Actual Freedom ~ Commonly Raised Objections

KONRAD: In a sense you can therefore say, that I am defending J. Krishnamurti, while Richard is attacking him.

RICHARD: Actually, I am not ‘attacking him’ per se ... I am whole-heartedly criticising the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his.

I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. For example, I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know.

I fully appreciate what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti experienced, talked about and wrote of. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before. It is silly to disregard the results of other person’s enterprising essays into the ‘mystery of life’ – unless it is obviously bombast and blather – for one would have to invent the wheel all over again. However, it is only too possible to accept as set in concrete the accumulated ‘wisdom of the ages’ and remain stultified ... enfeebled by the insufferable psittacisms passed on from one generation to the next. I would not be where I am today if it were not for all those brave people who went before me ... and I am so pleased that they left a record of their ventures. I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is a very responsible attack indeed.

And long overdue.

RESPONDENT: All you have done so far is to bitch about ‘Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’.

RICHARD: Not so ... when I first came onto this Mailing List I did not bitch about Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti at all. I wrote twenty eight posts describing my experiences before I mentioned his name or referred to him at all. Then I wrote this: Vis.:

• [Richard]: ‘Isn’t life great! Somebody [Konrad Swart] comes onto this list and tells their story. Simply and directly: ‘This is what happened to me ... and this is what I thought ... and this is what is going on now’. And what a fascinating inside view it is, into the workings-out of the existential dilemma that all humans find themselves in, into the bargain. It is far more interesting and alive and happening than the theoretical pursuit of whether thought imputes this or that or whatever. Or whether an ‘I’ that does not exist can know whether it does not exist ... or not ... or whether an ‘I’ who knows it exists can know that it does not exist ... or not ... or whatever. Konrad has an actual experience – that has lasted for seventeen years – and he will not even be given the benefit of the doubt? So what happens? The cynics come out of the woodwork and slam someone for being open enough to talk about what he himself took to be madness. Well, well, well! Wouldn’t Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti be real chuffed to know what is happening under the auspices of the teachings he brought into the world ... where is the spirit of exploring together, sharing together and finding out together what it is to be a human being in this world as-it-is? [Quote] ‘We are friends, sitting under a tree together, talking over this matter of ...’ [endquote]. He [Konrad] is not saying that he is enlightened ... he is saying that he is ‘living with enlightenment’ ... that a process began seventeen years ago that is still occurring ... that there still is an ‘I’ ... and he is willing to talk about it. What more could one ask for, eh? But, to save people’s bandwidth limits being breached, Konrad and I are corresponding privately. I am finding his experience fascinating, and his views on life, the universe and what it is to be a human being extremely intriguing’.

I wrote seventy nine posts before the following exchange took place. Vis.:

• [Respondent No. 12]: ‘I agree with your comments as to the desire to join with something greater as generally fear-based. At the same time, it seems that there may be an interest and passionate longing for wholeness that does not arise out of fear or ambition but comes from the depths – in Krishnamurti’s terms, from intelligence.
• [Richard]: ‘Yes, indeed there is an interest ... a vital interest, in fact, and all because of that passionate longing for wholeness which you locate – accurately – as coming from the depths. And because it is a passionate longing, then the ‘depths’ indicated must be the depths of feeling, and not of deep thought. You then propose that it is coming from intelligence – and not just from what passes for intelligence in ordinary everyday reality – but the intelligence as delineated and described by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. So, now comes the potentially touchy bit ... but as I have clearly stated my position before I will remain, as ever, candid. Whenever Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti is brought into a discussion, it must be born in mind as to where he was coming from. He was an enlightened man living in a state of wholeness ... a state of oneness and unity. Which means there was no longer a separation betwixt him and what he variously called ‘the other’, ‘the absolute’, ‘the supreme’, ‘that which is eternal, timeless and nameless’, ‘that which is sacred, holy’ and so on’.

Other posters quickly jumped in quoting words, phrases and whole paragraphs spoken or written by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti. What was I to do? Agree with them? Pretend that they did not quote them? Or use them to substantiate my point? Since you seem to know what I should have done ... then you tell me what the suitable course of action should be, eh?

RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard, I haven’t read many of your posts.

RICHARD: Well, this information does not surprise me ... you have raised the same objections that many, many posters over this past year have raised. There is not much new in this post that I have not already written to other objectors.

RESPONDENT: I read a few in the beginning and thought you were quite bright. But I had a feeling that perhaps you were coming on as more of a guru than discussing equally in a dialog.

RICHARD: Apart from the ‘coming on as a guru’ bit you felt it correctly ... I am not discussing equally at all.

RESPONDENT: When you began to define Krishnamurti’s ‘enlightenment’ in your own terms, I began to sense some superiority and competition, so I lost interest.

RICHARD: Not just ‘some superiority’ ... an actual freedom is vastly superior to spiritual enlightenment. It is physical, for starters, and not metaphysical. It is here on earth ... in this life-time as this flesh and blood body.

*

RESPONDENT: Otherwise, I am not inclined to play this ‘debunking game’ with you.

RICHARD: Actually, I am not ‘debunking’ him per se ... I am whole-heartedly criticising the altered state of consciousness known as spiritual enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his.

I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did. I wanted to know.

I fully appreciate what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti experienced, talked about and wrote of. It is an amazing thing that not only are we humans able to be here experiencing this business of being alive ... on top of that we can think about and reflect upon what is entailed. In addition to this ability, we can communicate our discoveries to one another – comparing notes as it were – and further our understanding with this communal input. One does not have to rely only upon one’s own findings; it is possible, as one man famous in history put it, to reach beyond the current knowledge by standing upon the shoulders of those that went before

I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is a very responsible ‘debunking’ indeed.

RESPONDENT: I will give you only one example here of your distorted interpretation: You wrote: ‘I was merely following the precedent that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti himself set. He consistently referred to all his words as ‘Teachings’.’ And then you go on: ‘As these words came from a source that he described as ‘that which is sacred, holy’, it is clear that he was bringing some unknown god’s wisdom to earth’. This is nonsense. There is no unknown god, and Krishnamurti never brings God in as the ground from which he is talking.

RICHARD: I beg to differ:

• [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘To find reality, to find God, or whatever name one may like to call it, the mind must be alone’.

RESPONDENT: There is nothing mystical here, nothing from some religious authority, nothing in a dimension that is other worldly.

RICHARD: Again I beg to differ:

• [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘What is a religious mind ... one needs a radical revolution ... revolution is synonymous with religion ... I mean a revolution in consciousness ... so that the mind is capable of seeing what is true ... this is the way of religion. I think the real, the true religious mind does exist, can exist ... one can discover such a mind for oneself ... a mind that has gone beyond to discover what is true, is the true religious mind. I want to find out, through denial, what is a religious mind ... I feel that through negation one can find out what is true. So, we are going to inquire into what the religious mind is through denial ... surely, to find reality, to find God ... the mind must be alone ... a fearless state in which there is no death ... for a mind that is alone there is no death. It is really extraordinary. If you have gone into that thing you discover for yourself that there is no such thing as death. Such a mind knows what destruction is ... destruction is creation ... so for the religious mind there is no time ... it is only the religious mind that can be in a state of creation ... in this creation is beauty ... a religious mind has this beauty which is not the appreciation of nature, the lovely mountains and the roaring stream ... a different beauty with which goes love ... you cannot separate beauty and love ... and with them is passion ... one cannot go far without passion ... beauty can only be there when there is passion. The religious mind, being in this state, has a peculiar quality of strength ... so, the religious mind does exist ... it is apart from all human endeavours ... therefore a religious mind can receive that which is not measurable by the brain ... that thing is unnameable ... to live in this state is the true religious mind’. (‘What is a Religious mind?’ From Bulletin 52. 1987).

RESPONDENT: Contrary to what you have said, Krishnamurti never says that he has a Soul, a Self.

RICHARD: Once again, I beg to differ:

• [Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti]: ‘I maintain that the only spirituality is the incorruptibility of the self which is eternal (...) this is the absolute, unconditioned Truth which is Life itself’.  (‘Truth is a Pathless Land; August 2, 1929’).

RESPONDENT: Use of sacred and holy do not make him so, though you use the dictionary to establish your point. Krishnamurti often departed from the dictionary meaning and substituted another meaning, he seems to have enjoyed playing with etymological roots. For example, ‘Alone’ he made to mean ‘all one’.

RICHARD: Yet once again, I beg to differ: he did not make ‘Alone’ mean ‘all one’ at all ... etymologically it does, in fact, already mean ‘all one’. I gather that you do not approve of dictionary definitions, but unless we have some standard to start from, before we ascribe our own meanings, we are lost as in regards intelligent communication. This is the dictionary’s version: alone (adjective): from al (all) + (one): ‘separated from others’. (Copyright © 1994 Merriam-Webster, Inc.).

RESPONDENT: This is why it is important to read a person with some sensitivity and care before criticising.

RICHARD: I have read Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti (and many, many other similar people’s writings) with extreme care and remarkable sensitivity ... because I wanted to know, for myself, where he (and they) were coming from. The source of their ‘Teachings’ is of the utmost importance to ascertain, for it has vast ramifications for the course of human history. Consequently, I have read hundreds and hundreds of books ... maybe into the thousands. For example, I have read about 30 of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s books (plus about 10 books by contemporaries); I have watched about 15 video tapes; I have listened to about 20 audio tapes ... and I have discussed these matters before with ‘Krishnamurtiites’ face-to-face. This is no rash – or rushed – thing that I did.

I wanted to know.

RESPONDENT: Let me say clearly, I find no fault with you or anyone criticising K. He did not write dogma. Point out the weaknesses by all means. But criticism must be responsible.

RICHARD: Actually, I am not criticising him per se ... I am criticising the altered state of consciousness known as enlightenment. Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti happens to be the person most people on this list are familiar with. If I was subscribed to the Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain list I would be using quotes of his.

I am saying that enlightenment is a mirage, a chimera, a delusion, a hallucination and so on. This is very responsible criticism indeed.