|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
RICHARD: All genuinely enlightened beings point to a single edifying moment of awakening (with a variety of descriptions). RESPONDENT: Who would you recognise as enlightened? RICHARD: To give but three persons from the last 100 or so years as an example: First, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had his spiritual awakening on the nineteenth August 1922 which process he describes as:
RICHARD: Enlightened people have had something happen that sets them apart from the normal person ... and they say it is an ego-death. Why do you read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? Certainly not because he was your Mr. Normal now is it? It is because he was an enlightened man. He underwent an ego-death in 1922 ... all enlightened people can point to a single edifying moment – a date – when their ego died. Why is there all this quibbling about it? Until this fact is understood, then there is no purpose served in proceeding any further with a discussion. RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti did not claim that he (thought) dissolved the ego. RICHARD: Indeed not ... he was quite clear at the time about how his ego got dissolved. He wrote:
RESPONDENT: He pointed to the fact that the psyche can not be changed through psychological time which is an illusion of becoming. RICHARD: Correct ... it is an instantaneous happening wherein ‘I’ die. It is where ‘I’ can no
longer distinguish between ‘me’ doing ‘it’ and ‘it’ happening to ‘me’. Cause and effect (which is the normal way
of making things happen in the real-world) meet each other and – everything being thus simultaneous – only now is actual and I
am here doing what is happening. RESPONDENT: How, Richard, do you know that Krishnamurti did not die to the soul and the ego and all encumbrances of this physical world while he was still alive? RICHARD: Simple: he still had affective feelings. For example: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Truth,
the real God (...) wants a total, complete human being whose heart is full, rich, clear, capable of intense feeling ...’ RESPONDENT: I do recall Krishnamurti saying more than once that the actual ‘teaching’ is an action, the action of a mind which is observing itself. A body of words has to be called something, so they are called, in this case, ‘teachings’. There were then, two uses of the word teaching. RICHARD: Hmm ... if you say so. I would rather go by his own words. When asked about calling his words ‘Teachings’, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti described how it came about in a discussion among friends: Viz.:
So, what does he mean when he says that what is important is ‘whether you live the teachings, or not’ ? Living the ‘Teachings’, he says, means that one loves life ... and to do this one enables god to manifest itself in one’s very body via a spiritual connection. Only, he says, he prefers to use the word ‘life’ instead of ‘god’. So when he says ‘love life (god) and put this love before everything else’ he is being very precise ... he is saying: ‘love god and put this love before everything else’. To wit:
Okay so far? The essence of the ‘Teachings’ is that you are to love god ... do you see this? Now, where is this god? Shall we find out – in his words – who he is? Viz.:
Now, we know already that he uses the word ‘life’ to mean ‘god’, right? So what he is clearly saying is: ‘I am all things because I am god’. Shall I drive this point home? Viz.:
Shall we go on? Viz.:
From all this one can easily see that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘I am life ... life is god ... I am god made manifest’ ... because he did say ‘I am all things because I am life (god)’. To drive the point home he says: ‘Truth, the real God – the real God, not the God that man has made’. Therefore, ‘life’, ‘god’ and ‘truth’ are one and the same thing. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘I am god made manifest ... god is truth ... I am truth’. Now, because he urges his listeners to ‘drink the pure water which I have’ – and it is a water that ‘purifies and heals wonderfully’ – then some considerable light is thrown on his oft-repeated statement about not being a teacher. Because he says: ‘The real thing (‘life’, ‘god’ and ‘truth’) wants a total, complete human being whose heart is full, rich, clear, capable of intense feeling, capable of seeing the beauty’. Love, for him, is an ‘intense feeling’ – which is clearly affective – in the ‘full, rich, clear heart’. By being in his presence and experiencing his love (god’s love) then whatever ails you will be cured ... especially if you know how to ‘listen’. So, what does he mean by ‘listening’? Two years before his death, when asked to reflect upon the importance of his own life, he replied:
He said:
Now do you know what ‘listen’ means to him? It does not mean listen with your ears ... it means ‘drink me’ (just like in the Christian’s Holy scriptures). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti basically said: ‘Listen to me (drink me in) ... just for two minutes, drink me and recognise yourself as being me: I am life. Love life. Life is truth. Love truth. Truth is God. Love God. I am God made manifest’. And if ‘god’ and ‘life’ and ‘truth’ and ‘love’ all being synonymous for him is not enough evidence for you, he goes on to elaborate on this theme and includes ‘reality’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘beauty’ into what constitutes ‘god’:
It is all so familiar ... Gurus and God-men have been saying and doing and being and urging this religious or spiritual or mystical or metaphysical solution for millennia. All the Masters and Messiahs; all the Saints and the Sages; all the Saviours and the Avatars have failed to bring about their much-touted Peace On Earth. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was simply the latest in a long line of failures. And he wanted this for his listeners:
And to forestall any of those ‘immature’ versus ‘mature’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti excuses, he stayed with the same message all his public life, changing only the way he said it:
You may say that you are not defending Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... but you are defending the indefensible. Why? RESPONDENT: Otherwise, I am not inclined to play this ‘debunking game’ with you. RICHARD: Actually, I am not ‘debunking’ him per se ... I am whole-heartedly criticising the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his. I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know. I fully appreciate what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti experienced, talked about and wrote of. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is a very responsible ‘debunking’ indeed. * [...] RESPONDENT: I’m not interested in Krishnamurti. RICHARD: May I suggest? Do become interested – very interested – because his is a well-documented life. Most of the myths surrounding god-realised beings can be seen to be just that – myths – with such things as audio tapes and video-tapes and the world-wide comparison of cultural influences which are not available when examining Mr. Gotama the Sakyan, Mr. Mahavira, Mr. Rinzai, Mr. Shankara and so on and so on. * [...] RESPONDENT: If you pointed that out to me or someone else, I would not consider you my teacher, just as I don’t consider Krishnamurti my teacher. Pointing is not teaching. Let’s not try distort another’s words in our eagerness to debunk them. RICHARD: By all means let us not distort – the word ‘distort’ really reads ‘interpret’ but I will go along with the disingenuousness for now – instead shall we let Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speak for himself ... just nine days before his death? What I see him clearly saying – and not just pointing – is ‘perhaps they will somewhat if they live the teachings’. Now, leaving explicit instructions that people should live the inviolate ‘Teachings’ sounds to me to be about as authoritative as one can get ... and even then one will not manifest that ‘supreme intelligence’. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: And now you want to say that YOU have done it, right? RICHARD: Yes. I lived as that ‘supreme intelligence’ (only I called it ‘The Absolute’) for eleven years. Then – seeing the delusion – I went beyond the state of being called enlightenment into a condition I choose to call actual freedom. I call it ‘actual’ because it is physical and not metaphysical ... ‘being’ itself is extinguished. * [...] RESPONDENT: And who told you that what I say is rooted in what he says? How do you know I am not perceiving for myself? You don’t, do you? Not really. RICHARD: As I do not know you personally – and not being a mind-reader – I can only go on what you write. Your entire discussion on the danger of authority is so staggeringly similar to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s that one cannot help but be amazed that you have not been influenced by his ‘Teachings’. As for not perceiving for yourself ... this is evidenced by the fact that you still do not question, let alone challenge, the power – which is the forceful authority – of compassion, for example. You also praise love and beauty and truth and other revered mystical values – which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly identifies as being synonymous with god – and is this not where you get the backing for your posts about forceful authority from? RESPONDENT: You are truly a master of projection. Now YOU define beauty, love and truth as ‘mystical values’, and say that Krishnamurti identifies them as being synonymous with god. RICHARD: Correction ... I am not projecting at all. May I quote again? Viz.:
See where he says that ‘God’ and ‘truth’ are one and the same thing ... and that it does exist because he has realised that? And there is more if ‘god’ and ‘truth’ being synonymous for him is not enough evidence, for he goes on to elaborate on this theme and includes ‘reality’ and ‘life’ and ‘love’ and ‘bliss’ and ‘beauty’ into what constitutes ‘god’. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: You do not see that YOU have created the idea of ‘mystical values’ and are imposing that on the words of another. RICHARD: I have done nothing of the sort. It is well-known that these are mystical values both in Eastern mysticism and Western mysticism ... can we lift the level of discussion a trifle? RESPONDENT: You are good at that, very good at it: Defining another through your own ideas, then accusing them of being what you have defined them as. RICHARD: You are attempting to defend the indefensible here by resorting to an undergraduate debating trick. It is well-known that ‘truth or reality or bliss or God or beauty or love’ are revered mystical values. RESPONDENT: As far as I am concerned, you are entitled to assess me in any way you wish. If you see Krishnamurti in what I say, that is your affair. I’m not here to justify anything to you. I’m here to hold an intelligent discussion which keeps getting thwarted by your obsession with Krishnamurti and your attempt to denounce him through me. RICHARD: Not so ... I am denouncing the altered state of consciousness called spiritual enlightenment
... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti just happens to be the exponent of this state most people on this Mailing List are familiar with. If
this was a Mr. Barry Long Mailing List I would be using his quotes to demonstrate my points. KONRAD: In a sense you can therefore say, that I am defending J. Krishnamurti, while Richard is attacking him. RICHARD: Actually, I am not ‘attacking him’ per se ... I am whole-heartedly criticising the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his. I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. For example, I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know. I fully appreciate what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti experienced, talked about and wrote of. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. However, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next. I would not be where I am today if it were not for all those brave people who went before me ... and I am so pleased that they left a record of their ventures. I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is a very responsible attack indeed. And long overdue. RESPONDENT: It is this fanatical drive of yours to prove K ‘wrong’ and you ‘right’ that throws such a cloud over your own ‘would be ‘teachings’.’ This constant barrage of attacks on K shows that you have an almost desperate need to be the only one on Earth to know what you know. I’m not saying that ‘know’ isn’t true, but it is quite ‘suspicious’ because of your mean-ness. RICHARD: ‘Tis no wonder there is very little questioning of these basic issues ... just look at the response when somebody does so (‘fanatical drive’ and ‘would be ‘teachings’’ and ‘constant barrage of attacks’ and ‘an almost desperate need’ and ‘mean-ness’). RESPONDENT: For example, the evidence you offer above to prove K’s litigious nature in the lawsuit over his own writings reveals that you will jump on what you see as any opportunity to prove that your are something he was not, i.e., free from anger. RICHARD: If you look again at what I wrote you will see that I was asking a question which could very well elucidate, for some astute person, the distinction between the ideal and the reality ... what is your objection to such genuine questioning based upon? RESPONDENT: Oh, cut the crap, Richard. On top of everything else, such statements show what a hypocrite you are and reduce your writing to just gossip. The implication that K was an angry man is implicit in your statement of a pretend question. RICHARD: I asked the question because of the nature of what I was responding to. Viz.:
Generally speaking, the anger that the various saints, sages and seers have come out with from time to time has been designated as ‘Divine Anger’, for example, and I was allowing the possibility that any anger displayed by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti may have thus been exempt from the normal or garden variety. Specifically written into the question is, basically, that there is the ideal (sitting together as two
friends under a tree discussing matters) and there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a
former associate’s documents Which is why I suggested that you look again at what I wrote because the issue I was addressing is the distinction between the ideal (under a tree) and the reality (a litigious relationship) and the distinction between the ideal (having eradicated anger) and the reality (of pacifistically sitting out a war). I was drawing a parallel by providing an example to demonstrate the issue in action in real-life ... and a pacifist is a person who changes their behaviour in lieu of eradicating the anger (or aggression, hatred and etcetera) which causes the behaviour in the first place. As law and order is everywhere maintained at the point of a gun a person that is free of malice Lastly, what is indeed ‘hypocritical’ is advising others to do what one has not done oneself. Viz.:
And it is the ‘not many people listened’ statement which is the telling comment ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not listen to his own ‘Teachings’. But, then again, he oft-times distanced himself from the ‘Teachings’ ... as do the many and varied saints, sages and seers (popularly phrased as do not look at the finger but look at what the finger is pointing to). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti made it very clear where his peace lay ... the ‘answer’ to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world:
Eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding re-birth ... not about peace-on-earth. RICHARD: I would be interested as to where you consider I have been interpreting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. I have been presenting well-documented facts. RESPONDENT: This is simply inaccurate. First of all, in bringing a few quotes from various texts and speeches, you simply cannot be seen as making a serious attempt to understand what Krishnamurti is talking about. In order to understand these quotes they must be contextualised, they must be placed into the context of the general approach (so that you understand the particular meaning given to terminology and the centrality of the quote to the entire position), they must be placed in the order of development of the approach, they must be read alongside other seemingly contrary quotes that help explain and condition them. I find that quite to the contrary you have been exceedingly selective, extracting what you find establishes the evidence of some crime, and reading these quotes so that it fits into a general critique you have developed for all Eastern thought. RICHARD: This is because it does fit into a general critique I have of all Eastern thought: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Because I am ... the Truth that is eternal ... why have false, hypocritical people following me, the embodiment of Truth?’ [end quote] RESPONDENT: I will give you only one example here of your distorted interpretation: You wrote: ‘I was merely following the precedent that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself set. He consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’.’ And then you go on: ‘As these words came from a source that he described as ‘that which is sacred, holy’, it is clear that he was bringing some unknown god’s wisdom to earth’. This is nonsense. There is no unknown god, and Krishnamurti never brings God in as the ground from which he is talking. RICHARD: I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: There is nothing mystical here, nothing from some religious authority, nothing in a dimension that is other worldly. RICHARD: Again I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: Contrary to what you have said, Krishnamurti never says that he has a Soul, a Self. RICHARD: Once again, I beg to differ:
RESPONDENT: Use of sacred and holy do not make him so, though you use the dictionary to establish your point. Krishnamurti often departed from the dictionary meaning and substituted another meaning, he seems to have enjoyed playing with etymological roots. For example, ‘Alone’ he made to mean ‘all one’. RICHARD: Yet once again, I beg to differ: he did not make ‘Alone’ mean ‘all one’ at all ... etymologically it does, in fact, already mean ‘all one’. I gather that you do not approve of dictionary definitions, but unless we have some standard to start from, before we ascribe our own meanings, we are lost as in regards intelligent communication. This is the dictionary’s version: alone (adjective): from al (all) + (one): ‘separated from others’. (Copyright © 1994 Merriam-Webster, Inc.). RESPONDENT: This is why it is important to read a person with some sensitivity and care before criticising. RICHARD: I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. For example, I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know. RESPONDENT: Let me say clearly, I find no fault with you or anyone criticising K. He did not write dogma. Point out the weaknesses by all means. But criticism must be responsible. RICHARD: Actually, I am not criticising him per se ... I am criticising the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his. I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is very
responsible criticism indeed. RESPONDENT: To me discussing consists of probing into our consciousness to discover what it is that we are, how ‘the mind’ functions, learning, through encounter, to observe what is happening AS our lives. For another to discuss his own ‘arrival’, for lack of a better word, seems to me to prevent the immediateness of serious inquiry into what is happening now, and to cause others to focus on oneself. RICHARD: Then why do you listen to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti? He has most definitely arrived ... and he lets you know this, too. RESPONDENT: There is the air of authority which wants to define the nature of ‘truth’ for others rather than engaging others in exploration so that all may discover together the realities of life. RICHARD: Yet Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly delineates the nature of ‘truth’ ... and tells when
you go wrong in your exploration! He is an authority despite his best efforts to pretend that he is not ... this is just a ploy of
his to flatter you into thinking you are equally exploring together. Look well at his taped conversations and see how he leads the
other towards where he wants them to go. If you consider yourself to be having an equal conversation with him you are but fooling
yourself. RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): If you still wish to become enlightened, you will need to sublimate your
passions – surrender your wilful self – and move into accord with some metaphysical Absolute, like Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did
in 1922 under a pepper tree, as detailed by Ms. Mary Lutyens. Abject subjugation of the will should produce the essential
servitude – great cunning is required – and the rest is up to the ‘Grace of God’. RESPONDENT: In a previous post I remarked that Krishnamurti spoke differently before his speech disbanding ‘The Order of the Star’. That speech was in 1929. Whatever happened in 1922 under a pepper tree sounds like many so-called enlightenment experiences. RICHARD: It does not only ‘sound like’ one ... it was one. And it is not a ‘so-called’ enlightenment ... it was enlightenment. One only has to do some comparative reading of other people’s Self-Realisation to recognise the obvious similarities. Tell me, please, because I am so curious: If he did not become enlightened then – as you say he did not – then when did he ... in your opinion? RESPONDENT: He concluded his speech in 1929, saying: ‘So these are some of the reasons why, after careful consideration for two years, I have made this decision. It is not from a momentary impulse. I have not been persuaded to it by anyone. I am not persuaded in such things. For two years I have been thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently, and I have now decided to disband the Order, as I happen to be its Head. You can form other organisations and expect someone else. With that I am not concerned, nor with creating new cages, new decorations for those cages. My only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free’. Whatever happened in 1922 could not have been too enlightening if he spent a few years prior to 1929 ‘thinking about this, slowly, carefully, patiently’. RICHARD: Oh, I was not aware that enlightened people were not allowed to think ‘slowly, carefully and patiently’. Do you really consider that they make lightening-like decisions on the spot? RESPONDENT: It sounds to me that whatever Krishnamurti experienced in 1922 was the product of his theosophical background. RICHARD: Partly that, yes ... and partly the cultural milieu of the country he was born in. But as enlightenment is mainly the result of taking the rudimentary self born out of the instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire one is born with as being one’s true being and origin, then I would first look to that as being the source of his experience . RESPONDENT: If you are really interested in what Krishnamurti was on about, it may be of interest to read the whole speech from the KFA site. It is in the following post. [The 1929 ‘Dissolution of The Order of The Star’ speech]. What he said then is equally valid today. RICHARD: You really should not give me more fuel for my fire, you know, because I will only go through it and pick out the damning evidence that he was, in fact, spiritual to the bootstraps. Okay, then what did he say then that is equally valid today?
That seems to be quite clear and unambiguous: ‘I am the Truth’ ... with a capital ‘T’ to designate divinity. And just in case it is not clear there is the follow-up statement: ‘me, the embodiment of Truth’ ... which easily translates in Western terminology as: ‘I am God made flesh’. Now ... what else did he say then that ‘is equally valid today’ :
I see the word ‘spirituality’ in there ... followed by a ‘self which is eternal’ ... which translates as ‘immortal soul’ in Western parlance. Methinks you just shot yourself in the foot. RESPONDENT No. 27: If you are really interested in what Krishnamurti was on about, it may be of interest to read the whole speech from the KFA site. It is in the following post. RICHARD: You really should not give me more fuel for my fire, you know, because I will only go through it and pick out the damning evidence that he was, in fact, spiritual to the bootstraps. RESPONDENT No. 27: What he said then is equally valid today. RICHARD: Okay, then what did he say then that is equally valid today?
That seems to be quite clear and unambiguous: ‘I am the Truth’ . .. with a capital ‘T’ to designate divinity. And just in case it is not clear there is the follow-up statement: ‘me, the embodiment of Truth’ ... which easily translates in Western terminology as: ‘I am God made flesh’. Now ... what else did he say then that ‘is equally valid today’:
I see the word ‘spirituality’ in there ... followed by a ‘self which is eternal’ ... which translates as ‘immortal soul’ in Western parlance. Methinks you just shot yourself in the foot. RESPONDENT: I see No. 27’s feet as quite intact. Your translation reflects a common ‘Western’ assumption that may not apply to (the very young) Krishnamurti’s pronouncement. RICHARD: No, they are not at all intact ... they are thoroughly scattered with buckshot. No. 27 was claiming the Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not spiritual and merely made ‘comments’ on life ... and produced a long quote to demonstrate his point. I observed that the word ‘spirituality’ was in the speech in the context of: ‘that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which is eternal’. As No. 27 had already clearly indicated to me in previous posts that he, No. 27, was not spiritually inclined at all, I therefore had no recourse but to provide a simplistic translation of ‘self which is eternal’ into a Sunday-School type of terminology to establish the fact that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not only spiritual but held the view that something metaphysical survived the death of the body. Hence my descriptive – and accurate – phrase: ‘methinks you just shot yourself in the foot’. Your usage of ‘the very young’ in referring to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – which even if it is correct that he can be excused by virtue of immaturity – is not valid in the context in which No. 27 used this long [quote]: as he posted: ‘what he said then is equally valid today’. I was merely taking him at his word to demonstrate the fact that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was a spiritual man. But, by all means, shall we discuss the finer points of Advaita Vedanta ... or even Buddhist essentials? [...] * If you link Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ to Advaita Vedanta ... then I would say – and rather complacently – that he is most definitely spiritual and he believed in something metaphysical surviving the body. This is a point I made in another post recently:
My question remains: Why is that everyone who writes to me is so busy defending the indefensible? RESPONDENT: Now to my problem: I see a group of people entangled in some sort of enlightenment-rhetoric. The language of K is being used, maybe quite earnestly, to counter-act the movement of the opposite mind. And what happens?? It becomes a closed door through which no understanding can enter. I don’t particularly need anyone to look at me, or themselves for that matter. I can always deepen my meditation or understanding. It is not necessary to do that with others. But: I had hoped that K. would have made some connection somewhere. A connection to someone. I had hoped for a process or development of understanding the difficult question at hand. I had hoped to share some of my findings. Now, could I be wrong? (Of course I can be wrong). Still, not many of the discussions I have read and had the past week seem to be oriented on questions like: What can we learn from the way K. lived before enlightenment? Is it possible to investigate or use meditation in different ways? Is reading about enlightenment and remembering experiences with K or K’s writings helpful, or not? Just some subjects that I am investigating for myself. I am so glad to read this. Have you followed my agony lately? I had hoped that you (Richard) would have something more to say about K2 as I jokingly call him myself. (K2 is the highest mountain in the Himalayas). RICHARD: I actually like it that you inadvertently call him K2, thinking that it refers to the highest mountain ... but K2 is not ... and he is not, either ... which is about all you will get out of me regarding what I have to say about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at this stage.
RICHARD: In a biography, written by Ms. Pupul Jayakar, she relates a scene wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said that: ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ (I do not have the book so this is not a direct quote). If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place, then it is obvious that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was still in the state of reverence himself ... he was in veneration of what he named: ‘the absolute’, ‘the other’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’ (which is still divinity by whatever name). And there are many, many other instances throughout the extensive writings, by both himself and others, that clearly points to the fact that he was a spiritual and religious man. RESPONDENT: The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers. RICHARD: Possibly the phrase ‘the universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ does appear to be the same way of expressing the same realisation ... except that I never wrote that phrase. I write: ‘I am this physical universe experiencing itself as a sensate and reflective human being’. As I compose all my posts in my word processor, before importing them into my E-Mail programme, I have all of my E-Mails to this Mailing List in a long document. Thus it is an easy matter for me to type ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ into the search function and send it looking for where I used that phrase. For the life of me I can not find it anywhere. Perhaps you could send me your copy so that I can make the necessary amendments to my version here on my hard disk. Words are not ‘merely pointers’ they are accurate descriptions. They describe a reality – or an actuality – that exists. This dismissal of words ‘as not being the thing pointed to’ is intellectual masturbation. Words are all we have to communicate ... if you wish to dismiss them so cavalierly, then you would be well advised to stop reading and writing. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was not pointing to a piece of chewing-gum when he said (not a direct quote): ‘there is that which is beyond thought, that which is sacred, holy. That I bow down to; that I would prostrate myself to’ . You know that, I know that ... and probably everyone on this List knows that. You are defending the indefensible. Why? (Editor’s Note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘...
the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate
to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’.
Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper
& Row; San Francisco; 1986). RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti as a youth said I am free and much later said that to assert that is an abomination. RICHARD: This ‘immature’ versus ‘mature’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti excuse is so trite. Anyway, by 1979, even you cannot call him a youth any more. Viz.:
And we all know what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti meant by ‘water’ ... two years before his death, when asked to reflect upon the importance of his own life, he replied:
Now, I ask you: was he still a youth two years before his death? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti made mistakes as do we all. RICHARD: Aye ... and his biggest mistake was the same mistake that .000001 of the population make. And
you repeat rote fashion: ‘everything is part of the formless’. RESPONDENT: May be, but the point under discussion here is self in humans. We are discussing your perceived disparagement of knowledge by K. And in that context, self of animals is besides the point, in my opinion. RICHARD: But it was you who started this context ... I was having a dialogue with No. 12 and you bought in to tell me that you did not think that the ‘self’ is established via instincts. It is a bit rich to now try to tell me that it is ‘besides the point’ as if I have strayed from the subject ... I have stayed right with the topic all the way through. Allow me to refresh your memory: Viz.:
Shall I proceed? Yes? So, is it that all the investigation, by other human beings observing animals both in captivity and in the wild, is just a waste of time according to you? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says that the self is a product of thought trapped in psychological time and coincidentally you probably also have this as your own discovery ... and that Mr. Gotama the Sakyan and/or Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti might have walked this way, but that is irrelevant to what you say, eh? Yet Mr. Gotama the Sakyan did not know anything about what science is now mapping in the human brain ... and neither did Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (most of these discoveries have occurred since his demise and he only read detective novels when alive anyway). Why do you ignore the evidence of science? RESPONDENT: It is not yours or mine. RICHARD: Indeed not ... it belongs to ‘humanity’. RESPONDENT: It is when I am not, i.e.: when there is no experience of separation in thought. RICHARD: It is when the personal ‘I’ is not ... that is, when there is no experience of one being a separate ego-self busily ‘becoming’ but where one is being. Such ‘being’ (usually capitalised as ‘Being’) is where one is an impersonal or centreless whole self ... ‘holistic’. Or, as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti put it:
RESPONDENT: Decades later Krishnamurti said that to assert ‘I am free is an abomination’. RICHARD: Hmm ... a sort of ‘do as I say not do as I do’ situation, eh? He was declaring his status right through to the end of his life ... he reportedly said, nine days before his physical death:
Would you say then, that what this very mature Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said then, is ‘an abomination’? RESPONDENT: And also said the idea of a Self or Being that is beyond corruption is projection of desire for power. RICHARD: Okay ... perhaps you are referring to when, in November 1979, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti reported that ‘the momentum increased’ and that one night, in the strange stillness of Rishi Valley, with the silence undisturbed by the hoot of the owls, he woke up to find something totally different and new: ‘the movement had reached the source of all energy’. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti then says:
Then, until the end of January 1980, every night he would wake up with this sense of the absolute:
RICHARD: I know that I am not an idiot (and I mean the experiencing that this word signifies) and therefore I also understand experientially that the word ‘fear’ is not the experiential reality of what that word ‘points to’. However, the correspondent that I was discussing this issue with was trying to convince me that the thing that the word ‘fear’ points to does not exist outside of thought and the thinking about what the word points to! Which is, apparently, what you are now attempting to do. Therefore I might as well ask you, too: Do you also take me for an idiot? Because all this that you have written here is nothing but what others call ‘K-ism’ at its worst. RESPONDENT: Indeed that may what you think. RICHARD: I can only go by what you write ... I cannot know your every thought and every feeling and every urge. And what you wrote was ‘you have just said that the word is not the thing and yet in the next stroke you assume it to be so’ and that if I ‘really understand that the word is not the thing’ then I ‘would not have raised the question about being an idiot’. As these sentences are indeed what others call ‘K-ism’ then I do not merely ‘think’ that it is. Fear exists independent of thought. RESPONDENT: I was trying to examine what we all mean by the ‘word is not the thing’. RICHARD: Well, you have a strange way of ‘examining’ something. RESPONDENT: And you have set a trap by distracting from the enquiry, by asking question: ‘Do you take me for an idiot?’ RICHARD: I did not ‘set a trap’ at all ... I mean exactly what those words say. The correspondent must indeed have been taking me for an idiot (the experience and not the word) by imagining that I would fall for such twaddle. Fear exists independent of thought. RESPONDENT: That question can be interpreted in multiple ways. RICHARD: So I noticed ... why not take it literally? RESPONDENT: So living in your own world of ‘actuality’, you seem to non-cognizant of the ways of the world, the realities of communication. You, like No. 35 is, are looking at some issues with a K-fixation. RICHARD: I can assure you (for what that is worth) that I do not have a ‘K-fixation’. RESPONDENT: Whether it is anti-K or pro-K, it is the same thing. My message is this: I am exploring into what it means to say ‘the word is the thing’? RICHARD: Okay ... given that we are discussing this on a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti brought into the world, then it would be pertinent to ascertain what he meant by ‘the word is not the thing’. From memory (I last read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in 1984) he would use it in the context of ‘the word bread does not satisfy your hunger’ (this is not a direct quote). It is in relation to him being the living embodiment of that ‘supreme intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘that which is sacred, holy’) and that the pundits and priests can only offer empty words whereas he provided that which the empty words ‘pointed to’ ... if you would only ‘listen for two minutes’ with all of your being. And by ‘listen’ he meant ‘drink the water’ that he was the embodiment of and do not ‘worship the vase’. This is a far cry from ‘the word fear is not fear’ ... for he would say (correctly) that ‘you are fear and fear is you’. Hence what you came out with was ‘K-ism’ at its worst (given that ‘K-ism’ means to be mouthing words
that, not only are you not living, but words that you do not even understand intellectually). RESPONDENT No. 15: I don’t mean to focus attention on Krishnamurti, except in so far as it may help to understand what he was getting at in his writings/talks. Also, this is not meant to say that there is not a great deal that was valuable in what Krishnamurti had to say, obviously there was. But, there seems to also be a great deal of room for deeply questioning; specifically questioning how it all relates to real life in 1998. RESPONDENT: I do agree with what you are saying. I could not say any better. If one were to ask what Krishnamurti was really trying to get at I would say it was about the supremacy of an enquiry as a process to an ‘intelligent’ living. Perhaps I am unable to express it the way I see it, but I think this would be a way to describe his focus. Krishnamurti was not a teacher in the sense we understand ‘teaching’. He was a catalyst inciting an inquiring process keeping the flame alive there for the inquirer to continue. Krishnamurti in that sense had nothing to ‘teach’, no conclusion to ‘reach’ and nowhere to rest a case. He simply urged us to continue, continue even deeper and ‘see’ through this (a) our own contradictions, (b) our infatuations with our ‘created universe’, our impatience for attaining a closure, and (c) the process of enquiry itself. His urging to continue was not just through a bunch of dry statements, he definitely tried to ‘seduce’ us through a lot of trinkets which, for some of us, appeared as legitimate goals to be attained. Historically, his role was similar to Buddha and Socrates. But he went a little bit further. Whereas Buddha and Socrates (apparently from what we learn from the texts – and this is my understanding and need not be even true) eventually helped the inquirer to make a closure, Krishnamurti would continue, Krishnamurti would ask the inquirer to try to conclude and see for himself how it is impossible to make a non-trivial closure anywhere. RICHARD: Yet Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had already made a closure for himself ... he had found a ‘place’ where everything stops. He called it the ‘origin of all things’ . He had himself reached a conclusion and had plenty to teach ... he wanted you to get to the place wherein he himself ‘rested his case’. Just because he said he had nothing to teach does not necessarily mean that he had nothing to teach. That was his very teaching method ... to make you think that you and he were just two good friends talking things over together on an equal footing. Make no mistake about it ... he knew and you did not. That he had made this closure himself – come to the end of his search – is exemplified rather well in this statement:
Hmm, ‘a spring that knows no summer’ ... do you get it? RESPONDENT: In his book, ‘The Awakening of Intelligence’ published in 1973, there is a chapter called ‘The Sacred’. If you are interested in what Krishnamurti considered sacred, maybe it is worth reading ...<SNIPPED FOR BREVITY>... having read the whole chapter, talk of ‘prostration’ is not there. If [quote] ‘the mind reaches the highest point of absolute order’ [end quote] prostration would imply the mind bowing down to itself. RICHARD: I could not agree more ... prostration does indeed imply the mind bowing down to itself. All reverence and worship of ‘that which is sacred, holy’ amounts to nothing more than narcissistic self-aggrandisement. The ‘self’ that causes all the atrocious animosity and anguish in this otherwise delightful world transmogrifies itself into a grand ‘Self’ (by whatever name) ... and otherwise intelligent people speak in hushed tones about it! It is generally capitalised, you will notice, and some people go to great lengths to deny that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and his ilk – enlightened masters – are surrendered to this spurious divinity. The trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the West have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the Western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the East. It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking Divine Immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. ‘That which is sacred, holy’, for example, is simply the Eastern term for ‘God’; thus any order designated [quote] ‘absolute order’ [end quote] translates easily as ‘The Kingdom of God on earth as it is in Heaven’ ... in Western terminology. At the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. Have you ever been to India to see for yourself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living? I have, and it is hideous. If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing. (Editorial note: the exact quote is as follows: [Ms. Pupul Jayakar]: ‘...
the feeling of presence was overpowering, and soon my voice stopped. Krishnaji turned to me, ‘Do you feel It? I could prostrate
to It?’ His body was trembling as he spoke of the presence that listened. ‘Yes, I can prostrate to this, that is here’.
Suddenly he turned and left us, walking alone to his room’. page 364; Jayakar, Pupul: ‘Krishnamurti – A Biography’; Harper
& Row; San Francisco; 1986). * RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): I am well aware that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti repeatedly said: ‘The
description is not the described’ and you are doing what he said not to do. To wit: ‘Do not quote anyone, least of all the
speaker’. Unless you are living the actuality of that phrase ‘The description is not the described’ then you are mouthing
empty rhetoric. RESPONDENT: There is one problem with this quote. Krishnamurti also often asked that people do not accept what he says, not to follow, but to find out for themselves. So if I do not quote Krishnamurti because he asked me not to, then I am going against his other request, that I do not accept anything he says. Now that’s confusing! RICHARD: Well said! Mostly, people who apply themselves diligently to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ wind up being hopelessly confused. I spent three months with a ‘Krishnamurtiite’ in the Himalayas in 1984 and through intense and rigorous discussion, I came to know the pitfalls and shortcomings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’ through and through. Anyone following the ‘Teachings’ simply ties themselves in knots ... and to no avail. People become too clever for their own good. RESPONDENT: So I guess I will just stuff the consequences and do what I feel like doing, and if that involves quoting Krishnamurti or Joe Blow, so be it. RICHARD: Good on you. I, personally, have no objection to anyone quoting anything at any time or any where, as long as they acknowledge they are not living it. It is just that I started of being engaged in correspondence with someone living today and wound up in a debate with a dead man’s words (words which, by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own admission on his death-bed, had not set anyone free in sixty-odd years). If someone is so foolish as to create the impression when they engage in a dialogue with me that they are living the reality of these words when they are not ... then, as I wrote, one is ‘mouthing empty rhetoric’. Although, as far as I am concerned, it is all a massive delusion anyway, but I just thought I might
demonstrate the ridiculousness of quoting Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti when one is not living the reality of the words. * RESPONDENT: In one of the first posts I ever sent to this list, I wondered why anyone described Krishnamurti’s words as ‘teachings’. Maybe, a better description would be Krishnamurti’s comments on life as he saw it. Just because someone you met in the Himalayas, was attempting to mould their life according to those comments, as there probably are on this list, that does imply that that was Krishnamurti’s intention. RICHARD: I was merely following the precedent that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself set. He consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’. As these words came from a source that he described as ‘that which is sacred, holy’, it is clear that he was bringing some unknown god’s wisdom to earth. RESPONDENT: In previous posts I have also mentioned that normally I do not quote Krishnamurti unless it makes sense to me. There may be occasions when I may say, Krishnamurti spoke about this or that, but as it doesn’t make sense to me, I see no point in saying he was right or wrong. Many people on this list including yourself, speak of things, which I am unwilling to state as right or wrong. That is why I am on this list. To examine and question my feeling, my life and how I react to the comments of others. RICHARD: This is a healthy approach ... you have already discovered that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘comments’ are in fact divine ‘Teachings’. Who knows what you may discover next. RESPONDENT: Even Krishnamurti said, ‘I hope you are not merely listening to the speaker; that has no value at all because the speaker is not teaching you a thing’. Just because others look on his words as principles to be lived, does not mean that this was Krishnamurti’s wish. So if Krishnamurti on his death bed said that his words, ‘had not set anyone free in sixty-odd years’, then based on his previous statement, that makes sense. RICHARD: Yes ... except that in 1929 he stated: ‘I have only one desire – to set humankind free’. As he spent the next sixty-odd years talking to people about freedom, then his death-bed confession is a remarkable admittance of the failure of divine words to be effective in ameliorating the Human Condition. I, for one, ‘get the message’. I looked elsewhere for the understanding of the cause of malice and sorrow within me. I found that source ... and succeeded. I am now happy and harmless. I never experience fear and aggression ... and have not done so for five years. Also, do you not think that a person bringing ‘Teachings’ is being somewhat disingenuous when they say
that they are ‘not teaching you a thing’? RESPONDENT: You often times say ‘step out of the time-honoured life of sorrow and strife, etc. into the joyous life of being actually alive here in the now.’ Well, Krishnamurti, said much of the same things as you do, but he also told us what was preventing ‘this stepping’ out in great detail – 60 years of detail. He never tired of trying to help see the way out, even though he did fail – but perhaps he did not fail. Maybe there was something he said or something in the way he said it that provided a final catalyst that helped you to step out of the stream of thought? RICHARD: Not the ‘stream of thought’ , no ... thought was never an issue for me. But, to gain affirmation and confirmation that it was safe for me step out of the human condition, I read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (among others) with an open mind because I wanted to know, for myself, if ‘Love Agapé’, if ‘Divine Compassion’, if ‘Beauty’, if ‘Truth’, if ‘Goodness’, if ‘Intelligence’ and so on, were actually the Ultimate.
Yes there was ... and I wanted to know for myself what was beyond all this, so I read more:
As all this and more fitted my experience, I found it imperative to investigate ... experientially. By being
born and raised in the West I was not steeped in the mystical religious tradition of the East and was thus able to escape the trap
of centuries of eastern spiritual conditioning by going beyond Spiritual Enlightenment – which turned out to be an altered state
of consciousness within the human condition – into the actuality of being here on earth in infinite space at this moment now in
eternal time as this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: From a conversation on Mailing List ‘B’: [Respondent]: ‘I
hear him [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti] saying that when there is actual observation of the entire movement of thought, thought, as a
centre of selfishness, ends. Now if that is so, what could be there BUT compassion?’ [Richard]: ‘Aye ... when thought stops
the affective faculty rushes in to fill the gap. It is but being ruled by one’s feelings ... albeit ‘good’ feelings’. RICHARD: Because that is the intent of the spiritual aspirant ... if the intent was to be a manifestation of evil then, when thought stops and the affective faculty rushes in to fill the gap, it is also to be but ruled by one’s feelings ... albeit ‘bad’ feelings. RESPONDENT: I asked a question related to this many months back but did not get a response. RICHARD: Presumably you are referring to the following:
If that is the related question you are referring to then you did indeed get a response ... and only a little over twelve hours later at that. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: The question is: Why is that when the mind is silent, the predominant feeling is that of love and compassion and gentleness? RICHARD: Because their polar opposites – malice and sorrow and aggressiveness – have been sublimated (refined/ redirected); with sublimation there is transmutation, transformation ... hence transcended (risen above/ gone beyond). RESPONDENT: What happens to the negative instincts in that state? RICHARD: The (affective) energy of the negative, or savage, instinctual passions, having no other outlet, is covertly fuelling the positive, or tender, instinctual passions. The following is quite explicit about how sorrow, when thoughtlessly and thus deeply felt with all of one’s
being, is energised into transforming itself into being a ‘strange flame of passion’
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON MR. JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI (Part Two) 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 |
