text *you* provided to this mailing list on May 27 2003 (in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: One question from Greece2’): [Mr. Sidney Field]: ‘Has John survived his bodily death in a subtler form? Yes or no? My gut feeling is that he is here beside me, right now’. [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Of course he is, right here beside you. He’s very close to you, and will continue being close for some time’. [endquote]. If that is not an after-death state I would like to know what is ... RESPONDENT: You are altering everything, so I am sending the whole conversation so everyone can understand the way you act. RICHARD: Good – I am very pleased to have everybody understand the way I act – but you will need to explain in what way am I ‘altering everything’ because the text in question makes it quite clear that Mr. Sidney Field’s recently dead brother Mr. John Field is most certainly, according to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, continuing on in an after-death state (specifically ‘the stream’ which exists prior to, during, and after life) because he *is* the stream, after death, just as he *was* the stream whilst alive, because he did not step *out* of the stream – realise god/become enlightened – whilst he was alive. Which is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti means when he says ‘you are the world’ (that is, you are the stream) and that the answer is not to be found ‘in the world’ (that is, in the stream) but ‘away from the world’ (that is out of the stream) ... and what is the only thing which is away from the world (that is, not of the stream)? None other than a non-material sacredness – that which is holy – he variously called god or truth or that and so on ... which point he emphasises in the text in question by referring to the Tibetan ‘Book Of The Dead’ where, if at physical death one lets go of ‘all of your antagonisms, all your worldliness, all your ambition’ one is going to ‘meet a light in which you will be absorbed’ (if one does let go) and if not, ‘you will come back, which is, come back to the stream, you will be the stream again’ (aka reincarnate). Here is the text where he clearly says that Mr. Sidney Field’s recently dead brother Mr. John Field is in the stream:
As Mr. Sidney Field’s brother Mr. John Field is dead (he died two weeks prior to the conversation) he can only be referring to an after-death state ... hence, despite your avowal at the top of this page, I am not off where I said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘never denied after death states – both *in the stream* and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it)’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: The same is applied also for JK I am god. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘altering everything’ when I provide a quote where Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti unambiguously says ‘I am God’ when that very action – realising god – is how one steps out of the stream (that is, out of the world)? Incidentally, the first word in the ‘I am God’ phrase does not refer to the ego ‘I’ (any more than the equivalent in the Sanskrit phrase – ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ or ‘That Thou Art’ – does either) because the ego ‘I’ is the stream. RESPONDENT: I told you yesterday that these early speakings before 1933 are not valid ... RICHARD: Aye, and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti told you yesterday (in the quote I provided) that there had been no fundamental change in him from the 1930’s, 1940’s but that there had been [quote] ‘considerable change in expression’ [endquote] ... meaning all that had changed was the wording he used. For example, his expression ‘step out of the stream’ refers to the same thing as stepping off, or stopping, the ‘wheel of birth and death’ (aka reincarnation) ... which he makes clear at the end of the text in question where he says [quote] ‘reincarnation, that is, incarnating over and over again, is the stream’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: [I told you yesterday that these early speaking before 1933 are not valid] he was enlightened like you. RICHARD: Are you saying that before 1933 he was enlightened and that after 1933 he was not? RESPONDENT: Is like me saying for Richard, Richard exist only the absolute. You got it? RICHARD: Ha ... you are way out on your own if you are trying to make the case that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was actually free of the human condition (aka beyond enlightenment). So far out as to be risible. RESPONDENT: I have realised that any reliance on something lasting is to set one up for a fall. RICHARD: Let me see if I comprehend what you are saying here: statistically speaking the average life-span (in the west anyway) is approximately 75 years and the universe was here long before you were born and will be here long after you are dead ... yet you will not place any reliance upon it lasting because to do so is to set yourself up for a fall. Have I understood you correctly? RESPONDENT: The something includes anything that can be perceived (e.g. a nice feeling, enlightenment (in the sense you use), any state of mind, a job, a relationship. In other words as soon as I say ‘ahh ... that is what I am’ if that is an identifiable thing, standing out in anyway, then it will be impermanent and therefore I will have the rug pulled from under my feet when it dies. RICHARD: Oh? You plan on surviving the physical death of the flesh and blood body currently going by the name ‘Respondent’ then, eh? RESPONDENT: As I have made this mistake many times and ended up in a lot of pain, I do not wish to repeat it (I accept that if this was all fully understood, then ‘I’ would happily go into oblivion, and I agree with your comment: [Richard]: ‘and therein lies the rub: ‘I’/‘me’ am so very real, so very, very real, that ‘I’/‘me’ am prepared to do virtually anything – virtually anything at all – than go blessedly into oblivion’ [endquote]. RICHARD: Hmm ... have you not ever noticed it is never not this moment?
RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 |
