|
Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’ with Respondent No. 4
RESPONDENT No. 33: Do you think Krishnamurti was a charlatan – for example I consider Sai Baba to be a charlatan: he sells enlightenment / peace etc. to the gullible. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). Vis.:
Most of the ‘Teachings’, however, is discussion about clearing away all that prevents being out of the stream (aka ‘on the other shore’) where there is the timeless energy which is love, which is compassion, which is intelligence, which is the origin of all matter, of all nature, of all mankind: that which is sacred, holy ... as I have said before: despite the rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda. RESPONDENT: Here you are interpreting only. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: My interpretation is that the ‘teachings’ are not about clearing away ‘all that prevents being out of the stream’, but about clearing away all that IS the stream. RICHARD: The ‘Teachings’ say, over and again, ‘step out of the stream’ (and do not say clear away ‘all that IS the stream’ ). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly says (further above) that the stream goes on in people. Vis:
Enlightenment is about securing an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ ... and not about peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. The committed mystic has a one-way ticket booked to the promised land ... physical death is a blessed release into ‘That’ (by Whatever Name). RESPONDENT: And the clearing away of the human stream of suffering and violence cannot occur within psychological time, as psychological time is the foundation of the stream. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. However, as the ‘foundation’ of ‘suffering and violence’ is the biological instinctual passions I will keep my own counsel on the matter. RESPONDENT: Love and compassion, as well as sacredness, are his words for the state of the mind or body which has stepped out of the trap of biologically based thinking. RICHARD: I see that you say ‘stepped out of’ the trap of biologically based thinking (and not ‘clearing away all that IS’ the trap of biologically based thinking) here. RESPONDENT: And that occurs nowhere but here and now in this world. Of course, this is my interpretation as what you say is yours. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: I wanted to point out that interpretation is not fact. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: There may not then, be any ‘enlightenment agenda’ at all, as the end of psychological thinking is not enlightenment. RICHARD: Irregardless of what you say, when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speaks of ‘stepping out of the stream’ he is indeed talking of enlightenment ... and peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda at all. RESPONDENT: It is simple, root, basic, ‘me-less’ perception, or awareness, which, again, can only occur in this world, not some place else. RICHARD: As this is, as you say, your interpretation I will leave you to mull over it. * RICHARD: For example, the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: The ‘world’ K was speaking about could also have been referring to the psychological ‘world’, that is, the cultural world of tradition, politics, religion, etc. RICHARD: No, he was speaking of both the physical world and all the violence in the physical world. RESPONDENT: You cannot derive from his statement that he was considering leaving humanity and going, say, to Mars, or that he was considering escaping to some ‘spiritual’ world. RICHARD: He was not ‘considering’ doing anything ... he was saying he had already done it (‘found the answer’ is past tense). RESPONDENT: The interpretation, mine and yours, are therefore wholly hypothetical. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all.
RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti genuinely was an enlightened man (‘Self-Realised’ by whatever name). That he was subject to feeling irritated or sorrowful, for example, from time-to-time does not make him a fraud ... it comes with the territory (the enlightened state of being). RESPONDENT No. 33: I don’t understand this. Krishnamurti repeatedly said that if someone found the root cause of sorrow, sorrow ends, completely, once and for all. He also said that irritation (anger) is violence and if you see the danger of it, it ends, completely, and for all time. Do you think he was talking about a theoretical ending of sorrow and violence? RICHARD: It is useful to bear in mind that primarily what he was talking about was stepping out of the stream so that it does not go on after physical death (just as all the saints, sages and seers have said in their own way throughout recorded history). <SNIP> Most of the ‘Teachings’, however, is discussion about clearing away all that prevents being out of the stream (aka ‘on the other shore’) where there is the timeless energy which is love, which is compassion, which is intelligence, which is the origin of all matter, of all nature, of all mankind: that which is sacred, holy ... as I have said before: despite the rhetoric, peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda. RESPONDENT: Here you are interpreting only. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: [Richard]: ‘Most of the ‘Teachings’, however, is discussion about ...’. ‘About’ is what interpretation IS. RICHARD: The reason why I wrote that most of the ‘Teachings’ is discussion about clearing away all that prevents being out of the stream is because talking about clearing away all that prevents is what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says he is doing in discussions. For just one example (with emphasis added):
I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: My interpretation is that the ‘teachings’ are not about clearing away ‘all that prevents being out of the stream’, but about clearing away all that IS the stream. RICHARD: The ‘Teachings’ say, over and again, ‘step out of the stream’ (and do not say clear away ‘all that IS the stream’ ). Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti clearly says (further above) that the stream goes on in people. Vis: [K]: ‘It is there. It manifests itself in people’. Enlightenment is about securing an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ ... and not peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this flesh and blood body. The committed mystic has a one-way ticket booked to the promised land ... physical death is a blessed release into ‘That’ (by Whatever Name). RESPONDENT: [K]: ‘It is there. It manifests itself in people’. This has nothing to do with ‘after death’. RICHARD: It has to do with both after death and before birth. RESPONDENT: It has to do with stepping out of the stream of human suffering now, a feat which you yourself claim to have achieved. RICHARD: Aye ... I know both the mystical version and the actual version. RESPONDENT: What you call ‘self-immolation’, he calls ‘stepping out of the stream’. RICHARD: No ... what I call ‘self’-immolation (the extinction of both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is not what Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti calls ‘stepping out of the stream’. RESPONDENT: And that, is what ‘peace on earth’ IS. RICHARD: No mystic has ever enabled peace-on-earth. RESPONDENT: When one has stepped out of human suffering, what else is there but ‘this flesh and blood body’? RICHARD: Only where identity is extirpated in toto (both ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul) is there only this flesh and blood body. RESPONDENT: So, my interpretation is that your interpretation is, as usual, what you want to see in the man’s words. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: I would say, similar to what you said, that, ‘... The committed [actualist] has a one-way ticket booked to the promised land of [atheism] (by Whatever Name). RICHARD: Not so ... the committed actualist has a ‘one-way ticket booked’ to oblivion: physical death is the end, finish. * RESPONDENT: And the clearing away of the human stream of suffering and violence cannot occur within psychological time, as psychological time is the foundation of the stream. RICHARD: If you say so then it is so ... for you, that is. However, as the ‘foundation’ of ‘suffering and violence’ is the biological instinctual passions I will keep my own counsel on the matter. RESPONDENT: I certainly understand that. As you have repeatedly declared, nobody is free but you. Naturally then, your own counsel, within that narcissistic state of mind, is the only possible one you can hear. RICHARD: If what you are suggesting, along with your unsolicited character analysis, is that I cannot hear you repeating the ‘Teaching’ that ‘psychological time is the foundation of the human stream of suffering and violence’ then you err ... I can and do hear it. It is that I preferred peace-on-earth, as this flesh and blood body, over a specious after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ for a spurious non-material consciousness, that invoked the extinction of identity in toto. I actually care about my fellow human beings ... not merely feel that I care. * RESPONDENT: Love and compassion, as well as sacredness, are his words for the state of the mind or body which has stepped out of the trap of biologically based thinking. RICHARD: I see that you say ‘stepped out of’ the trap of biologically based thinking (and not ‘clearing away all that IS’ the trap of biologically based thinking) here. RESPONDENT: When you step out of it, aren’t you clear of all that it IS, here? RICHARD: Yet you specifically said (further above) that what the ‘Teachings’ were about was ‘clearing away all that IS the stream’ ... yet now you are saying that they are about being ‘clear of all that it [the stream] IS’ . It is no big deal ... you simply undermine your own argument (further above). * RESPONDENT: And that occurs nowhere but here and now in this world. Of course, this is my interpretation as what you say is yours. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: Of course you are. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: You interpret everything that is not based on actualistic/atheistic philosophy as being invalid. RICHARD: An actual freedom from the human condition is a living experiencing, not a ‘philosophy’, and seeing the fact that, despite the rhetoric peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda, is not an interpretation by any criterion. * RESPONDENT: I wanted to point out that interpretation is not fact. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything. RESPONDENT: Repetition does not establish fact. RICHARD: Shall I put it this way? When you stop telling me I am interpreting I will cease telling you I am not interpreting ... it is you who sets the pace. * RESPONDENT: There may not then, be any ‘enlightenment agenda’ at all, as the end of psychological thinking is not enlightenment. RICHARD: Irregardless of what you say, when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speaks of ‘stepping out of the stream’ he is indeed talking of enlightenment ... and peace-on-earth is not on the enlightenment agenda at all. RESPONDENT: ‘Irregardless of what you say ...’ now that speaks volumes. RICHARD: Good. RESPONDENT: However, I will still question your supposed authority on the matter if you don’t mind. RICHARD: It has nothing to do with my ‘authority’ (be it ‘supposed’ or otherwise) ... I simply read his accredited words in books and in annotated quotes, or hear his words on tapes and/or watch his videotaped lips moving in accord to the words spoken. I take them to be genuine and, unless there is a gigantic hoax being played, they are indeed authentic. RESPONDENT: You have absolutely no knowledge that K was speaking of ‘enlightenment’. RICHARD: When the printed word, the taped voice, the video likeness says <enlightenment> it means enlightenment. RESPONDENT: That is what you want him to speak about because it allows you to pigeon-hole his words into your view that anybody who doesn’t speak in terms of actualism is speaking in terms of ‘altered states’, ‘god by any name’, or ‘enlightenment’. RICHARD: First, the state of consciousness known as enlightenment is indeed an altered state of consciousness ... I am merely following accepted convention (I did not make up the phrase ‘altered state of consciousness’ or the word ‘enlightenment’). Second, Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti oft-times said ‘or whatever name you want to call it’ when referring to God or Truth. RESPONDENT: And of course, you get to define what that ‘enlightenment’ is. RICHARD: No, where he uses the word <enlightenment> in his accredited words in books and in annotated quotes he is using it in the conventional way. RESPONDENT: It is nonsense and transparent. RICHARD: Irregardless of whether you say it be ‘nonsense and transparent’ or not, when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti speaks of ‘stepping out of the stream’ he is indeed talking of enlightenment RESPONDENT: Now if I said that your actualism is atheism ‘by any name’, and attempted to qualify that solely on ‘my own counsel ... irregardless of what you say ...’ you would immediately dismiss it. RICHARD: First, I have never said ‘actualism by any name ..’ as I am always word-specific: you could say ‘irregardless of what Richard says ...’ until you turn blue in the face and it will still not correspond. Second, my use of ‘keep my own counsel ...’ was in respect to you repeating the ‘Teaching’ that ‘psychological time is the foundation of the human stream of suffering and violence’ when I know for a fact it be the biological instinctual passions, and not in respect to the usage of the word <enlightenment>. RESPONDENT: Authority relies chiefly on the pretence of inequality. RICHARD: There is no ‘pretence’ of inequality in this instance ... you are way out of your depth here. * RESPONDENT: It is simple, root, basic, ‘me-less’ perception, or awareness, which, again, can only occur in this world, not some place else. RICHARD: As this is, as you say, your interpretation I will leave you to mull over it. RESPONDENT: Nothing to mull over. RICHARD: Interpretations invariably have that quality, eh? RESPONDENT: But the tragedy is that you never ‘mull over’ your own interpretations. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all. RESPONDENT: But then, you can’t, because for you they are not interpretations. RICHARD: Bingo! RESPONDENT: Whatever you say is absolutely true because you said it. RICHARD: No ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was the one who ‘said it’. RESPONDENT: There is something drastically flawed with that assumption. RICHARD: As it is your ‘assumption’ I will leave you to mull over it. * RICHARD: For example, the ‘answer’ is not to be found in the world: [quote]: ‘I have found the answer to all this [violence], not in the world but away from it’. (page 94, ‘Krishnamurti – His Life And Death’; Mary Lutyens; Avon Books: New York 1991). RESPONDENT: The ‘world’ K was speaking about could also have been referring to the psychological ‘world’, that is, the cultural world of tradition, politics, religion, etc. RICHARD: No, he was speaking of both the physical world and all the violence in the physical world. RESPONDENT: Did he tell you that? RICHARD: He was telling Ms Mary Lutyens. RESPONDENT: If not it is your interpretation. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all. RESPONDENT: Again, I ask you, if you think he didn’t want to live in this physical world, do you think he might have been contemplating moving to Mars? RICHARD: Since when has ‘Mars’ been non-physical? RESPONDENT: You make statements which are obviously imaginary since you, Richard never participated in the mind that was K. RICHARD: I am not imagining anything at all. RESPONDENT: Your conclusions are derived solely from within your doctrine of actualism. RICHARD: Again: an actual freedom from the human condition is a living experiencing, not a ‘doctrine’ . Again: I simply read his accredited words in books and in annotated quotes, or hear his words on tapes and/or watch his videotaped lips moving in accord to the words spoken. This has nothing to do with actualism ... anyone can read his words, hear his words or watch his words being spoken. * RESPONDENT: You cannot derive from his statement that he was considering leaving humanity and going, say, to Mars, or that he was considering escaping to some ‘spiritual’ world. RICHARD: He was not ‘considering’ doing anything ... he was saying he had already done it (‘found the answer’ is past tense). RESPONDENT: However, it is your interpretation regarding what he had ‘found’, isn’t it? RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all. RESPONDENT: You certainly are not him, so you can’t know with certainty what he was or what he found. RICHARD: When someone says that they have found the answer to all the violence in the world, and that answer is not in the world but away from it, I can certainly know what they are speaking of ... it is what communication is all about. RESPONDENT: You too say you have found ‘it’. RICHARD: Aye ... I found both the mystical answer to all the violence in the world and the actual answer to all the violence in the world. RESPONDENT: Just as you have no evidence but words that you have found anything, you have no evidence but your opinions, that K didn’t. RICHARD: I am not saying, nor have I ever said, that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti did not find the mystical answer to all the violence in the world ... I acknowledged him as being genuinely enlightened at the beginning of this thread (at the top of the page). * RESPONDENT: The interpretation, mine and yours, are therefore wholly hypothetical. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all. RESPONDENT: You are doing nothing else BUT interpreting unless you were him then, and are him now. RICHARD: I am not interpreting anything at all. RESPONDENT: If you were not, and are not, then what Richard is saying about K’s words are what Richard believes. RICHARD: I am not believing anything at all.
RICHARD: ... where you say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ (further below) is where you make it clear why you are unable to comprehend a single word below. Furthermore, as you have made it clear that you are not interested in ‘universal possibility’, and although you have the right to assert your belief, you might at least consider that they are based only on logical principles, premises that are wholly arbitrary, and which you can’t possibly verify. You simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make finalistic statements, as you do, with any degree of sincerity and accuracy. It is completely bogus to say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ . That is the sheer stubbornness of belief. Nothing more. RESPONDENT: And naturally, ‘actualism’ escapes all the above admonitions since it is the product of your own ‘infallible imagination’. Right? :-) RICHARD: No ... it breezes through ‘all the above admonitions’ because it actual. Also, as there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty extant in this flesh and blood body your other comment is meaningless ... especially so as I have made it clear before that I am not claiming infallibility. Vis.:
RESPONDENT: Awwwww. Are we upset because our little ‘god by any name’ doctrine of apperception wasn’t properly accepted and unquestionably followed and heralded as the religion of the future? RICHARD: No ... if anything I am rather bemused that you can only see religio-spiritual connotations in the words I write. RESPONDENT: Well, if nothing else, your response is a neat escape from an intelligent reply to my comments. RICHARD: Oh? But how could it not be ‘an intelligent reply’ when they were your own words RESPONDENT: Boy! They do get mad when you snatch off that crown. RICHARD: I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. RESPONDENT: Oh yes. Before I forget: When you say that my comment, ‘what is actual is not sensate’, is what makes it clear why I am unable to comprehend your words, isn’t it really that you regard your words as unquestionable truth ... RICHARD: No ... I have no ‘truth’ (let alone an ‘an unquestionable truth’ ): I am only interested in facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: ... and that, trapped in that impenetrable prison of self-importance, ANY disagreement with your words will be interpreted as ‘heresy’? RICHARD: The answer to both your assumption and your assumption-derived question is again ... no. * RICHARD: There are, basically, three ways of experiencing the world of people, things and events: 1. sensate (senses). 2. cerebral (thoughts). 3. affective (feelings). There are three worlds altogether but only one is actual; there is nothing other than this actual, physical universe (the normal ‘reality’ as experienced by 6.0 billion human beings is an illusion and the abnormal ‘Reality’ as experienced by 0.0000001 of the population is a delusion born out of the illusion). RESPONDENT: It seems to me it is not a question of ‘worlds’ at all, but the action of awareness which, when it is operating in the body/brain, comprehends the distinctions of material organization that are referred to as ‘sensate (senses)’, ‘cerebral, (thought)’, and ‘affective, (feelings)’. RICHARD: You may not have noticed that I use the phrase ‘three worlds’ advisedly inasmuch as I follow it with ‘only one is actual’ (the first two being either illusory or delusory). Needless is it to say that for the peoples who inhabit either of them it is ‘the world’ for them. RESPONDENT: What is actual is not what is sensate, for example, but the energy that is awareness and which makes sensate experience intelligent and orderly. RICHARD: Where you say ‘what is actual is not sensate’, and I am thus reminded again that for you the
physical is not actual Therefore, as I have already indicated (further above) I am not expecting you to even begin to understand what I am describing either here or anywhere below. * RICHARD: The feelings include both the affectionate and desirable emotions/passions (those that are loving and trusting) and hostile and invidious emotions/passions (those that are hateful and fearful) and those that are felicitous/ innocuous. If one minimises the ‘good’ and ‘bad’ feelings and activates the felicitous/ innocuous feelings (happiness, delight, joie de vivre/ bonhomie, friendliness, amiability and so on) in conjunction with sensuousness (delectation, enjoyment, appreciation, relish, zest, gusto and so on) then the ensuing sense of amazement, marvel and wonder can result in apperception. RESPONDENT: When you describe feelings as having qualities such as ‘love’ and ‘trust’, or ‘hate’ and ‘fear’, you are describing the activity of thought attaching itself to physical sensations, as feelings in themselves are purely physical sensation; whereas, ‘love’ and ‘trust’, ‘hate’ and ‘fear’ are thoughts. Feelings then, have no ability of ‘love’ and ‘trust’, or ‘hate’ and ‘fear’. Therefore, it is thought that is evoking physical sensations and identifying itself with them in an attempt to make itself feel ‘actual’ as ‘me’, as some entity which is consistently present, solid, and real. Now, as both thought and feeling are not necessarily related to sensate energy, or the senses, that is, both commonly arise independently of what the senses are perceiving, neither can result of themselves in perception of any kind or at any level. Thought and feeling not guided by the awareness that infuses the senses themselves, leads to all kinds of spiritual fantasies as well as to both the common delusions of everyday ‘personal’ living and the ‘higher’ art of intellectual self-absorption which you call ‘apperception’. RICHARD: No, I do not call, have never called, nor ever will call ‘the ‘higher’ art of intellectual self-absorption’ apperception ... plus, as the affective feelings exist prior to thought, thoughts and thinking, it is not possible to comment intelligibly on your above prognosis. * RICHARD: Apperception is the outcome of the exclusive attention paid to being alive right here and now. Apperception is to be the senses as a bare awareness, a pure consciousness experience (PCE) of the world as-it-is, which happens when the mind becomes aware of itself. Apperception is an awareness of consciousness. It is not ‘I’ being aware of ‘me’ being conscious; it is the mind’s awareness of itself. RESPONDENT: Since you’ve said above that feelings of a certain variety and intensity may lead to apperception, it seems rather questionable that apperception has anything at all to do with attention, as attention or awareness cannot arise from either the primitive movement of pure physical sensation or from the conditioned nature of thought, which constantly energizes these primitive sensations in both destructive and functional ways. Apperception therefore, is a species of consciousness which is produced by the effects of ego – or thinking/ feeling – adversely affecting the sane, orderly operation of the brain. In other words, apperception is ordinary, but glorified consciousness when consciousness is ego/feeling expanding itself as such. That is why it is not ‘aware of’ consciousness but is consciousness dividing itself as ‘apperception’ and ‘consciousness’. RICHARD: As apperception is neither ‘a species of consciousness which is produced by the effects of ego’ nor an ‘ordinary, but glorified consciousness’ it does not follow that the mind’s awareness of itself is, as you say, ‘consciousness dividing itself as ‘apperception’ and ‘consciousness’’ ... plus, as the affective faculty is non-existent in apperception and thought may or may not be operating, none of what you say about ‘primitive sensations in both destructive and functional ways’ has any applicability to what is being described in this paragraph. * RICHARD: It is no more complicated than this: delight is what is humanly possibly given sufficient pure intent obtained from the felicity/ innocuity born of the pure consciousness experience. From the position of delight, one can vitalise one’s joie de vivre by the amazement at the fun of it all ... and then one can – with sufficient abandon – become over-joyed and move into marvelling at being here and doing this business called being alive. RESPONDENT: There are many these days who do experience such constant delight, but because that delight is the direct reaction of the ‘intent’ of consciousness to experience itself as the various projections of itself, there is no actual and simple ‘being alive’. Children often experience things as ‘marvellous’ and with ‘abandonment’, yet they have no ability to stop themselves from eventually becoming conditioned, sorrowful, violent human beings. An aware mind is a steady mind, one not prone to fantastic thinking and feeling. It is grounded in the body, in the senses; and although, being sensually based, it lives as and is the enjoyment of sensual, living energy, it is never ‘amazed’ nor is there ‘abandon’. Abandonment is something ego is eternally seeking to do with itself. The living of life, for that mind that is free of itself as ‘oneself’, is the actual living, being of life as bliss, that is, as satiety, fullness, probemlessness, imperturbable relaxation, practical, skilful action. RICHARD: As I have never met, read about, or heard of all these ‘many these days who do experience such constant
delight’ I am unable to comment and I am already aware of what you say regarding children (being ‘child-like’, as some propose, is indeed
not the answer for reasons such as you mention) ... plus, as I was not speaking of ‘fantastic’ thinking or feeling in this paragraph but
rather amazement and marvelling, the remainder of your observation is a non-sequitur * RICHARD: Then one is no longer intellectually making sense of life ... the wonder of it all drives all intellectual sense away as such delicious wonder fosters the innate condition of naiveté (which is the closest one can get to innocence whilst being a self), the nourishing of which is essential if the charm of it all is to occur. Then, as one gazes intently at the world about by glancing lightly with caressing eyes, out of the corner of one’s eye comes – sweetly – the magical fairy-tale-like paradise that this verdant earth actually is ... and one is the experiencing of what is happening. But try not to possess it and make it your own ... or else ‘twill vanish as softly as it appeared. RESPONDENT: What you say above sounds wonderful to a mind that is in distress; RICHARD: Good ... I always welcome such feed-back as I cannot know how my words affect someone in distress unless they tell me. RESPONDENT: ... however, the magical, fairy-tale-like experience of living, while it may be the outcome of an apperceptive mind, is an experience derived from a brain egged on by ‘intent’, that is, a brain involved with experiencing the sensational. RICHARD: I do comprehend that, for whom the physical is not actual, any description of being the experiencing of what is happening will not be comprehensible. It is not to be just understood intellectually (‘one is no longer intellectually making sense of life’). RESPONDENT: Such a brain may conceive itself as being aware, yet it is not, because it is still dependent on its ‘experiences’, its PCE’s etc., as sources of its belief about itself that it is either free of its ‘self’, or that it is ‘naive-like’. RICHARD: To anyone who does not directly experience the actuality of the physical then I guess that what you say here would have some sort of intellectual meaning for them. RESPONDENT: A blissful mind is one which has no knowledge of itself as being anything or experiencing anything at all. RICHARD: Hmm ... it cannot be called a ‘blissful mind’ then if there be neither ‘knowledge of itself as being anything’ (as in being a mind) nor ‘experiencing anything at all’ (as in being blissful) but, more than likely, a catatonic or cataleptic state. RESPONDENT: It is not naive. RICHARD: Aye ... being comatose it cannot be anything perspicuous (let alone be naïve). RESPONDENT: It is simply intelligent. RICHARD: Rather, it is simply insensible, soporose.
RICHARD: ... where you say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ (further below) is where you make it clear why you are unable to comprehend a single word below. Furthermore, as you have made it clear that you are not interested in ‘universal possibility’, and although you have the right to assert your belief, you might at least consider that they are based only on logical principles, premises that are wholly arbitrary, and which you can’t possibly verify. You simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make finalistic statements, as you do, with any degree of sincerity and accuracy. It is completely bogus to say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ . That is the sheer stubbornness of belief. Nothing more. RESPONDENT: And naturally, ‘actualism’ escapes all the above admonitions since it is the product of your own ‘infallible imagination’. Right? :-) RICHARD: No ... it breezes through ‘all the above admonitions’ because it actual. RESPONDENT: Oh. It is ‘actual’, is it? RICHARD: Yes ... I am speaking of the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. Therefore, as it is indeed ‘universal’ it is not ‘belief’; it is not ‘arbitrary’ (let alone ‘wholly arbitrary’); it can indeed ‘be verified’ ; I do indeed have ‘knowledge’; I do indeed have ‘experience’; I can indeed make ‘finalistic statements’; I am indeed ‘earnest’; I am indeed ‘accurate’; it is not ‘bogus’ to say what I say (let alone ‘completely bogus’) and nor is it a case of ‘sheer stubbornness of belief’. I will pass on the implicit ‘based ... on logical principles, premises’ admonition, however, as this is about facts and actuality. RESPONDENT: Right. I forgot. Your words don’t require explanation because they are inherently, innately true. RICHARD: No ... my words are a description of what is actual/what is factual (‘tis you who keeps insisting on interpolating the words ‘true’ and/or ‘truth’ and then doing a critique on your straw-man as if that is you being intelligent). RESPONDENT: You might consider my admonitions with a much more open mind, given the above statement. RICHARD: I already did before I posted them (I may be a lot of things but I am not silly). * RICHARD: Also, as there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty extant in this flesh and blood body your other comment is meaningless ... especially so as I have made it clear before that I am not claiming infallibility. RESPONDENT: Nobody who believes they are infallible will claim it except, of course, the pope. RICHARD: What a weird way of conversing with your fellow human being: you say that what I am explaining and/or reporting and/or describing is the product of my [quote] infallible imagination [endquote] but when I say that I have never claimed infallibility you then go on to say that nobody who believes they are infallible will claim it ... which basically means that you can say whatever nonsense you want to about another. With the kind of attitude you display here there is no use in ever explaining anything and/or reporting anything and/or describing anything to you. RESPONDENT: Now, I don’t know what is not extant in your flesh ... RICHARD: Indeed you do not ... this is very honest of you. RESPONDENT: ... but I do see the glaringly extant presence of an ego ... RICHARD: ‘Twas but a short-lived honesty, eh? RESPONDENT: ... which feels that nobody in the whole world can possibly know the truth but itself. RICHARD: Ahh ... back to interpolating your straw-man word ‘truth’ so that you can critique it (as if that is you being intelligent). * RICHARD: [I have made it clear before that I am not claiming infallibility]. Vis.: [Richard]: ‘If I make an error, I will be only too happy to acknowledge that. (...) If I am not sure, I say ‘I guess’ or ‘maybe’ or ‘this is only an opinion’ and so on. I do not claim infallibility. [Richard]: ‘I have never said that I am infallible – and I do make mistakes from time-to-time – and I have pointed this out numerous times in print. RESPONDENT: How modest. RICHARD: No ... how factual (I make no claim of modesty either). RESPONDENT: You don’t claim infallibility; it’s just that anybody who doesn’t accept your ‘post-enlightened’ words as truth, is deluded by definition. RICHARD: As I do not ask anyone to accept my words as ‘truth’ this is yet another straw-man critique ... and this post is getting sillier by the minute. RESPONDENT: Unfortunate attitude, to say the least. RICHARD: What is factual is neither fortunate nor ‘unfortunate’ ... let alone an ‘attitude’. * RESPONDENT: Awwwww. Are we upset because our little ‘god by any name’ doctrine of apperception wasn’t properly accepted and unquestionably followed and heralded as the religion of the future? RICHARD: No ... if anything I am rather bemused that you can only see religio-spiritual connotations in the words I write. RESPONDENT: Of course you are religious, and extremely so. RICHARD: I will just leave these words of yours to sit there to look silly all by themselves. RESPONDENT: Actualism, as an ‘ism’ is a system of belief, ... RICHARD: Interpolating again ... followed by the critique (immediately below) as if this is an intelligent thing to do. RESPONDENT: ... and because you decry all other systems of belief but your own, that action makes of your system another – as you would say – ‘god [by any name]’. RICHARD: I use that ‘god (by any name)’ or ‘god, truth (by whatever name)’ or ‘god, truth call it what you will’ phrasing because I am writing to a Mailing List set up under the auspices of the ‘Teachings’ bought into the world by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti ... they are his non-specific ways of referring to what is non-material (and not my words as you make them out to be). An example of why I have adopted this phrasing is exemplified by the very first words you and I exchanged in our very first e-mail discussion maybe three years ago now:
Do you see that only ten words into the very first sentence you wrote to me you were already using the kind of phrasing you are now trying to pass off onto me? * RESPONDENT: Well, if nothing else, your response is a neat escape from an intelligent reply to my comments. RICHARD: Oh? But how could it not be ‘an intelligent reply’ when they were your own words copy-pasted back to you (or are you saying that your reply to your co-respondent was not ‘an intelligent reply’ )? RESPONDENT: To be momentarily colourful, any fool can parrot another’s words back to them. RICHARD: Of course ... but is this just a case of a fool ‘parroting’ (let alone so as to be ‘momentarily colourful’ )? RESPONDENT: I’m surprised that you would try such a transparent and pre-adolescent trick as the one immediately above. RICHARD: How can you be so sure that it is ‘a transparent and pre-adolescent trick’ and not indeed an intelligent response? Why do you not run your very own words (your very own ‘admonitions’ to another) through some of your own e-mails and check it out for yourself? What have you got to lose? * RESPONDENT: [... if nothing else, your response is a neat escape from an intelligent reply to my comments.] Boy! They do get mad when you snatch off that crown. RICHARD: I am having so much fun here at the keyboard. RESPONDENT: Try that one on somebody else. RICHARD: Okay ... this is as good a place as any to exit this ‘tis/‘tisn’t schoolyard discussion anyway.
RICHARD: ... where you say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ (further below) is where you make it clear why you are unable to comprehend a single word below. Furthermore, as you have made it clear that you are not interested in ‘universal possibility’, and although you have the right to assert your belief, you might at least consider that they are based only on logical principles, premises that are wholly arbitrary, and which you can’t possibly verify. You simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make finalistic statements, as you do, with any degree of sincerity and accuracy. It is completely bogus to say ‘what is actual is not what is sensate’ . That is the sheer stubbornness of belief. Nothing more. RESPONDENT: And naturally, ‘actualism’ escapes all the above admonitions since it is the product of your own ‘infallible imagination’. Right? :-) RICHARD: No ... it breezes through ‘all the above admonitions’ because it actual. RESPONDENT: Oh. It is ‘actual’, is it? RICHARD: Yes ... I am speaking of the immediate perception, of this body and that body and every bodyand of the mountains and the streams and of the trees and the flowers and of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum. RESPONDENT: You are speaking of all these phenomena as being ‘actual’, yet the phenomena of which you speak may be totally independent of, and have nothing to do with what may be your belief about them. ‘Actual’ is a description made by the mind of what the eyes see. It is nothing more than that. RICHARD: No ... the immediate perception, of this body and that body and every body and of the mountains and the streams and of the trees and the flowers and of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum, without either the affective faculty existent reveals actuality in all its purity and perfection. This applies not only to the ocular perception you mention, but also to cutaneous perception, to gustatory perception, to olfactory perception, to aural perception ... and even to proprioceptive perception, for that matter. RESPONDENT: Without the description, reality is a total mystery. RICHARD: There is no mystery where there is such direct perception of actuality as already described ... all is laid open, as it already always has been open just here right now all along, because nothing is ever hidden. One walks through the world in wide-eyed wonder simply marvelling at being here doing this business called being alive on this verdant and azure paradise called planet earth. This is what innocence looks like. RESPONDENT: The description then, is the mind’s unwillingness to accept not knowing – like the word god, or the word apperception are descriptions imposed by the mind onto reality in order to feign knowledge of what can never be known. RICHARD: Perhaps you may be inclined to run your ‘admonitions’ over this sentence of yours? Also, I will wait for your considered response to my reply thus far before proceeding on to your next paragraph. ‘Tis pointless to proceed whilst this ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses.
RESPONDENT: The description then, is the mind’s unwillingness to accept not knowing – like the word god, or the word apperception are descriptions imposed by the mind onto reality in order to feign knowledge of what can never be known. RICHARD: Perhaps you may be inclined to run your ‘admonitions’ over this sentence of yours? Also, I will wait for your considered response to my reply thus far before proceeding on to your next paragraph. RESPONDENT: So far, this particular correspondence has been more mature than others, and unmarred by ‘tit for tat’. Shall we maintain that presence of mind and not go back to snide remarks and such? RICHARD: Indeed ... but did you, in fact, run your ‘admonitions’ over that sentence of yours? * RICHARD: ‘Tis pointless to proceed whilst this ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses. RESPONDENT: Nothing you have said to me so far has been considered as having the ability to block my responses. RICHARD: Yet I did not say that what I have said to you so far is blocking your responses ... I specifically said that the ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses. RESPONDENT: Only I can do that; not another. RICHARD: Indeed ... that is the very thing I am pointing out (above). RESPONDENT: Perhaps if we are patient and willing to await the natural development of the discussion, we shall, as we proceed, have the space in which to discover what each other’s words mean. RICHARD: Or, alternatively, you could run your ‘admonitions’ over that sentence of yours ... it would be much quicker and far more effective than awaiting the ‘natural development of the discussion’. RESPONDENT: I don’t see pointlessness; I see the mutual opportunity to learn. RICHARD: Not whilst the ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses from reaching you.
RICHARD: ‘Tis pointless to proceed whilst this ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses. RESPONDENT: Nothing you have said to me so far has been considered as having the ability to block my responses. RICHARD: Yet I did not say that what I have said to you so far is blocking your responses ... I specifically said that the ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses. RESPONDENT: And what I gently implied was that my words have no ability to block your responses. You alone are responsible for any lack of comprehension you may be experiencing. And there is no attitude which can be described as ‘can never be known’. If you don’t understand the words I offered, ask me and I’ll explain them. RICHARD: Good ... I would appreciate it if you could ‘explain them’ to me. This is what I am having difficulty in following:
As you then go on to state that I am the one that is to be responsible for any lack of comprehension I may be experiencing upon reading your words I will indeed take that responsibility you gratuitously handed over to me and exercise it judiciously:
Needless is it to say that it is pointless for me to proceed onto your next reply (‘there is no attitude which can be described as ‘can never be known’’) if I am incapable of comprehending the way you utilise the English language and its sentence structure (wherein the opposite to what is expressly stated is implied in that very statement)? In the jargon this is called a ‘communication breakdown’.
RESPONDENT: Consider the following sentences related contextually: [Richard]: ‘It is pointless to proceed whilst this ‘can never be known’ attitude is blocking all my responses.’ [Respondent]: ‘Nothing you have said to me so far has been considered as having the ability to block my responses. Only I can do that; not another.’ I used myself as an example to say that we – you and I – are responsible for blocking ourselves ... RICHARD: Good ... let us proceed, then. Here is the sequence so far:
Your unsolicited analysis of my motives is entirely inaccurate as I do not play the controller and set rules and conditions for the other person ... what you do or do not do is your business. What I do have, however, is at least some say as to to what constitutes my participation in a discussion and I will not proceed whilst your ‘can never be known’ words remain in situ ... I would prefer to cease writing altogether and go and watch TV with my feet up on the coffee table instead. When all is said and done I am only responding to your words to me anyway (you initiated this discussion by writing to me in the first place and commenting on what I was writing to another). So, shall we look into your ‘there are no admonitions that need to be made, so none will be forthcoming’ statement? Here are what you call your ‘admonitions’ to another:
If you will not entertain looking at the fact that there is essentially no difference between what you were saying regarding phrases and words like ‘‘whatever they’, ‘always’ etc.’ and the word ‘never’ in your ‘can never be known’ phrase it is pointless to proceed (if you wish to maintain your ‘there are no admonitions that need to be made, so none will be forthcoming’ position, that is). To make it crystal clear I will leave you with the following paraphrase of your ‘admonitions’ to another:
If you sincerely wish to have a genuine discussion ... the way to do so is in your hands and your hands alone.
RICHARD: To make it crystal clear I will leave you with the following paraphrase of your ‘admonitions’ to another: [paraphrase]: ‘Phrases and words like ‘can never be known’ ought to be spoken with great caution because they indicate mere strong opinion that is conceiving itself to be universal fact. Although you have the right to assert your belief, you might at least consider that they are based only on logical principles, premises that are wholly arbitrary, and which you can’t possibly verify. You simply don’t have the knowledge or experience to make finalistic statements, as you do, with any degree of sincerity and accuracy. It is completely bogus to say ‘can never be known’. That is the sheer stubbornness of belief. Nothing more’. [end-paraphrase]. If you sincerely wish to have a genuine discussion ... the way to do so is in your hands and your hands alone. RESPONDENT No. 19: I think that all Richard is trying to point out is that you are admonishing him for what you yourself are doing. Don’t you know better than try and debate with Richard by now. He’ll use your words, his words, and everybody else’s words to wrap around your neck and hang you from the nearest post – and then, he’ll bite you on the leg like that Mamba snake you accused him of being. By the way, what is a Mamba snake? I never heard of them. Are they native to Australia? RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact. I encounter that not only with Richard, but in all walks of life, including Listening-l. I don’t mind it. I just acknowledge peoples’ right to end the discussion for whatever reason and at any instant they choose. It is simply what fear does when one feels trapped. By the way, a mamba snake is, as far as I know, a particularly deadly and aggressive snake, native to Africa. I don’t know if they are also native to Australia. RICHARD: I see that you have analysed Richard and dismissed him for lacking your capacity to expose flaws in others ... so let us say, in order to bring to an end all this to-ing and fro-ing, that he is indeed a fool to try to match your skills with his meagre intellectual resources. Your article of faith – ‘reality can never be known’ – still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory, despite your adroit dismissal of the messenger. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Never mind the ‘Mamba snake’ – they have no world-wide distribution – as the one to watch out for is colloquially called (in Australia anyway) the ‘Trouser Snake’ ... which is why it is always advisable to type all posts to mailing lists with both hands (for females typing single-handedly it would be called the ‘Panties Snake’ and, even though only the head of the snake is visible, the same-same narcissistic self-stroking activity happens just the same).
RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact. I encounter that not only with Richard, but in all walks of life, including Listening-l. I don’t mind it. I just acknowledge peoples’ right to end the discussion for whatever reason and at any instant they choose. It is simply what fear does when one feels trapped. RICHARD: I see that you have analysed Richard and dismissed him for lacking your capacity to expose flaws in others ... so let us say, in order to bring to an end all this to-ing and fro-ing, that he is indeed a fool to try to match your skills with his meagre intellectual resources. RESPONDENT: Why do YOU feel dismissed? As I said, it is all about maintaining the self-image of unprecedented ‘awakening’ as expounded through the faith-based doctrine of actualism. Of course then, any challenge to your actualism will be perceived as a challenge to YOU. Thanks for successfully demonstrating that point yet again. RICHARD: I see that you are still preoccupied with analysing Richard ... and the while your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory. * RICHARD: Your article of faith – ‘reality can never be known’ – still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory, despite your adroit dismissal of the messenger. RESPONDENT: Let’s turn it around slightly. For sure, what is not of thought can never be known by thought or by the body that produces it, despite the nervous twitchings and denials of ‘the messenger’, whose identity hinges on his hope that the contrary is the case. RICHARD: I see that you are still fixated on turning things around so as to expose the flaws in others ... yet all the while restating your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) in slightly different words as if it were the universal fact (‘for sure’) you take it to be. Your ‘for sure’ also just sits there ... propping up your unexamined non-material truth.
RESPONDENT: Actually, Richard is playing games, as he usually does. For example, in the above he is taking something I said to another – in a different context and for a different reason – and attempting to make it apply in this particular case. He knows what he is doing and why: He doesn’t want to discuss with me because I am capable of exposing the flaws in his actualistic beliefs. It’s easy then, for a fairly sharp mind to escape by using the past, by taking things out of context and twisting them in a manner which attempts to discredit the rationality of the offending person, thus enabling the escapee to bow out – public image remaining intact. I encounter that not only with Richard, but in all walks of life, including Listening-l. I don’t mind it. I just acknowledge peoples’ right to end the discussion for whatever reason and at any instant they choose. It is simply what fear does when one feels trapped. RICHARD: I see that you have analysed Richard and dismissed him for lacking your capacity to expose flaws in others ... so let us say, in order to bring to an end all this to-ing and fro-ing, that he is indeed a fool to try to match your skills with his meagre intellectual resources. RESPONDENT: Why do YOU feel dismissed? As I said, it is all about maintaining the self-image of unprecedented ‘awakening’ as expounded through the faith-based doctrine of actualism. Of course then, any challenge to your actualism will be perceived as a challenge to YOU. Thanks for successfully demonstrating that point yet again. RICHARD: I see that you are still preoccupied with analysing Richard ... and all the while your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory. RESPONDENT: I thought there was no ‘Richard’ to analyse? Now I’m not sure, but there just might be some force hiding in your body that feels compelled to resist and contest all references to its existence and analysis. Are you going to tell me next, that all your posturing and self-defence is a demonstration of your ‘actual’ living of the ‘peace on earth’ that your actualistic faith continually propagates? I have a right to be tawdry, as I am an ordinary human being – one of the 6 or 7 billion. What’s your excuse? RICHARD: I see that you are still focussed on examining Richard – yet all the while your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) still sits there just waiting to be examined – and your acknowledgement of being ‘an ordinary human being’ only makes it all the more obvious that it be an article of faith and not a living experiential truth. * RICHARD: Your article of faith – ‘reality can never be known’ – still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory, despite your adroit dismissal of the messenger. RESPONDENT: Let’s turn it around slightly. For sure, what is not of thought can never be known by thought or by the body that produces it, despite the nervous twitchings and denials of ‘the messenger’, whose identity hinges on his hope that the contrary is the case. RICHARD: I see that you are still fixated on turning things around so as to expose the flaws in others ... yet all the while restating your article of faith (‘reality can never be known’) in slightly different words as if it were the universal fact (‘for sure’ ) you take it to be. Your ‘for sure’ also just sits there ... propping up your unexamined non-material truth. RESPONDENT: You couldn’t possibly have any flaws, for you are the embodiment of truth, at least in your own mind. Yet, I wonder: Would truth care a damn what was ‘turned around’ about itself? And would it be obsessed with replying to every ‘tawdry’ statement made about it? I trust then, that AS ‘actuality’, you will ‘actually’ perceive these words and BE the un-attachment that you presently imagine, and that the obsession to perpetually self-defend will subsequently fall away, like so many warts on Big Bertha’s butt. RICHARD: I see that you are still obsessed with fixing-up Richard rather than examining the ‘for sure’ that is propping up your unexamined truth – ‘reality can never be known’ – which still sits there, glittering brightly in all its tawdry glory.
RESPONDENT: ‘Where is the man who has forgotten words? I'd like to have a word with him’. - Chuang Tzu RESPONDENT No. 12: He is not somewhere outside you. RESPONDENT: No. 12 points in the right direction. Yes, there is an inside as anyone who has mediated has experienced. K on meditation said: ‘First of all sit absolutely still. Sit comfortably, cross your legs, sit absolutely still, close your eyes, and see if you can keep your eyes from moving. You understand? Your eye balls are apt to move, keep them completely quiet, for fun. Then, as you sit very quietly, find out what your thought is doing. Watch it as you watched the lizard. Watch thought, the way it runs, one thought after another. So you begin to learn, to observe. (...) First of all sit completely quiet, comfortably, sit very quietly, relax, I will show you. Now, look at the trees, at the hills, the shape of the hills, look at them, look at the quality of their colour, watch them. Do not listen to me. Watch and see those trees, the yellowing trees, the tamarind, and then look at the bougainvillea. Look not with your mind but with your eyes. After having looked at all the colours, the shape of the land, of the hills, the rocks, the shadow, then go from the outside to the inside and close your eyes, close your eyes completely. You have finished looking at the things outside, and now with your eyes closed you can look at what is happening inside’. - Pg 22, 36; .K on education’. Go further and the inner and outer dissolve and there is only awareness. RICHARD: Yet when Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti does ‘go further’ he says the following words (also on page 36):
Do you see that where you say ‘go further and the inner and outer dissolve’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the outside is the inside’ and that where you say ‘and there is only awareness’ Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti says ‘then ... the observer is the observed’? Furthermore, upon reading what ‘the inside’ is (because ‘the outside’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert inside is ‘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’. The phrase ‘the outside is the inside’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not? Or, to put that another way, upon reading what ‘the observer’ is (because ‘the observed’ is delineated most specifically further above) it will be seen that the non-thinking, just-watching, very quiet, very sensitive and very alert observer is ‘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’. The phrase ‘the observer is the observed’ is an unambiguous statement, is it not?
RETURN TO CORRESPONDENCE LIST ‘B’ INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S 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 |
