|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
RESPONDENT: It is simple: if it is a movement, it can’t be absolute. RICHARD: You are simply repeating what you said further above (‘that which changes can not be absolute’ and ‘if it moves, it can’t be absolute’) in a slightly different form ... perhaps another quote may break the stranglehold your logic has on an engaged enquiry? Viz.: B: ‘Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that’. K: ‘Would you say beyond that is this movement?’ B: ‘Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying’. K: ‘Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement’. B: ‘And it dies back into the movement’. K: ‘That’s right. It has its being in the movement’. B: ‘Yes, and matter also’. K: ‘Quite’. (‘The Ending Of Time’; page 153; 1985. Harper and Row, San Francisco). As both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ emerge from and have their being in this movement then surely the question into the nature of this movement is a seminal question, non? RESPONDENT: Non. Bohm and K seem to be merely shooting breeze. RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to access the following URL (which is where I obtained the above quote from) and read some more before dismissing it all as ‘merely shooting breeze’? Viz.: http://www.igc.org/shavano/html/bohm3.html#Dialogues You will find that the question regarding the movement in the absolute is integral to Mr. David Bohm’s formulation of implicate and super-implicate order. RESPONDENT: The entire discussion is pretty nonsensical, in my opinion. RICHARD: No more ‘nonsensical’, for example, than saying that all existence (all time and all space and all form) is relative and that only Brahma (a timeless and spaceless and formless Hindu god) is absolute. Viz.:
Here is a further excerpt from that URL above:
RESPONDENT: Ignore it. RICHARD: Your advice comes too late because the identity, who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, sincerely enquired into the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ ... with salubrious results. It turned out to be a seminal question. RESPONDENT No. 20: Richard’s selection from K upon which he bases his interpretation is: [quote]: ‘Is the observer different at all? Or is he essentially the same as the observed? If he is the same, then there is no conflict, is there? Then intelligence operates and not conflict. ... Only when intelligence operates will there be peace, the intelligence that comes when one understands there is no division between the observer and the observed. The insight into that very fact, that very truth, brings this intelligence. This is a very serious thing ... there is no outside authority, nor inward authority. The only authority then is intelligence’. [endquote]. (‘Total Freedom’ (p-262) from talks in Saanen 1974. © 1996 Krishnamurti Foundation of America and Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.; All rights reserved; Published by HarperSanFrancisco). <SNIP>. RESPONDENT: He’s talking about self-observation. RICHARD: Where? He is speaking first of ‘insight’ then ‘intelligence’ and its ‘authority’ (as evidenced by his words ‘the insight into that very fact, that very truth [that the observer is the observed], brings this intelligence’) ... and ‘the only authority then is intelligence’. It is this very ‘insight’ that ‘brings this intelligence’ – not ‘self-observation’ – and this, he says, is ‘a very serious thing’. He says: ‘only when intelligence operates will there be peace’ . Or, to put it another way, as there is ‘no division between the observer and the observed’ (despite thought having created a thought-division as ‘observer’ and ‘observed’ ) there never has been an ‘observer’ and ‘observed’ all along. The insight into ‘that very fact, that very truth’ brings ‘the only authority’ because there is no ‘outside authority’ nor ‘inward authority’. The tilling of the soil stages such as ‘self-observation’ are preliminary stages only. RESPONDENT No 12: The immeasurable which is nothingness is not realized if identity is established in the known, in somethingness, in being something special. RICHARD: Are you so sure about not being ‘something special’ ? Viz.: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘You won’t find another body like this, or that supreme intelligence, operating in a body for many hundred years. You won’t see it again. When he goes, it goes. There is no consciousness left behind of that consciousness, of that state’. (‘Krishnamurti – His Life and Death’; Mary Lutyens p. 206. © Avon Books; New York 1991). RESPONDENT No. 12: I don’t accept the writings of Lutyens as reliable reports of what K said. RESPONDENT: I agree with that. Unless K wrote it or recorded it himself, no quote should be received as proof of anything. Second hand quotes from people writing books are subject to the bias or imagination of the author. Why would K say ‘you won’t find another body like this’ knowing he had cancer? His body was subject to disease; was there anything magic about that? Is there any record that K actually said that? If not, the better bet would be to assume it was not said. RICHARD: According to what I read the quote was transcribed from a taped message Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti recorded on the 7 February, ten days before he died, in response to a question from Ms. Mary Cadogan, of the Krishnamurti Foundation in England, who asked: ‘When Krishnaji dies, what really happens to that extraordinary focus of understanding and energy that is K’. Here is the taped message in full:
Of course I have not listened to the tape myself ... but unless it is a carefully-concocted and widely published lie from beginning to end all one can do is take it as being a transcription of an actual recording which still exists somewhere in the archives of the Krishnamurti Foundation. As a matter of interest, Ms. Mary Lutyens wrote three biographies all told – the first two of which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself read through in their entirety and did not refute – and thus so as far as it can be ascertained she is a reasonably credible reporter of events ... most of her quotes come from hand-written letters or from tapes. Your will find that your query about ‘you won’t find another body like this’ is answered above (‘... unless the
body has been prepared, very carefully protected and so on ...’). RESPONDENT: This distortion of perception is a strike against intelligence. The afflicted brain is no longer able to process perceptions intelligently. But outside of that brain intelligence may operate. RICHARD: Are you referring to a disembodied ‘intelligence’? RESPONDENT: Yes, though some relationship to matter seems to exist. RICHARD: Well, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, for an example, has it that it creates all matter. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: Wonderful words. Are you implying a conflict between these lines by k and my position? RICHARD: None whatsoever ... I was indicating support for your position (and taking it one step further) as you had only said ‘seems’ to exist. Whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti definitively said: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir’. Such a ‘position’ is known as panentheism (or pantheism). Viz.: http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/blfaq_theism_pan.htm#Panentheism RESPONDENT: However impassioned K grew in the course of his talks, I can’t recall a single instance when he resorted to such expletives as ‘jerk,’ ‘asinine,’ and ‘crap’ to describe those with whom he was speaking. This is not simply a matter of his personal style – which for the most part was politely formal (hence all the ‘Sirs’). The fact is that such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed. RICHARD: Simply in the spirit of balance and objectivity, and to see how he actually wrote and spoke, it did not take me long to send the search function of the computer through the officially accredited words and writings of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to find that he repeatedly used words such as follows:
Further to this line of enquiry as to how to how Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke to his fellow human beings, in August 1998; Hans and Radhika Herzberger of the Rishi Valley Study Centre wrote:
I will not copy and paste here as their Web Page specifically warns that ‘these materials have been edited in ways that suit the special purposes of this series and may not be copied or quoted in their present form in any other publications’ . However, I can provide the URL so that you can read for yourself: www.kfa.org/RV-wp-9moralpassion.html If you are indeed inclined to access the page and digest its contents, then what is of interest to me is whether, upon sober reflection and considered deliberation, you would you still maintain that ‘such potentially inflammatory language undercuts objectivity and civility, and hardly conveys that its user is inwardly ordered, balanced, and harmoniously disposed’ ? Surely this is an apt way to check whether your integrity is your own integrity or not, eh? * RICHARD: By posting the list of words that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti regularly used (and also providing a reference page URL for further investigation) I was essentially suggesting that we look at your topic of rudeness and politeness. We are rude and we say we must not be rude. The politeness is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be rude. So you make politeness into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform rudeness into that ideal. But the politeness has no reality! No ideal has any reality, obviously. I see from your response that you do not easily agree with me because it is very difficult to eject ideas or ideals from the mind, which means that your mind is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• (Editorial note: This response is a direct take of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own words ...
only substituting the word ‘rude’ for the word ‘violence’. [quote]: ‘Let us look at violence and non-violence. We are violent and we say
we must not be violent. The non-violence is the ideal, it is the projection of the mind which feels itself to be violent. So you make non-violence
into an ideal and then proceed to try to transform violence into that ideal. But the non-violence has no reality! No ideal has any reality,
obviously. You do not easily agree with me at first because it is very difficult to eject ideas, ideals from the mind, which means that your mind
is so conditioned by ideals that a new idea cannot be received by it. You are as mesmerised by the ideal as the lunatic by his idea. I am not
insulting you, but I am just saying how difficult it is for a mind which thinks in habits to consider a new idea’. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘First
Public Talk at Poona’, 7 September 1958; ©1995 Krishnamurti Foundation of America; www.kfa.org/poona58.html). RESPONDENT: I wonder if Richard has assumed the role of a cult leader there? RICHARD: [...] RESPONDENT: He does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader described in a book by Madeleine Tobais and Janja Lalich. It’s a 1994 book on cults and abusive relationships by Ron Keller, www.skeptictank.org/what.htm: RICHARD: [...] As I am on record, over and again, of saying: [Richard]: ‘I am only ever interested in facts and actuality’; [Richard]: ‘this actual world of the senses is an ambrosial paradise’; [Richard]: ‘I am a thorough-going atheist through and through’; [Richard]: ‘All gods and goddesses are a figment of passionate human imagination’; [Richard]: ‘There is no ‘Intelligence’ running this universe’; [Richard]: ‘This universe has always been here and always will be ... it has no need for a creator’; [Richard]: ‘I am a fellow human being sans identity who is neither ‘normal’ nor ‘divine’ and so on, I cannot see how any of this applies to me. I pinpoint the instinctual passions and advocate unilateral action ... [...] Even so, after having read all that, you still considered it necessary to say that Richard ‘does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader’ ... and then proceed to provide a copy of all manner of things relating to [quote]: ‘the cult leader ... the psychopath ... who presents himself as the ‘Ultimate One’: enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble ... the living embodiment of God’s love’ [endquote]. If I may point out? It was not me who said:
And, again, it was not me who said:
And, again, it was not me who said:
And, again, it was not me who said:
And, again, it was not me who said:
When you read that last, short sentence (‘the only authority then is intelligence’) he is clearly designating ‘intelligence’ (otherwise known as ‘god’ or ‘truth’ or ‘otherness’ or ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on) as being ‘the only authority’ is he not? Yet, despite all that you have read and exchanged E-Mails about over the years, you considered it necessary to say that Richard ‘does seem to fit some of the profile of a cult leader’ ... and then proceeded to provide a copy of all manner of things relating to [quote]: ‘the cult leader ... the psychopath ... who presents himself as the ‘Ultimate One’: enlightened, a vehicle of god, a genius, the leader of humankind, and sometimes the most humble of the humble ... the living embodiment of God’s love’ [endquote] ... even though Richard acknowledges no authority whatsoever other than the readily observable facts and actuality of the physical world. Upon sober reflection, perhaps you might care to reconsider your – maybe rash – allegations? RESPONDENT No. 42: Perhaps this exchange, too, will collapse in semantics. To my sense the words ‘observer’, ‘thinker’, ‘feeler’ (an ugly sound) describe the self. The presence of self prevents true observation, distorts right thinking, confuses true feeling. I don’t make as much of a distinction between thinking and feeling as you do, and I don’t think k and Bohm did. RICHARD: As far as I have been able to ascertain Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not use the term ‘the feeler’ (not that I have all his words in electronic form so as to conduct a thorough search) although he frequently used the terms ‘the thinker’, ‘the observer’, ‘the watcher’, ‘the experiencer’ and ‘the meditator’ ... and even if it turns out that he did I am most definitely not using ‘the feeler’ as being interchangeable with ‘the thinker’ as he does with ‘the observer’, ‘the watcher’, ‘the experiencer’ and ‘the meditator’. To blur the distinction between the thinker and the feeler is to lose the plot altogether as the feeler only comes into full being when the thinker is not ... the advice ‘get out of your head and into your heart’ is well-nigh ubiquitous among spiritualists and their ilk. RESPONDENT: As you find it ‘well-nigh ubiquitous’ amongst spiritualists, and you consider K to be a ‘spiritualist’, you may simply be reading this presumption into K. RICHARD: And what ‘presumption’ would that be? That he blurred the distinction between the thinker and the feeler? That he be a spiritualist or of that ilk? That he advised being the feelings (living from the heart) rather than being the thinking (living in the head)? First of all, that colloquialism (‘get out of your head and into your heart’) is something I have both heard and read time and again – and rarely, if ever, coming from materialists – which is what leads me to say ‘well-nigh ubiquitous among spiritualists and their ilk’ as, of course, I have not done a door-to-door survey of 6.0 billion people. As for blurring the distinction betwixt the thinker and the feeler: if it is so that he did not use the term ‘the feeler’ then that speaks for itself; if he did use it, yet did not differentiate it from ‘the thinker’ (as he did not with those other terms), then that also speaks for itself. As for being a spiritualist or of that ilk: he certainly was not a materialist; he spoke often of the ‘otherness’ (which he described as meaning ‘other than matter’); he spoke often of what it was to be truly religious; he declared that he had realised God or truth; he affirmed that what he was speaking of is enlightenment. As for living from the heart, rather than being in the head, the following quote may throw some light upon the matter:
Here are some more, although less explicit, in a similar vein:
RESPONDENT: Is there any textual support in any of K’s writings for saying that ‘the feeler only comes into full being when the thinker is not’? RICHARD: The words ‘the feeler only comes into full being when the thinker is not’ are my words, not his, about my discovery, not his, as a large part of the discussion, where you obtained the above exchange from, is about where my experiencing differs from his. RESPONDENT: K distinguished feeling and thinking ... RICHARD: Yes ... if by this you mean that he made it clear, for example, that thinking about ‘love’ was not the feeling of love. RESPONDENT: ... yet for K, the ‘thinker’ is not fundamentally different from the ‘feeler’, the ‘experiencer’, the ‘observer’. RICHARD: Yes, this is essentially what I am saying (further above). RESPONDENT: All these are different ways of speaking about the separate self. (I think this is what Respondent No. 42 is getting at). RICHARD: Indeed so, whereas I am making the point that there are two aspects to identity: the thinking self (‘I’ as ego or ego-self) and the feeling self (‘me’ as soul or soul-self) and ‘me’ as soul, which is ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being, is ‘being’ itself ... and to be impersonalised ‘being’ itself (no longer ‘becoming’ or being an ego-self) is to be the enlightenment that is touted as being the peace which ego-bound peoples sorely need. Yet enlightened beings are still subject to anger and anguish, for example, as well as love and compassion. Hence my question a couple of e-mails back: if the thinking self can get such rigorous scrutiny as the mailing list gives it ... why not the feeling self? Is the feeling self sacrosanct? RESPONDENT: Yesterday I was searching through a search engine (Copernicus agent) for something, and out of the blue I came in a site of actual freedom, that included one conversation we had me Peter and Richard two years ago. I read it again, and I am still astonished for the reason I could not convey a simple thing. (...) If there is no I can sadness or anger it’s self ASSOCIATES OR DISSOCIATES FROM ITS SELF? THERE IS ONLY THAT FULL STOP. So in the moment the self the I the me does not exist, is anybody that can do anything to escape or transform this sadness etc? No. Exist only that, sadness (without name) or anger or whatever else. Then no action can take place. Nothing can be done. The only action that can take place is from this energy that we call sadness or anger or whatever. And because the energy is not static will transform. In what? Do it and you will see. RICHARD: There is no need to ‘do it and you will see’ as the person who devised this method has already made this transformation ... with oh-so-predictable results. Viz.:
And what is the nature of this love you will begin to understand when you have (supposedly) ended sorrow/sadness by having the (thoughtless) energy to transform it into the strange flame of passion:
In a word:
Its main characteristic is its timeless quality:
And, of course, its immediate conferrence of immortality:
Thus there is no need to be astonished, as you say further above, ‘for the reason I could not convey a simple thing’
as you will find that your (borrowed) wisdom is already understood ... only all too well. RICHARD: ... as what I write about life here in this actual world is a report coming immediately from the direct experience of this beginningless and endless moment – there is this which is actually happening and the words form themselves in accord to the very thing being referred to as it is occurring – it makes no difference in regards freshness on what occasion they are written. In other words: being already always fresh the words are an active catalyst which will catapult the reader, who reads with all their being, into the magical wonder-land this verdant and azure planet actually is. Then actuality speaks for itself. RESPONDENT: Richard do you understand that the words you are saying after they left your mouth are already old? RICHARD: Respondent, do you understand that this is a flesh and blood body you are conversing with – one living in this actual world where time itself has no duration – and not an enlightened being living (albeit in a massive delusion) in the real world? RESPONDENT: My kindly asking was Can you make one overview? RICHARD: And my response is, as before, that a précis of what I have to report/describe/explain already exists. RESPONDENT: Let’s say you met a friend in a bar and you try to explain him your way of seeing things, as you done with Vineeto and Peter. RICHARD: Now here is an interesting thing: Peter was the first person who listened with both ears (aka listened afresh) to what I had to report/describe/explain ... so much so that he was able to successfully explain it to Vineeto before she even met me. You see, he was able to drop, at an instant and for that instant, all his spiritual experience and learning/ conditioning ... he never told me, for instance, with (borrowed) wisdom that the words that I was saying, after they left my mouth, were already old. In short: he was ripe and ready for something new. RESPONDENT: Can you do it once more? RICHARD: Ahh ... but can you be another Peter (so to speak)? RESPONDENT: So that we will begin to deal from there and avoid all these thousands of redirections? RICHARD: Ha ... as I only deal from here – where what ‘all these thousands of redirections’ link to are
ever-fresh – it would appear you are avoiding that which has been here all this while. Viz.: RESPONDENT: You said in your email that you are using the word love in the same way JK uses it. How you know it? RICHARD: Experientially ... it is the self-same experience (like recognises like). RESPONDENT: JK never defined love. RICHARD: Hmm ... what is this then? Viz.:
He is unambiguously saying that love is ‘a total feeling’ and a ‘complete purity of feeling’ ... if that is not defining it then I would like to know what is. RESPONDENT: Was defining not love. RICHARD: What about this then? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: He was saying that you can’t define love. RICHARD: Not only did he define it he also delineated where it comes from (sorrow). Viz.:
He is most explicit that if you escape from passion (he specifically says the root meaning of sorrow is passion) you lose that quality ... and that out of that quality comes compassion (and only then you will begin to understand what it means to love). And once that happens this happens:
Which is why he can say this:
You may recall this exchange:
Does it all start to make sense now? RESPONDENT: How you know then what was he meaning? RICHARD: Again, it is an experiential matter ... I only provide quotes (such as above) for people who have not experienced it for themselves. RESPONDENT: Did you passed through this experience of love, and then you are saying that it does not exist? RICHARD: No, I was that – to be enlightened is to be love – and when ‘being’ itself (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being is ‘being’ itself) ‘self’-immolated for the benefit of this body and that body and every body the love that it was also ceased to exist. RESPONDENT: If does not exist how possibly you had any experience of love? RICHARD: Just because it has no existence here in this actual world it does not mean it has no existence in the real-world (the world of the human psyche). RESPONDENT: How can you experience something that does not exist? RICHARD: Is this a before or an after question? RESPONDENT: If you never experienced though how can you tell that you are using it the same way he did? RICHARD: As it is you who is saying I never experienced it I will leave that for you to mull over. RESPONDENT: You see the absurdity here? RICHARD: No ... and that is because there is none (other than the one you invented). RESPONDENT: For him was very real, for you does not exist and you still say you both are using the word with the same meaning. RICHARD: For me it was very real ... more real than anything else, in fact, to the point that there was nothing but love: love was everything and everything was love; love was all and all was love; love was it and it was love – and it was love’s compassion which poured forth endlessly, unstoppable, for all suffering sentient beings. RESPONDENT: Is this a conundrum, or something else? RICHARD: Neither ... that is what you are making of it all. * RESPONDENT: If you find something real, something that is truth, then don’t be afraid, nobody can take it from you. Is yours. It is not necessary to try to put down other people for your to be the one who is right. RICHARD: First, I have not found something ‘real’ I have found what is actual; second, this which is actual is not ‘truth’ it is fact; third, there is no fear here in this actual world so you can cease projecting your ‘don’t be afraid’ feelings onto me; fourth, as it is the universe itself which is actual to say ‘nobody can take it from you’ is simply silliness operating; fifth, this actual world is not mine it was here long before I was born and will be here long after I die; sixth, I do not ‘try to put down other people’ I report my experience and set the record straight wherever necessary ... and, lastly, this which is actual is neither ‘right’ nor wrong it simply is so. RESPONDENT: JK for example never put down other people for over-imposing his teachings. When they were asking him about Aristotle or Gandhi for example he was saying live other people let’s see together for our self. They may be right (the other people) but what good for you if a have a steak to eat and you don’t have a piece of bread? RICHARD: What Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did is his business ... as he was not free from the human condition there is no
correspondence betwixt his modus operandi and mine. RICHARD: Any and all imprinting which happens after birth imprints itself onto, into, and as, this already existing basic set of survival passions that form themselves into being the intuitive presence which, at root, is what any ‘me’ ultimately is ... as does any and all societal, familial, and peer-group conditioning. RESPONDENT: This would be a major departure from k, right? RICHARD: It would be indeed ... a radical
But he does not wonder why it is probable that ‘we have derived this feeling from that little animal’ for very long as soon he has left behind everything that thought had put together and has completely forgotten himself ... so much so that soon there is no longer any sense of being a human being even:
The word ‘dissociation’ seems particularly apt. * RICHARD: For example, in regards the matter of ‘being’ itself: when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talks of ‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’, and implies that there is no ego-self in ‘being’ (whereas there is in ‘becoming’), does this then not speak to you of being an impersonalised ‘presence’ (a soul-self by whatever name) ... rather than being an everyday ‘personality’ (ego-self) such as maybe 6.0 billion people are? RESPONDENT: Yes, except for your term ‘soul-self’, which to me is identical with ‘ego-self’. RICHARD: As the term soul-self refers to a spiritual identity, as in spirit-self for example, as distinct from ego-self which refers to a corporeal identity, as in body-self for example, are you saying that there is no spiritual dimension at all ... that everything is material including consciousness? For example:
Is this what you mean, when you say that soul-self is identical with ego-self, that any ‘otherness’ (that which is other
than matter) is also material, a construct of thought operating as imagination? * RICHARD: ... so far I have only been able to come across 15 passages where Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti uses the word ‘genetic’ and nowhere on those 15 occasions does he come even anywhere near comprehending the implications and ramifications involved in the affective feelings being rooted in the genetically-encoded instincts ... rather than in conditioning (be it societal, familial, peer-group or environmental conditioning). For an example: ‘The other day as one was walking along a secluded wooded lane far from the noise and the brutality and the vulgarity of civilisation, right away from everything that was put together by man, there was a sense of great quietness, enveloping all things – serene, distant, and full of the sound of the earth. As you walked along quietly, not disturbing the things of the earth around you, the bushes, the trees, the crickets, and the birds, suddenly around the bend there were two small creatures quarrelling with each other, fighting in their small way. One was trying to drive off the other. The other was intruding, trying to get into the other’s little hole, and the owner was fighting it off. Presently the owner won and the other ran off. Again there was quietness, a sense of deep solitude. And as you looked up, the path climbed high into the mountains, the waterfall was murmuring down the side of the path; there was great beauty and infinite dignity, not the dignity achieved by man that seems so vain and arrogant. The little creature had identified itself with its home, as we human beings do. We are always trying to identify ourselves with our race, with our culture, with those things which we believe in, with some mystical figure, some kind of super authority. Identifying with something seems to be the nature of man. Probably we have derived this feeling from that little animal. One wonders why this craving, longing, for identification exists’. (10 March 1983; ‘Krishnamurti To Himself’; ©1987 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd.). But he does not wonder why it is probable that ‘we have derived this feeling from that little animal’ for very long as soon he has left behind everything that thought had put together and has completely forgotten himself ... RESPONDENT: Of course k isn’t so interested in tracing our behaviour to it’s animal sources. Leave that to the scientists. RICHARD: Being born and raised on a farm being carved out of virgin forest I interacted with other animals – both domesticated and in the wild – from a very early age and have maintained a life-long interest in observing the correspondence the basic instinctual passions in the human animal have with the basic instinctual passions in the other animals ... to see the self-same feelings of fear and aggression and nurture and desire, for example, in other sentient beings did not and does not need scientific verification. And even from my comfortable suburban living room I can watch documentaries on this very topic ... only recently a television programme was aired again about observations made of chimpanzees over many, many years in their native habitat and I was able to see fear, aggression, territoriality, civil war, robbery, rage, infanticide, cannibalism, nurture, grief, group ostracism, bonding, desire, and so on being displayed in living colour. RESPONDENT: Of course our instincts evolved with the creatures we stem from. RICHARD: Yet it is not the instincts per se I am referring to but the instinctual passions – the genetically-encoded affective feelings – such as what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was wondering about. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: K’s interest is only in the self, the psychological malfunctioning our species succumbed to, and if it’s possible to walk away from that. RICHARD: So I have noticed. * RICHARD: ... so much so that soon there is no longer any sense of being a human being even. Viz.: ‘As you climbed, leaving the little village paths down below, the noise of the earth – the crickets, the quails and other birds began their morning song, their chant, their rich worship of the day. And as the sun rose you were part of that light and had left behind everything that thought had put together. You completely forgot yourself. The psyche was empty of its struggles and its pains. And as you climbed, there was no sense of separateness, no sense of even being a human being’. (10 March 1983; ‘Krishnamurti To Himself’; ©1987 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd.). The word ‘dissociation’ seems particularly apt. RESPONDENT: I’m not sure. I’m a bit leery of tendency to use language in such definitive ways. RICHARD: As this paragraph is rich in symbolism – such as chant and worship and climbing in the light with no sense of separateness and no sense of even being a human being – it amply embellishes what he means when he says the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world:
RESPONDENT: But he never talked much about feeling as a distinct state. RICHARD: I beg to differ ... he not only talked often about ‘feeling as a distinct state’ (distinct from the thinking state) he praised its separation from thought highly (albeit lopsidedly). For just one example: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Love is a state of being in which thought is not’. (page 16, ‘Commentaries on Living’, First Series; ©1960 Krishnamurti Foundation of America). RESPONDENT: ‘Love’, as used by k above, is not a feeling, i.e. not an affective state. RICHARD: If, as you say, it is not an affective state then why would he say that the very first requirement for a person who would seek truth – the very first requirement mind you – is to feel the beauty of the outside and thus be with it ... which feeling is the feeling of love? Viz.:
Spelled-out in full it could be put this way:
Do you see that, not only does he say that feeling the outside is the very first requirement for a person who would seek truth, he also says that feeling the outside is essential? If so, why do you say it is not an affective state (of ‘being’)? RESPONDENT: It’s a state absent of reaction, free of self. RICHARD: I can easily agree it is a state absent of thought-reaction, free of the thinking-self (ego-self) ... but it is not a state free of affective-reaction, free of the feeling-self (soul-self). * RESPONDENT: He talked about anger, fear, sorrow but he discussed them as psychological thinking. RICHARD: Am I to take it by ‘psychological thinking’ you mean he talked about these feelings being part of the package labelled ‘the thinker’ (rather than being part of the package labelled ‘the feeler’)? RESPONDENT: Yes, feeling and thought surely are a continuum. RICHARD: Here is what the word continuum means to me:
If this is what it means to you as well, and as Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti makes clear that love has nothing to do with thought, how can ‘feeling and thought’ be a continuum? Viz.:
* RICHARD: Where the feeler interferes with feeling big-time is upon transcendence ... which is where the negative feelings have been sublimated to such a degree that the positive feelings appear squeaky-clean (aka have no opposite). ‘Tis only an appearance, though. RESPONDENT: I have no idea of what you’re saying here. RICHARD: Have you never found it cute that, upon transcendence, the positive feelings have assumed the status of existing as a state of being without equal (wherein the negative feelings have been swept under the carpet)? RESPONDENT: As above, ‘love’, when it describes a state of being, is not a feeling. RICHARD: When the thinker is not, and love is, there is only that feeling – that affective state of ‘being’ wherein there is no longer ‘me’ feeling love – as in being the very feeling itself (hence ‘being’). In the popular jargon it goes something like this: ‘love is all there is’ or ‘all there is, is love’. Or, more specifically:
RESPONDENT: It is not an ‘affective’ state. Feelings and thought describe material processes. The realm of non-matter may be spoken of as beauty, peace, truth, harmony, love, but here those words must be read not as labels, but perhaps as evocations. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is quite clear as to just what the ‘labels’ he uses refer to ... for example:
Apart from unambiguously saying that love is ‘a total feeling’ and ‘complete purity of feeling’ he specifically addresses the issue you make between ‘material processes’ and ‘the realm of non-matter’ – only he uses the words ‘carnal’ and ‘spiritual’ and the words ‘the profane’ and ‘the sacred’ instead – by talking specifically of the battle thus created by doing what you do here. And what is the word most apt for the love which is ‘a total feeling’ and ‘complete purity of feeling’? Viz.:
And where does passion come from? Viz.:
He is most explicit that if you escape from passion (he specifically says the root meaning of sorrow is passion) you lose that quality ... and that out of that quality comes compassion (and only then you will begin to understand what it means to love). If passion is not affective I would be most interested to hear what is. RESPONDENT: The word ‘oceanic’ is descriptive and seeks to stimulate the imagination. RICHARD: The word ‘oceanic RESPONDENT: Now it becomes clearer why I rejected the word ‘oceanic feeling’. Because you define it as an ‘affective feeling’, which to me means a material state. RICHARD: Ahh ... you may recall a quote from a previous e-mail:
What if I were to say that one can imagine, or construct through feeling, as feeling, ‘otherness’; that is to say, other than matter – but it is still matter as imagination ... a creation made from the heart? Here is another quote already posted:
And here is a quote in a similar vein:
Then there is this quote:
And this one:
Or this one:
In short: out of the passion of sorrow comes compassion; passion also creates beauty; the feeling of beauty is the feeling of
love; love is God/love is not different from truth. RESPONDENT: I don’t imagine a god presently ... RICHARD: If I may interject? Where you recently wrote, in another e-mail, that ‘all knowledge is of the past’ and that ‘to have names of the states of mind is to live in the past’ and that ‘the word becomes the thing’ and that ‘once one shakes off himself off all the labels, all the knowledge that is of the past, then one is ever fresh’ and that ‘then there is stillness, the quietness of the mind, that allows the now without distorting it’ it did seem that such phrasing was reminiscent of the words of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. Have you ever read about/listened to his teachings? RESPONDENT: Yes I have read Krishnamurti. RICHARD: Okay ... you would be aware that he was a god, then? For example:
And:
RESPONDENT: But I wrote it out of my experience. I think the knowledge that comes out of the thinker – conceptual and belief based – distorts the observation of the feelings. When one is free of the conceptual non-sense, one is free to look into the feelings and how it operates. Then there is different kind of knowledge, factual – based on observation. But again it can get recorded in a generalized form which one has to counter in the future observations. There seems to be an inherent difficulty in self-observation. RICHARD: As the self which Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti observed, for 60+ years, was the self he variously called god, or truth, or that which is sacred, holy, and so on, you ain’t just whistlin’ Dixie there. Obviously a different approach is called for, eh? RESPONDENT: You have said the current software needs deleting and your method is the anti-virus software necessary to do the job, so to speak. RICHARD: As what you say I call ‘the current’ software is not only as old as humankind itself, but even
predating the first humanoid, you are way, way off the mark as to what manner of deletion my discovery entails and, if I may make the observation,
typical of what was made fashionable by none other than Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. And this is because nowhere does he come even anywhere near
comprehending that the root cause of all the misery and mayhem which epitomises the human condition is genetically-encoded ... rather than being
caused by the conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning) which he sought to remedy by starting his own
religiously-orientated schools. RESPONDENT: Another thing is that when you was emailing about Jiddu Krishnamurti you find pieces to alter what he was saying. RICHARD: I did not ‘find pieces to alter what he was saying’ at all ... they are direct quotes of his which speak for themselves. For another example:
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): 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):
RESPONDENT: The same you make with me, you copy and paste from previous emails. RICHARD: Are you stating that I alter what you are saying when I copy and paste what you have written? If so, could you provide an example where I have done so ... and please note that if you do so from memory I will compare it to your printed words. RESPONDENT: Is very well known that Krishnamurti never spoke that reincarnation exist. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. I would rather go by his printed words, however, as they are far more reliable. RESPONDENT: I have read all his books and I did not find ones him saying that reincarnation is a fact. RICHARD: Maybe you overlooked them, then? RESPONDENT: You can find and copy a sentence from the bible for example and prove just what you want by one random sentence. RICHARD: Whereas I provided five quotes, from three different time periods, which are quite self-explanatory ... as is the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text you posted to this mailing list about six weeks ago. For instance:
And here is another instance of similar ilk (after the assassination of Ms. Indira Ghandi):
RESPONDENT: Can you scan and paste the whole dialogue of the above quotes of him? RICHARD: No, and for several reasons (a) I do not have a scanner and thus type all quotes by hand (I am a two-finger typist) ... and (b) as all my correspondence is published on The Actual Freedom Trust web site I have no intention of exceeding the ‘fair use’ copyright laws regarding length of quotes ... and (c) I do not have all the books the quotes originally came from but copy-pasted them from previous e-mails I wrote some years ago to a mailing list set-up under the auspices of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘Teachings’. I can, however, provide the remainder of the paragraph where he said ‘reincarnation is a fact and not a belief’ for him. Viz.:
I would be interested to hear just how I have altered what he is saying by not providing the full paragraph in the first place. And here is the continuation of the quote from the book ‘The Wholeness Of Life’ where he further explains about the nature of the stream which both exists before birth and after death:
You will see that he says you can feel the stream. And these are not isolated quotes ... here is another one:
In that quote he clearly talks of freedom from death ... and again from the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text (here he makes it clear that reincarnation is the stream):
How you managed to overlook that one – let alone other instances whilst reading ‘all his books’ – as it is in the last paragraph of the text you yourself posted to this mailing list about six weeks ago, has got me stumped. RESPONDENT: 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. RICHARD: The dialogue from the book ‘The Wholeness Of Life’, about image-making going on after the death of the organism, was held in the afternoon of May 20 1976 (dialogue VI was in the morning); the quote from ‘Talks in Saanen 1974’, about a person’s thought of themselves going on as it is now when they die, was the 6th Public Talk and held on the 25th July; the quote from his ‘Truth is a Pathless Land’ speech, about the only spirituality being the incorruptibility of the eternal self, was on August 2, 1929; the quote from his early writings (Volume V), about reincarnation being a fact for him, and not a belief, was expressed in 1931; and the quote about reincarnation being a fact for him because he knows it (‘Early Writings’ Volume IV) was in a talk at the Ommen Camp in 1930. For those who dismiss his earlier words I provide the following quote:
Hence his ‘step out of the stream’ phrase does not express a fundamental change in him ... it is but a change in expression (from ‘stop the wheel of birth and death’) of what is fundamental to his ‘Teachings’. And what is fundamental to the ‘Teachings’ is, put colloquially, scarpering off to the place where the sun don’t shine ... he made it very clear where his peace lay: the (supposed) answer to all the ills of humankind is not to be found in the world:
Eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth ... not about peace-on-earth. * RESPONDENT: You wrote: [Richard[: ‘There is no ‘observer’ to be the ‘observed’ here in this actual world. [endquote]. I am asking you, is there ‘observed’ to be observed in the actual world? RICHARD: There is neither the ‘observer’ nor the observer’s ‘observed’ here in this actual world ... when the entity within becomes extinct its reality, which it pastes as a veneer over the actual, similarly is no more. RESPONDENT: If you say yes, then I ask you by whom? If you say no then you must accept that exist only observation. RICHARD: All of your attempts to fit me into your (borrowed) understanding are a complete waste of time ... I have already said that an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the spiritual enlightenment Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke so eloquently about for 60+ years. The whole point of actualism is the direct experience of actuality: as this flesh and blood body only what one is (what not ‘who’) is these eyes seeing, these ears hearing, this tongue tasting, this skin touching and this nose smelling – and no separative identity (no ‘I’/‘me’) means no separation – whereas ‘I’/‘me’, a psychological/psychic entity, am inside the body busily creating an inner world and an outer world and looking out through ‘my’ eyes upon ‘my’ outer world as if looking out through a window, listening to ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ ears as if they were microphones, tasting ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ tongue, touching ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ skin and smelling ‘my’ outer world through ‘my’ nose and, thus feeling separate from ‘my’ own creation, seek union with ‘my’ outer world (little realising it is ‘my’ own creation of course). Yet even those who succeed in the narcissistic enterprise of unity say that (their own) creation is unknowable ... being but a delusion born out of an illusion is it any wonder why? The identity is forever cut-off from the actual ... forever locked-out of paradise (from the world as-it-is). RESPONDENT: In this case why you wrote me: [Richard[: ‘I notice that you have persisted in your ‘the perceiver and the perceived are one thing’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Put briefly: to say ‘the observer is the observed’ is another way of saying ‘I am That’ (or ‘There is only That’ if one is being coy). * RESPONDENT: And to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti ... 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. RESPONDENT: I think is enough I could copy and paste hundred more. RICHARD: It is indeed enough because, if you were to provide more of the same, you would get no other response from me than more of the above as eastern spirituality is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward ... and not about peace-on-earth. ‘Tis amazing what lengths peoples will go to rather than be happy and harmless.
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON MR. JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI (Part Five) 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 |
