|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti
RESPONDENT: The state of permanency (wanting to have always peace, joy, bliss) is what all of us actually want, isn’t it? (snip) RESPONDENT No. 44: Bravo. Beautiful. RICHARD: So as to throw some more light upon the theme which runs through most of your correspondence
to this mailing list just what is it about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words that you find beautiful and thus worthy of
commendation? Is it, for example, because he had realised the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency RESPONDENT: Richard, only those who don’t know how to live are interested in life after death. (snip) RICHARD: So it would appear RESPONDENT: When you have order, you don’t belong to disorder. You stand alone, outside, not belonging to this world and all its messes [violence]. To die is to live and not to belong. This burns everything false. If you throw away the garb of conditioning you’re an outsider because there is a state of disorder to which human beings belong and the man who doesn’t belong is away from this world. There is no relationship. So though he may live in the world, he is not of the world. Alone but not lonely. People who don’t know how to be alone, are lonely. RICHARD: As you specifically mention throwing away ‘the garb of conditioning’ in order to be an outsider this is an apposite moment to present some of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s own words for your perusal as 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 conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning). For an example:
But he does not wonder why it is probable that [quote] ‘we have derived this feeling from that little animal’ [endquote] 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:
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:
The word ‘dissociation’ seems particularly apt. * RESPONDENT: So one has to be tremendously aware of every movement of thought; to discover for oneself whether there can be complete and total freedom from all selfishness. RICHARD: Now you come to the nub of the issue (all that you wrote above and before is peripheral): the main thrust of the actualism method, to couch it in your terms, is to be aware of every movement of the affective faculty and thus discover for oneself that, just like Richard reports, it is possible for there to be a complete and total freedom from the human condition (which includes ‘selfishness’ of course). Put simply: up until now the thinker has copped all the blame whilst the feeler has got off scot-free. RESPONDENT: As far as the immortality I will leave Krishnamurti himself to answer you and is up to you to find out what he means by immortality: • ‘(preamble snipped for reasons of space) ... For most people the idea of
immortality is the continuance of the ‘I’, without end, through time. But I say such a concept is false. ‘Then, ‘you
answer, ‘there must be total annihilation’. I say that is not true either. Your belief that total annihilation must follow the
cessation of the limited consciousness we call the ‘I’, is false. You cannot understand immortality that way, for your mind is
caught up in opposites. Immortality is free from all opposites; it is harmonious action in which the mind is utterly freed from
conflict of the ‘I’. RICHARD: What he has to say here is very clear – immortality is not in time; total annihilation is false; the ‘I’ is not immortal; immortality transcends all concepts, theories, and beliefs; there is nothing lasting in the ‘I’ as it is comprised of memories involving conflict; thought is not the way to realise immortality, to feel the ecstasy of the infinite – and it is of particular interest to note that immortality (‘the ecstasy of the infinite’) is something to be felt ... meaning, of course, that it is the feeler who feels itself to be immortal. The three other quotes you also provided did not mention immortality. * RESPONDENT: And for not think that he is meaning something like (soul) Atman. RICHARD: We have been down this track before (and only a couple of weeks ago at that) ... it is ‘being’ itself he is referring to. Viz.:
Even you said as much in that same e-mail:
To persist in quibbling over a name-description long after the issue has been settled adds nothing to a discussion ... and makes what follows (below) a needless repetition. RESPONDENT: So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought ... RICHARD: As there is no ‘the thinker’ extant in this flesh and blood body to be ‘separate from the thought’ (or inseparate from it for that matter) it kinda puts a hole in your ‘in all of us’ assertion. RESPONDENT: [So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought], the thinker has become the higher Self, the nobler self, the Atman, or what you will ... RICHARD: As it is the feeler who is the ‘being’ that feels it is immortal it matters not what name-description feeling-fed thought gives to it. RESPONDENT: [So in all of us, there is the thinker separate from the thought, the thinker has become the higher Self, the nobler self, the Atman, or what you will]; but it is still the mind divided as the thinker and the thought. RICHARD: No, what is going on is that thought cops all the blame while feeling gets off scot-free ... or, to put that another way, the feeler persuades the thinker, via intuition, to declare mea culpa and thus lives to survive yet another day. RESPONDENT: The mind seeing thought in flux, impermanent, creates the thinker as the permanent, as the Atman which is permanent, absolute and endless. RICHARD: Meanwhile, back at the affections, the real ‘being’ keeps on feeling it is immortal (aka ‘permanent’) while all this incessant intellectual wrangling is going on. RESPONDENT: The moment the mind has created the higher self, the Atman, that higher self is still of time, it is still within the field of memory; it is an invention of the mind, it is an illusion created by the mind for a purpose. RICHARD: The real ‘being’, being a feeling being, is not created by the mind ... only the name-description (or word-picture) is. RESPONDENT: That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not ... RICHARD: And the autological ‘being’ is an ontological presence whether you like it or not. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not]; you may resist it ... RICHARD: If I may point out? I have nothing to resist ... if anything I am inviting you to cease resisting and dig deeper than all this superficial intellectualising which passes for wisdom. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not; you may resist it], you may say that it is all modern nonsense ... RICHARD: No, I am not saying it is anything of the sort ... I am saying this is all superficial stuff, surface stuff, the stuff of human conditioning and not the stuff of the human condition. RESPONDENT: [That is a psychological fact, whether you like it or not; you may resist it, you may say that it is all modern nonsense], that what is said in the Upanishads, in the Gita, is contrary to what I am saying. RICHARD: No, I am most definitely referring to what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was saying ... and I am saying that it does not go very deep: thought is but the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, and the bulk of the identity, being deep underwater, escapes scrutiny because of a preoccupation with the tip. RESPONDENT: But if you really examine closely ... RICHARD: I did ‘examine closely’ ... night and day for eleven years I was able to intimately examine all aspects of spiritual enlightenment. RESPONDENT: [But if you really examine closely] and are not afraid ... RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to remind you of what you wrote a couple of months ago:
What inspired you to say that ‘actualism says that we do not need fear in today’s society’ if not me reporting there is no fear whatsoever in this flesh and blood body? RESPONDENT: [But if you really examine closely and are not afraid] and do not resist you will see that there is only thinking which creates the thinker, not the thinker first and thinking afterwards. RICHARD: And when I did ‘examine closely’ – night and day for eleven years – I saw that it was the feelings which created the feeler ... and not the feeler first and feeling afterwards. This is such fun, eh? RESPONDENT: [I think you had the bad luck, while you were looking for enlightenment], to meet blind teachers and vagabonds, like Peter and Vineeto, like Osho with his Rolls Royce’s and his orgies. RICHARD: No, I never met any teachers (aka seers, sages, masters, gurus, and so on) at all before I became enlightened – I was entirely ignorant of the whole milieu of spirituality/ mysticism and its attendant master/disciple phenomenon – and only came across the writings of Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain 5 years later when I met the woman who was to become my second wife and who was what was called a ‘Rajneeshee’ at the time. As she rapidly became an ex-Rajneeshee, when we started to live together, I learnt a lot from her about what he had to say ... plus I also read many of his books (about 90 all told), watched several videos, and listened to numerous tape recordings, so as to get it straight from the horse’s mouth. Why do you say he was a ‘blind’ teacher? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti is a special case. RICHARD: Do you realise you are saying, in effect, that you had the good luck to meet a special teacher? RESPONDENT: Once he called Osho murderer, because Osho was blackmailing a woman to destroy her if she had to live him. RICHARD: I have been told that the ... um ... special teacher criticised the blind teacher but have never seen any of it in print ... perhaps you could supply the relevant quote? RESPONDENT: Krishnamurti never spoke for enlightenment, unless he was speaking with cultures that were understanding only this word, instead of truth etc. RICHARD: Which probably means that being ‘truth etc.’ refers to the same thing as being enlightened RESPONDENT: You tried to underestimate him, by using certain sort sentences of him. RICHARD: If you can provide an example where I have done so I will be only too happy to attend to it. RESPONDENT: [quote] J. K.: ‘The so-called enlightened people are not enlightened, for the moment they say, ‘I am enlightened’, they are not. That is their vanity’. [endquote]. RICHARD: Ha ... if it be vanity to say ‘I am enlightened’ then what is it to say ‘I am God’ ... humility, perchance? Viz.:
RESPONDENT: [quote] J. K.: ‘Thought has been responsible for creating god. Thought has been responsible for the searching for illumination, enlightenment. Thought has been responsible for wars, for all the appalling cruelty that is going on in the world’. (Krishnamurti Bombay 2nd Public Talk 25th January 1981). RICHARD: And again ... if thought has been responsible for creating god then ‘truth’ must be a creation of thought as well:
RESPONDENT: So you see you was in a trance state. RICHARD: Not for the reasons you supply here ... but yes, being enlightened, or being god/truth, can indeed be characterised as a trance state (though I do prefer to say it was a dissociated state or a massive delusion). It was quite staggering to realise what I had been living was an institutionalised insanity. RESPONDENT: First of all please try to avoid affected styles or mannerisms of speech; try very plain, neutral English; convey your thought as clearly as possible, use synonymous, even if you feel you are repeating yourself. RICHARD: Hmm ... if I were so foolish as to arrange live dialogues would I have to brush my hair another way, wear a collar and tie, sit up straight and look right into the camera, enunciate each syllable without slurring and not pick my nose/scratch my ear/whatever? RESPONDENT: Secondly, try to make your point without mentioning that everybody is wrong, particularly JK. RICHARD: As my point is that everybody – including Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti – has got it 180 degrees wrong how do you suggest I go about it without mentioning that? RESPONDENT: If you bring him to our discussion because my words are the same, let me explain something to you: If I learn history and thereafter I want to describe what I’ve learnt, I’ll have to use the same words, names, events, dates, etc. I want to sound as much closer to the history book or to my teacher as I can, I want to be accurate when I disclose what I’ve learnt. This doesn’t make me a follower of my teacher, or responsible for everything he said in his lifetime. When I learn geography, I learn about Earth and the planets, oceans, rivers, mountains and valleys, countries, orientation and so forth. I have acquired new words and I can use all this knowledge and repeat it. Now, this doesn’t make me my teacher’s parrot, or his follower does it? RICHARD: You do seem to be under some considerable misapprehension: I have no objection whatsoever to someone – anyone – using another’s words and phrases as it happens all the time in any area of specialisation ... including actualism, of course. The reason why I said there was no point in responding to the portions of your e-mails which were imbued with the words of a man who would rather sit under a tree in order to be transported into a timeless, deathless immortality than be living happily and harmlessly in space and time as a flesh and blood body only is not only obvious by the way I put it but very, very simple into the bargain ... to wit: they are words designed to assist the attainment of a spiritual freedom and not an actual freedom. Or, to put that another way, as I have no interest in being enlightened again (which I cannot anyway) there is no point in having a proxy discussion with such a person. RESPONDENT: Or having to justify everything he did or said? RICHARD: As you chose to respond to the words Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti said, about the answer being not in the world but away from it, by speaking of throwing away the garb of conditioning in order to be an outsider it was an apposite moment to present some of his own words for your perusal as nowhere did 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 conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning). Do you see that nowhere in that did I ask you to justify anything he did or said (let alone everything he did or said)? RESPONDENT: By the same token when I learn about mental processes; memory, thought, feelings, fear, desire, awareness, attention, etc. etc. I can use these words in the same way; they became mine the moment I understood them. Therefore I can use them in this forum. RICHARD: Of course you can ... you can use whatever words you like, and write about whatever topic you like for that matter, and so long as you understand there will continue to remain no point in me responding to anything relating to what is involved in becoming enlightened there will be no reason for assuming any other reason why those portions of your e-mails are unanswered. Put simply: I am letting you know where my interest lies ... in actuality not spirituality. RESPONDENT: I don’t want to dispute with you what other people have said although I must tell you that all the quotes of Krishnamurti you brought to our discussion are completely misleading. RICHARD: There were only three quotes: first, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And second, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way is it completely misleading to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not 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 conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)? RESPONDENT: You have no understanding of the man ... RICHARD: In what way does it show no understanding of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti to provide a quote which demonstrates that the state of permanency he had realised was the hoary spiritualist goal of an after-death permanency? And in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he (a) did not know how to live ... and (b) was interested in life after death? And lastly, in what way does it show no understanding of him to provide a quote which demonstrates that he did not 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 conditioning (be it societal, familial, or peer-group conditioning)? RESPONDENT: ... all you can do is belittle him, for your point to rise up to the surface. RICHARD: If I may point out? I do not need to belittle him in order to make my point ... his own words do that. RESPONDENT: All I am saying, all the words I use are of my own entire responsibility, not K’s. RICHARD: Of course ... you are the one who is using them. RESPONDENT: Even if you find them exactly in K’s publishings. RICHARD: To provide a quote – preferably referenced – to demonstrate a point is one thing ... but to intentionally bury a quote in one’s own writing without acknowledging it is plagiarism. RESPONDENT: It’s between you and me. RICHARD: A proxy conversation is not between me and you at all. RESPONDENT: Is that clear? RICHARD: Obviously not. RESPONDENT: Good. RICHARD: What is good? RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 18): Good boy of the list, when I provide so many proofs about JK, being against reincarnation, did you asked Richard to fix his site, because is lie what he writes about JK and reincarnation? RICHARD: If I may draw your attention to the following exchange? Viz.:
You may have missed my response the first time around (on July 19 2003), you may have missed my response the second time around (on October 01 2003), but there is no way you can miss this third response of mine. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did *not* speak out against reincarnation ... he spoke against the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, reincarnation (just as he spoke against the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, the god or truth he found, recognised, and realised and the concept of, the belief in, and the ideal of, the after-death immortality such finding, recognising, and realising bestowed upon him). You are but tilting at a windmill. * RESPONDENT: You have not understood nothing of JK teachings. RICHARD: Perhaps if I were to arrange the topic sequentially? Viz.:
If you can satisfactorily respond to all four points (No’s. 1, 2, 3, and 4) with clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answers (with referenced quotes and/or URL’s if necessary) I will publicly acknowledge that you are correct in saying that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ and that, furthermore, I have been grossly in error. If you cannot (or will not) then the website stays exactly as it is. * RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 27): May be the parts Richard is reporting are before 1927. RICHARD: Why do you say ‘may be’ when I provided the dates for you at your express request only a few months ago? Viz.:
RESPONDENT (to Respondent No. 27): I asked him to give the whole speech, but he never did. RICHARD: I provided those dates because you said [quote] ‘I have his books and not the volumes can you please give me the date of the speech, because I should like to read it all of it’ [endquote] further above ... that you now say ‘may be’ the quotes are before 1927 indicates that, not only did you not take any notice of the dates I provided for you at your request, but that you never did read the volumes for yourself either, and are now using my not giving you the ‘whole speech’ as some kind of way out of addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said. ‘Tis no wonder he went on and on so much about how to listen, eh? * RICHARD: I provided those dates because you said [quote] ‘I have his books and not the volumes can you please give me the date of the speech, because I should like to read it all of it’ [endquote] further above ... that you now say ‘may be’ the quotes are before 1927 indicates that, not only did you not take any notice of the dates I provided for you at your request, but that you never did read the volumes for yourself either, and are now using my not giving you the ‘whole speech’ as some kind of way out of addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said. ‘Tis no wonder he went on and on so much about how to listen, eh? RESPONDENT: Richard, we all know the life story of JK. He past through many stages. I have all his speeches from 1933 till the last talk. His early writings are of no value. RICHARD: This is what I wrote immediately below the response I provided for you a few months ago when you expressly asked me for the dates so that you could read the whole speech for yourself:
As you ignored it back then you will probably ignore it now ... howsoever, do you notice that you shifted your cut-off date, as to what you consider is of value or not, from 1927 to 1933 when it turned out that your previous excuse for not addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said fell flat on its face? If so, you may – just may – be inclined to examine exactly what is going on in your mind ... to watch to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in order to avoid what is being presented. Because there are still the quotes from after 1933 to address yourself to yet. * RESPONDENT: Richard, we all know the life story of JK. He past through many stages. I have all his speeches from 1933 till the last talk. His early writings are of no value. RICHARD: This is what I wrote immediately below the response I provided for you a few months ago when you expressly asked me for the dates so that you could read the whole speech for yourself: [Richard]: ‘For those who dismiss his earlier words I provide the following quote: [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘You asked a question: Has there been a fundamental change in K from the 1930’s, 1940’s? I say, no. There has been considerable change in expression’. [endquote]. As you ignored it back then you will probably ignore it now ... howsoever, do you notice that you shifted your cut-off date, as to what you consider is of value or not, from 1927 to 1933 when it turned out that your previous excuse for not addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said fell flat on its face? If so, you may – just may – be inclined to examine exactly what is going on in your mind ... to watch to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in order to avoid what is being presented. Because there are still the quotes from after 1933 to address yourself to yet. RESPONDENT: I found another clearer declaration of JK: (snip quote speaking against the*idea* of rebirth). What else must JK tell to convince you that he does not support reincarnation? RICHARD: Did you watch your mind as suggested (to see if it twists and turns and ducks and weaves in
order to avoid addressing yourself to the reality of what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti actually said)? * RICHARD: .... if you can satisfactorily respond to all four points (No’s. 1, 2, 3, and 4) with clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answers (with referenced quotes and/or URL’s if necessary) I will publicly acknowledge that you are correct in saying that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ and that, furthermore, I have been grossly in error. If you cannot (or will not) then the website stays exactly as it is. RESPONDENT: Richard, I did not wait from you that are so exact with definitions through dictionaries to write me: [Richard]: ‘I have read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection as well ... and ‘belief’ is the operative word for, despite your ‘to finish once for ever with reincarnation and Krishnamurti’ claim he never denied after-death states – both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it) – because, just as he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, a god or a truth and denounced all such idealising as being a hindrance to realisation (including the god he had discovered, recognised, and realised), he questioned any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, an after-life and dismissed all such idealising as being irrelevant to true religiousness (including the after-life he was convinced he held a one-way ticket to). In other words: his ‘Teaching’ was that if it were not a living reality for the person concerned all things esoteric had no existence for them’. [endquote]. We are speaking for reincarnation not of after death states. You are off. RICHARD: Here is a quote from the text *you* provided to this mailing list on May 27 2003 (in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: One question from Greece2’):
If that is not an after-death state I would like to know what is ... and here is another instance of similar ilk (after the assassination of Ms. Indira Ghandi):
As for me saying ‘both in the stream and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it)’ in the passage of mine, which you referred to as ‘so exact with definitions through dictionaries’ you re-quoted further above, I was of course, in the context of the e-mail exchange we had a few months ago which it came from, referring to the following (also from that exchange):
The phrase he used often in his later years (‘stepping out of the stream’) is but another way of conveying what Indian spirituality has been on about for millennia (stepping off, or stopping, the ‘wheel of birth and death’ he refers to above):
As for the method of stepping off, or stopping, the wheel of otherwise endless rounds of existence, proposed in the Svetasvatara Upanishad (a Vedic Scripture) as ‘when through the grace of Brahma it realizes its identity with him’ and achieves immortality, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly stated he had discovered, recognised, and realised god or truth. Viz.:
This is what discovering, recognising, and realising god (or truth) means in unambiguous language:
And this is what it means to be god (or truth):
And, again from the ‘Conversation Following The Death Of John Field’ text which *you* provided to this mailing list, he makes it clear that reincarnation is the stream:
How you can say that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’ has got me beat. * RESPONDENT: Has the Christian belief anything to do with reincarnation? You was off. RICHARD: Ha ... as it was a quote you posted to me on Saturday 12 July 2003, wherein Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti questions not only the belief in reincarnation but the belief in resurrection, which I was referring to (in the passage of mine you re-quoted further above), then if anybody is off it is you. Viz.:
May I ask whether you actually read the quotes you send to me? RESPONDENT: Be exact. RICHARD: If I may point out? I am being exact: I read through all of the five quotes you provided (all of the 8,219 words) and nowhere did I see Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speak out against reincarnation itself ... all he spoke against was any belief in, or theorising/speculating about, the concept or ideal of reincarnation. RESPONDENT: When we speak about tomatoes we can’t answer about potatoes. RICHARD: Indeed not and, in keeping with your analogy, I am speaking about tomatoes (the reality, for Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, of reincarnation, a god/truth, an after-death immortality, and a peace which is not on earth) and you are speaking about potatoes (the belief, concept, or ideal of reincarnation, a god/truth, an after-death immortality, and a peace which is not on earth, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke against) ... which potato-speaking is what you go on to do more of in the quotes of his you provide this time around (some of which you have sent previously anyway). So as to initiate some focus here again is what I am asking:
When, or rather if, you can satisfactorily respond to that point, with a clear, unambiguous, unequivocal, and straightforward answer, then you might be able to see your way clear to direct your attention to the other three points I raised in response to your allegation that I have ‘understood nothing of JK teachings’. Viz.:
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s teachings are essentially no different from eastern spirituality in general – which is fundamentally all about avoiding rebirth and attaining a (specious) post-mortem reward – and are not about peace on earth as a flesh and blood body. Viz.:
Put succinctly: peace-on-earth is nowhere to be found in spiritualism – nor in materialism for that matter – which is one of the reasons why I say actualism is the third alternative to both. The main reason why is, of course, in regards to the meaning of life. * RESPONDENT: We are speaking for reincarnation not of after death states. You are off. RICHARD: Here is a quote from the text *you* provided to this mailing list on May 27 2003 (in an e-mail entitled ‘Re: One question from Greece2’): [Mr. Sidney Field]: ‘Has John survived his bodily death in a subtler form? Yes or no? My gut feeling is that he is here beside me, right now’. [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘Of course he is, right here beside you. He’s very close to you, and will continue being close for some time’. [endquote]. If that is not an after-death state I would like to know what is ... RESPONDENT: You are altering everything, so I am sending the whole conversation so everyone can understand the way you act. RICHARD: Good – I am very pleased to have everybody understand the way I act – but you will need to explain in what way am I ‘altering everything’ because the text in question makes it quite clear that Mr. Sidney Field’s recently dead brother Mr. John Field is most certainly, according to Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, continuing on in an after-death state (specifically ‘the stream’ which exists prior to, during, and after life) because he *is* the stream, after death, just as he *was* the stream whilst alive, because he did not step *out* of the stream – realise god/become enlightened – whilst he was alive. Which is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti means when he says ‘you are the world’ (that is, you are the stream) and that the answer is not to be found ‘in the world’ (that is, in the stream) but ‘away from the world’ (that is out of the stream) ... and what is the only thing which is away from the world (that is, not of the stream)? None other than a non-material sacredness – that which is holy – he variously called god or truth or that and so on ... which point he emphasises in the text in question by referring to the Tibetan ‘Book Of The Dead’ where, if at physical death one lets go of ‘all of your antagonisms, all your worldliness, all your ambition’ one is going to ‘meet a light in which you will be absorbed’ (if one does let go) and if not, ‘you will come back, which is, come back to the stream, you will be the stream again’ (aka reincarnate). Here is the text where he clearly says that Mr. Sidney Field’s recently dead brother Mr. John Field is in the stream:
As Mr. Sidney Field’s brother Mr. John Field is dead (he died two weeks prior to the conversation) he can only be referring to an after-death state ... hence, despite your avowal at the top of this page, I am not off where I said that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ‘never denied after death states – both *in the stream* and out of it (aka being on the wheel or off it)’. [emphasis added]. RESPONDENT: The same is applied also for JK I am god. RICHARD: In what way am I ‘altering everything’ when I provide a quote where Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti unambiguously says ‘I am God’ when that very action – realising god – is how one steps out of the stream (that is, out of the world)? Incidentally, the first word in the ‘I am God’ phrase does not refer to the ego ‘I’ (any more than the equivalent in the Sanskrit phrase – ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ or ‘That Thou Art’ – does either) because the ego ‘I’ is the stream. RESPONDENT: I told you yesterday that these early speakings before 1933 are not valid ... RICHARD: Aye, and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti told you yesterday (in the quote I provided) that there had been no fundamental change in him from the 1930’s, 1940’s but that there had been [quote] ‘considerable change in expression’ [endquote] ... meaning all that had changed was the wording he used. For example, his expression ‘step out of the stream’ refers to the same thing as stepping off, or stopping, the ‘wheel of birth and death’ (aka reincarnation) ... which he makes clear at the end of the text in question where he says [quote] ‘reincarnation, that is, incarnating over and over again, is the stream’ [endquote]. RESPONDENT: [I told you yesterday that these early speaking before 1933 are not valid] he was enlightened like you. RICHARD: Are you saying that before 1933 he was enlightened and that after 1933 he was not? RESPONDENT: Is like me saying for Richard, Richard exist only the absolute. You got it? RICHARD: Ha ... you are way out on your own if you are trying to make the case that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was actually free of the human condition (aka beyond enlightenment). So far out as to be risible. RESPONDENT: Richard said that K’s statement that the observer is the observed unambiguously indicates being the very thing referred to. And I pointed out that K himself said that this does not mean that you are the tree, as that would be ridiculous. Richard frequently gives an overly literal meaning to what he reads from others. RICHARD: Ha ... this is actually quite humorous – given that it is written on a mailing list wherein there quite often is excoriation for interpreting what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s words say – in that by me not deviating one hair’s breadth away from what the words ‘the outside is the inside’ and ‘the observer is the observed’ say, in the context they sit in, you are now reduced to making the point that I am being ‘overly literal’ (whatever that means) ... and that I am ‘frequently’ doing so into the bargain. Wonders will never cease, eh? But to get to the point: as we have had a discussion before, you and I, not only on this very topic but revolving around the self-same paragraph as I have posted again this time around, wherein you explained that the phrases mean existing as a relationship (and not being that), perhaps it would be apposite to go into the topic further. For starters, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti indeed does not say that there is identification with a particular tree, hill, rock, bird, and so on ... here is but one example:
Yet, here is another example, where he unambiguously says that the outside is the inside (and the inside is the outside):
The reason why I have emphasised him saying *and there is only life* (when there is no watcher) is because of statements like this:
It becomes even more clear, for an example, when the latter part of the descriptive paragraph already quoted (further above) is examined closely:
Do you see that he says the mind was totally with that bird, not observing the bird, and that the mind went through and beyond it; that the mind of the crow was part of the mind that spanned the seas and time; that this mind was vast, limitless, beyond all measure; that this mind was wholly empty, and being empty this mind could attend without a cause; that this mind’s attention had neither root or branch; that all energy was in the empty stillness of this mind; that the energy of this mind was the energy of all beginning; that *this mind was life* ... it was life that had no time as ending? And just to bring it home to you I will remind you of what you posted yourself just recently:
Perhaps if I were to say, by way of an explanation, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does not mean that he has identified as the trees, hills, rocks, birds and so on ‘in a narrow exclusive sense’ (which would be akin to painting red ink on a red rose anyway as someone once said) but in the sense that the mind which he is (when the watcher is not) is the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ ... and here are the words ‘all things’ once again:
Now do you comprehend what the phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is conveying? If you maintain that the words ‘the outside is the inside’ do not indicate being that which is referred to, but indicates instead existing in relationship with that which is being referred to, then you are saying, in effect, that the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ exists in relationship with all things ... rather than being all things. As I commented in our previous discussion, as a generalisation, in western mysticism oneness or union with the ‘true nature or the ground in being of all things’ most often means a relationship with that (by whatever name) whereas, also as a generalisation, in eastern mysticism oneness or union with that most often means there is nothing other than that ... and if your experience is being in relationship with that then, as I also remarked in the previous discussion, there is probably not much point in pursuing the matter any further as it really does not matter which delusion is the correct delusion. My experience, night and day for eleven years, was being that RESPONDENT: The expression that the observer is the observed is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations. RICHARD: Not in the way it is presented in this instance ... perhaps if I were to sequentially arrange
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s meditation method, in accordance to the step-by-step manner with which he so eloquently described his
technique in the three paragraphs
Do you see how you have had to isolate step No. 10 from the nine preceding steps in order to be able to say that the expression ‘the observer is the observed’ is so vague that it is capable of all kinds of interpretations? RESPONDENT: The way I interpret it, when the observing aspect of the psyche is not treated as different from the observed contents (fear, anger, etc) all conflict ends. The observer IS the content, IS programming. RICHARD: Okay ... in the context under discussion the ‘observed contents’ of the psyche are the outside (pointed out by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti in the instance provided as being ‘the trees’, ‘the yellowing trees’, ‘the tamarind’, ‘the bougainvillea’, ‘the hills’, ‘the shape of the hills’, ‘the quality of their colour’, ‘all the colours’, ‘the shape of the land’, ‘the rocks’ and ‘the shadow’) and when the ‘observing aspect of the psyche’ is not treated as different from these observed contents then ‘all conflict ends’ (aka the outside is the inside) ... ‘the observer IS the content’ (aka the observer is the observed). This is nothing more than a different way of putting what I have been maintaining all along: ‘the inner’ creates its own reality, which it pastes as a veneer over the actual world, and then calls that reality ‘the outer’ ... then the ‘inner’, feeling isolated from ‘the outer’, seeks unity with its own creation (little realising it is its own creation of course) and the rare few who achieve this sleight of hand experience a state of unitive awareness (otherwise known as union or oneness or wholeness). Yet all the while this actual world goes unnoticed ... there is no inner or outer in actuality. RESPONDENT: Because the observer mind state is programming it moves according to a pattern determined by past experience. It is not free of that. RICHARD: There is more to it than this ... just for starters there are the affective feelings to take into account: sensory perception is primary; affective perception is secondary; thought perception is tertiary. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, in step No. 6 above only said [quote] ‘do not think’ [endquote] and never said ‘do not feel’ ... on the contrary, many times in other passages he expressly urges how important it is to feel beauty (and thus love) in the perceptive process. For example:
Because of this imposition (the passions are the secondary stage of the perceptive process) the pristine purity of the actual world is nowhere to be found ... and, as ‘being’ itself has its presence in the passions, its arrogation of ownership ensures it never will be. For as long as it remains a ‘presence’ that is. RESPONDENT: We can all see in ourselves that identification is a kind of blindness. RICHARD: If only the enlightened beings could see that, eh? RESPONDENT: After all you are not saying much different things than Jiddu Krishnamurti. RICHARD: Ha ... an actual freedom from the human condition is 180 degrees in the opposite direction to the spiritual enlightenment he spoke so eloquently of for 60+ years. RESPONDENT: Only that you are speaking about oblivion ... RICHARD: Specifically the end of ‘being’ itself ... whereas Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti spoke highly of ‘being’ instead of ‘becoming’. RESPONDENT: ... and he says that at the time of birth, the stream of thought which is what you call malice ... RICHARD: I do not call malice ‘the stream of thought’ at all ... I consistently point to its actual origin (the instinctual passions) as it is feelings, and the ‘being’ or ‘presence’ which they automatically form themselves into, and not thoughts which are the root cause of the human condition. RESPONDENT: ... is entering the body and forming the ego. RICHARD: And where does this ‘stream of thought’ come from – and why – and how does it enter the body – and when – and in what way does it form the ego? Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti vaguely said ‘it is there ... it manifests itself in people’ when similarly asked (see below). RESPONDENT: He also never spoke about soul. RICHARD: Au contraire ... he spoke about an eternal, incorruptible self. Viz.:
RESPONDENT: He was always saying that higher selves, souls, atman, etc are concepts and nonsense. RICHARD: If the words ‘the self which is eternal’ (an incorruptible spiritual self) are not pointing to the same thing which the words ‘higher self’, ‘atman’, ‘soul’, and so on, refer to then what do they point to? RESPONDENT: I don’t defending him but I like to say the things as they are. RICHARD: Okay ... you will appreciate this quote then:
And this one:
Plus this (for those who dismiss his earlier words):
Or even this one:
Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was nothing more and nothing less than the latest in a long line of saints, sages, and seers, which Indian spirituality has managed to produce over thousands of years ... do you still want to claim that I am ‘not saying much different things than Jiddu Krishnamurti’ after all? RESPONDENT: He also never worked. I should like to see him working in the centre of London. He also made two abortions with his best friend’s wife. As said her daughter (Rosalind Rajagopal). RICHARD: What was most telling in the book ‘Lives In The Shadow With J. Krishnamurti’ was that he,
whilst ostensibly being a committed pacifist
On the one hand there is the ideal (sitting together as two friends under a tree discussing matters) and on the other hand there is the reality (taking out several lawsuits to obtain legal possession of a former associate’s documents) ... and the documents in question are those which Ms. Rosalind Rajagopal states verify all she wrote in her book (only they will not be made public until after the persons concerned have died). In other words, 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). 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: I should like to add to my previous email, when I wrote No reincarnation and all these nonsense please add no higher selves I am, who am I? I am god etc. RICHARD: This is at odds with what you wrote in another e-mail:
RESPONDENT: All these are one packer with the only value for Osho to buy Mercedes and all the similar with him frauds gurus. Try to grasp about the existence I wrote without the above packet. RICHARD: Hmm ... Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain often used the word ‘existence’ as a
substitute word for the word ‘god’ (the Jain religion which he was born into is as much a godless religion as the Buddhist
religion is) – when he was not using the word ‘godliness’ that is – and Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti found value in ‘reincarnation
and all these nonsense’ (as per the quotes further above for example) all the while vigorously denying he was a guru and you
post a spurious proof of god to the mailing list, entitled ‘The end of actual freedom?’, and then breathlessly tell me to
grasp what you are saying about this (supposed) higher intelligence you call existence ‘without the above packet’ ...
as if there were no trace of irony O what a tangled web they weave when first they practice to deceive.
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 |
