Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence

On The Actual Freedom Mailing List

with Correspondent No. 27


March 17 2004

RICHARD: May I ask what it is that you find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity?

RESPONDENT: Sure, what I find interesting about what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity is his claim that it can account for all the ‘evidence’ that is purported to demonstrate Einstein’s relativity theory as fact. Not only that, but his statement is that we are allowed to keep more ‘common-sense’ notions about time and space, gravity, and so forth.

RICHARD: Okay ... now what Mr. Paul Marmet has to say about the GPS and the (supposed) constant velocity of light for all observers, which constancy is central to Einstein relativity, throws more light (no pun intended) upon his claim that Newtonian physics can also account for all the evidence which is purported to demonstrate the facticity of Einstein relativity (as well as keeping the more commonsense notions about time and space and gravity and so forth). Vis.: http://www.newtonphysics.on.ca/illusion/index.html

I did make the comment, in an earlier e-mail, that we could post URL’s to each other until the cows came home and the matter would still not be settled ... and the point I am making by providing this particular link (just as I did with the Mr. Tom Van Flandern link) is that, being but a lay-person in all these matters, what I see is theoretical physicists, mathematicians, logicians, and so on, discussing amongst themselves the validity/invalidity of this theory and that theory and any other theory.

And, as I also commented before, when they start presenting equations to each other (I do not even know what most of the symbols refer to) I have no recourse, other than to read what they have to say in general, but to observe that such-and-such a topic is by no means settled.

In other words those who seek to disallow the direct experience of infinitude – as in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) – by telling me that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual (such as in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in my last post) because of this theory or that theory or any other theory might as well take up kite-flying in their spare time.

*

RICHARD: ... apart from drawing attention to the fact that there are (at least) two models being proposed, I am suggesting it is important to remember they are both models (just as the various theories regarding the sub-atomic postulates of quantum theory, for example, also are).

RESPONDENT: I do take (and appreciate) your point here that not only are you pointing out that there are two models purporting to fit the same data, but also that both are ‘models’. Do you know the phrase/term ‘underdetermination of theory by data’?

RICHARD: No ... and, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has no reference to it (nor does any dictionary, other than the Oxford Dictionary, list the word ‘underdetermination’), a search of the internet tended to show that the ‘underdetermination of theory by data’ thesis is an argument which has often been used to combat scientific realism and, as such, is more a philosophical issue about indeterminacy than anything else. For example:

• ‘... there are two ways that we might respond to the underdetermination of theory by data. One response, which we can call the agnostic response, is to suspend judgment: ‘Where scientific standards cannot guide us, we should believe nothing’. Another response, which we can call the fideist response, is to believe whatever we would like to believe: ‘If science cannot speak to the question, then we may believe anything without science ever contradicting us’. (www.fecundity.com/job/agnosticism.pdf).

I will first draw your attention to the following exchange:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Is the universe being infinite in all directions a theory, not a fact?
• [Richard]: ‘First of all, it is physically impossible to empirically establish the extended attributes of space, time and matter ... one cannot, ever, hop into some ultra high speed spacecraft and travel to some ‘where’ or ‘when’ or ‘that’ and show or demonstrate or exhibit infinitude. Needless is it to say, for those who propose a caused universe, that no one has journeyed to where they can witness such a creation of material ex nihilo? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a temporary universe, that no one has travelled to when that limited time began? Needless is it to say, for those who propose a finite universe, that no one has voyaged to the edge of that bounded universe?

And then to this exchange:

• [Respondent]: ‘Is there a way to avoid being an agnostic on the issue [of finitude/infinitude] – since if I’m investigating – then I’m open to finding out the fact of the matter? Does being agnostic necessarily mean being open to belief? Can’t I be agnostic and be open to finding out a fact? Or do I just have to get rid of current scientific theory to find that I already know the answer?
• [Richard]: ‘The question of agnosticism applies to all subjects, of course, not only the subject of the infinitude of the universe (which has tended to split the current, and previous, discussions on this mailing list into two separate issues).
For something like twenty five years I was an agnostic ... and it is an apparently satisfying position to be in as it makes one feel both intellectually comfortable and intellectually superior at the same time (whilst appearing humble) until one day I realised just what I was doing to myself ... and to others. I was cleverly shuffling all the ‘hard questions’ about consciousness under the rug and going around deftly cutting other people down to size (which is all so easy to do simply by saying ‘well that is your belief/truth/idea/philosophy/whatever’).
But I had nothing to offer in its place – other than the smug ‘nobody knows’ agnosticism – and I puzzled as to why this was so. Finally, I ceased procrastinating and equivocating. I wanted to know. I wanted to find out – for myself – about life, the universe and what it is to be a human being living in the world as-it-is with people as-they-are.
I now know.

In short: there is a third alternative to either agnosticism or fideism.

*

RICHARD: ... could it be that the measure of time (the rubidium and caesium in this instance) is what is ‘ticking’ faster and not time itself advancing more quickly? I only mention this because this moment has no duration here in this actual world.

RESPONDENT: Do I understand correctly that you are saying that since ‘this moment has no duration here in this actual world’ – that it is simply not possible for ‘time itself [to be] advancing more quickly?

RICHARD: Exactly ... have you never noticed it is never not this moment?

If I understand it correctly caesium, to take but one example, has an innate resonant frequency and it is the ‘ticking’ of this frequency which is used to define a second (officially recognised as being 9,192,631,770 oscillations) in the energy-clocks on board the satellites ... and I say ‘energy-clocks’, as contrasted to ‘astronomical-clocks’, for the ‘what-is-it-that-is-ticking-faster’ reason already mentioned.

Presumably someone in the mists of pre-history noticed what the shadow of a stick standing perpendicular in the ground did such as to eventually lead to the sundial – a circular measure of the movement of a cast shadow arbitrarily divided into twelve sections because of a prevailing duo-decimal counting system – and thus to water-clocks/sand-clocks and thence to pendulum-clocks/spring-clocks and thus to electrical-clocks/ electronic-clocks and, currently, atomic-clocks (‘energy-clocks’) ... with all such measurement of movement being a measure of the earth’s rotation whilst in orbit around a radiant star.

In short: it is not time itself which moves (thus it neither speeds up nor slows down) but objects through space ... this moment is the arena, so to speak, in which things happen and time (as in past/ present/ future) is a measure of what occurs.

*

RICHARD: ... the reason why I linked what I found interesting in what Mr. Tom Van Flandern has to say about Lorentzian relativity with a rather droll sign (which asked what would happen if one were to switch on the headlights in a space-ship travelling at the speed of light) that I noticed propped up on a nearby clerk’s desk, whilst in a government office for bureaucratic reasons some years ago, could be put like this: 1. Suppose a vehicle travelling at 75 kilometres an hour (75k) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at 75k ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 150k? 2. If so, now suppose a vehicle travelling at three-quarters the speed of light (.75c) has a head-on crash with a vehicle travelling in the opposite direction also at .75c ... would the collision, the force of the impact, be the same as just the one vehicle crashing into a stationary object at 1.50c? I ask this because, according to Einsteinian relativity (in direct contrast to Lorentzian relativity), the force of the impact would only be the same as a .96c collision with a stationary object.

RESPONDENT: I simply don’t know enough about it to comment on this issue.

RICHARD: In the last 20-30 years a lot of research and development has gone into making vehicles safer for the occupants through designing better ways to have the material a vehicle is made of crumple, fore and aft of the section people are occupying, so as to better absorb the energy of the rapid deceleration occasioned by an impact ... and the same applies to making crash-barriers more flexible and thus more absorbent of that energy. Yet according to Einsteinian relativity the faster a vehicle travels (the more it accelerates) the less force it has (the less deceleration energy there is) ... so much so that, rather than ‘speed kills’, the safety slogans of science fiction traffic authorities should probably read ‘speed saves’, eh?

All joking aside however ... where *does* all that energy go (if not into the force of the impact)?

RESPONDENT: I suppose that I should make it clear that I am not claiming that Einsteinian relativity is fact.

RICHARD: Sure ... what you are (or were) claiming, however, is that the article at the link you initially provided which started this thread was a [quote] ‘good’ [endquote] article about Einsteinian relativity.

Given that you do not know enough about it to comment on the (above) issue are you still claiming that?

RESPONDENT: What I would say definitively though, is that there has been a good deal of evidence over the last 100 years or so that has been proposed as proving that Einsteinian relativity is fact. My intention in this conversation is merely to explore the reasons you say what you say, to understand why you dispute relativity and the purported evidence for it. It is delightful for me to discover that there are other models to explain what has been purportedly evidence for Einsteinian relativity.

If one doesn’t understand that there are other models available or possible, it is indeed difficult to jettison what the most respected scientists are calling proof of relativity – so I appreciate this chance to learn more about what and why you are saying what you are about relativity.

RICHARD: For what it is worth I was not cognisant of the general relativity theory/expanding-contracting universe theory/big-bang-big-crunch theory until I went public on the internet, other than a vague recollection that there had been a person called Mr. Albert Einstein who was held in high esteem for matters I knew virtually nothing of and was concerned even less about, whereupon I was told (in the 1997 e-mail exchange I quoted from in my last post) that the universe is not infinite, eternal, and perpetual because of the ‘expanding universe’ theory and, as a post-script, was challenged to explain quasars and pulsars (both of which I had never heard of before).

In other words it never occurred to me all those years ago that, as Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematical model proved the universe not to be infinite, eternal, and perpetual, I would be unable to ever become actually free from the human condition and naively went ahead and did so anyway.

Ain’t life grand!

*

RESPONDENT: Are you saying that if relativity were fact, then an actual freedom would be impossible?

RICHARD: I am not saying that ... those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity – such as in a PCE – are saying that (in effect if not specifically spelt-out).

RESPONDENT: I am trying to understand exactly how those who claim relativity is a fact seek to ‘disallow the direct experience of eternity’.

RICHARD: Simply this: as Mr. Albert Einstein’s mathematics prove the universe is expanding (and hence had a beginning and thence an ending) it cannot be eternal ... and, as Richard is but a scientific buffoon (or whatever other unsolicited character references Richard’s report sometimes elicit), then Mr. Albert Einstein, who had to virtuously practice pacifism so as to achieve some outward semblance of peace and harmony whilst Richard is effortlessly, and thus unvirtuously, happy and harmless, must be right and Richard must be wrong.

And, as Richard is wrong, then the person writing to Richard can carry-on living life in the normal way (vainly trying to be virtuous).

RESPONDENT: I can only guess that it is because relativity requires a measure of duration (from multiple subjective frames of reference), while there is no such thing in the direct experience of eternity?

RICHARD: This moment has no duration here in this actual world ... but I doubt that those who seek to disallow the direct experience of eternity are conscious of that when they write to me.

My guess is they are just uncritically regurgitating what they were taught at school.

*

RICHARD: You are aware that the topic under dispute is whether or not the universe is spatially infinite, temporally eternal, and materially perdurable (and not just Einsteinian relativity per se)?

RESPONDENT: I was not aware that of that, no.

RICHARD: Oh? Why would Einsteinian relativity be such a hot topic on this mailing list, then, if not because of my oft-repeated observation that the infinitude of the universe is directly experienced here in this actual world? Just curious.

RESPONDENT: I originally thought that it was only the big-bang theory that contradicted your experience – but I see now that you are saying that relativity (by itself regardless of the big bang theory) contradicts your experience. I do understand that Einsteinian relativity is intertwined with the big-bang theory, so I thought that is why relativity is such a ‘hot topic’. Though I also went into this conversation understanding that the big-bang theory depends on relativity, I also thought it is possible that relativity could be correct, without necessarily implying that the big-bang theory is correct.

RICHARD: Put specifically: that the universe is expanding is inextricably part and parcel of Mr. Albert Einstein’s equations ... the big-bang theory came later and arose out of the implications of that mathematical artefact. Vis.:

• ‘When Einstein tried to describe the simplest possible mathematical model of the universe using his new equations, however, he ran into a problem. At that time, in 1917, the received wisdom was that our Milky Way galaxy was the entire universe, a stable collection of stars. But the equations describing a complete cosmology of space, time and matter refused to produce such a picture. They insisted that the universe must be either expanding or contracting. The only way Einstein could hold the model universe still, to mimic the appearance of the Milky Way, was to add an extra term to the equation, called the ‘cosmological constant’. (...) A dozen years later, observers, led by the pioneer Edwin Hubble in California, discovered that the Milky Way was not the entire universe, but simply one galaxy among many millions, and that distant galaxies are all receding from each other. The universe is expanding, exactly as the pure equations of general relativity predicted in 1917, when Einstein refused to believe the evidence of his own theory. There is no need for cosmological constant, and Einstein’s equations now provide the basis for the highly successful ‘big bang’ description of the birth and evolution of the entire universe ...’. (page 135, ‘Einstein: A Life in Science’ by Michael White & John Gribbin; published 1994 by Simon & Schuster Ltd).

RESPONDENT: So, I have been particularly interested in focusing on relativity excluding the big-bang theory – so that I could understand just exactly where you say relativity goes wrong.

RICHARD: In short: the universe is neither expanding nor contracting.

RESPONDENT: According to what you are saying now, you are saying that Einstein’s theory of relativity directly contradicts your experience, correct?

RICHARD: Correct.

RESPONDENT: So, I want to ask – specifically how does Einstein’s relativity alone contradict: 1) The universe is spatially infinite & 2) The universe is temporally eternal.

RICHARD: An expanding universe is neither spatially infinite nor temporally eternal.

*

RESPONDENT: Would you say that the theory of relativity is of such a nature that it could never possibly be confirmed?

RICHARD: As I am not a mathematician I will defer to Mr. Tom Van Flandern here (from the same page I previously quoted from): [quote]: ‘What we have just described are careful and correct inferences of SR [Einsteinian relativity] as applied to the twin’s paradox. This also shows the essentially mathematical nature of the theory, because it does violence to what we fondly call ‘common sense’. The most important point to note carefully is that *the theory is internally consistent, and no mathematical contradictions can be found* no matter how the transformation equations are manipulated, or how many frames or twins are introduced. The next important point to note is that SR makes demands on our credulity that LR [Lorentzian relativity] does not. Let’s examine why ...’. [emphasis added]. I would hazard a guess that it is well-nigh impossible to either confirm or disconfirm a mathematical theory which is internally consistent and (mathematically) non-contradictory. Which is perhaps why it has such a hold on otherwise intelligent peoples.

RESPONDENT: OK – I would just like to sum up what I understand of why you object to Einstein’s relativity:

1) It is a subjective theory.

2) Relativity is an abstraction, and as such cannot apply directly to the actual world, it is but a conceptual model.

3) There are other models that can fit the data, so no evidence can be conclusive for a given conceptual model.

4) Relativity denies the direct experience of eternity (how as of yet, I don’t know) and the direct experience of the infinity of space (how as of yet, I don’t know).

RICHARD: That pretty well sums up why Einsteinian relativity is irrelevant to actualism ... and I will take this opportunity to point out that if it were not for those who seek to disallow the direct experience of infinitude the matter would not be a topic on this mailing list.

I have had to research all manner of things for other people since I first went public with my discovery.

RESPONDENT: I would also like to point out that I understand that you are not necessarily advocating Mr Tom Van Flandern’s views on relativity – merely pointing out that there are as of yet competing conceptual models, but that to accept a conceptual model as True is but to trade in the actual for a mathematical / conceptual theory.

RICHARD: Yes ... and I am not necessarily advocating all of Mr. Paul Marmet’s claims either because I personally favour the ‘electric-cosmos’ hypothesis, also known as the ‘plasma-universe’ hypothesis, which is based upon the findings of Mr. Halton Arp, as it shows promise of being a far more fruitful line of investigation into what the nuts and bolts of the universe are than anything else I have come across so far.

‘Tis only an opinion, though.

March 30 2004

RICHARD (to Respondent No 53): <snipped> ... you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last.

RESPONDENT: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’?

RICHARD: The 521,697 words at the following URL: http://www.well.com/user/jct/index.html

RESPONDENT: Possibly you could define exactly what you mean by the word ‘spiritual’?

RICHARD: There is a simple way to ascertain whether the word means the same, or similar, to you as it does to me ... for example, would you say that Mr. Gaudapada (aka Mr. Gowdapada) qualifies as spiritual?

Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has, in part, to say:

• ‘[Advaita] has its historical beginning with the 7th-century thinker Gaudapada, author of the Mandukya-karika, a commentary in verse form on the late Mandukya Upanisad. Gaudapada builds further on the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of Sunyava-da (‘Emptiness’). He argues that there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through maya (‘illusion’); and only nonduality (advaita) is the final truth. This truth is concealed by the ignorance of illusion. There is no becoming, either of a thing by itself or of a thing out of some other thing. There is ultimately no individual self or soul (jiva), only the atman (all-soul), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

The reason why I provide that example is because of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about him:

• ‘The saints are trying to tell you, so they are always in the field of duality; whereas the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in the state of undivided consciousness. He does not know that he is a free man, so for him there is no question of trying to free others. He is just there, he talks about it, and then he goes. Gaudapada had no disciples – he refused to teach anybody’. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: (www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

And:

• ‘You must challenge what I am saying without the help of your so-called authorities. You just don’t have the guts to do that because you are relying upon the Gita, not upon yourself. That is why you will never be able to do it. If you have that courage, you are the only person who can falsify what I am saying. A great sage like Gowdapada can do it, but he is not here. You are merely repeating what Gowdapada and others have said. It is a worthless statement as far as you are concerned. If there were a living Gowdapada sitting here, he would be able to blast what I am saying, but not you’. (from Chapter Four, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

RESPONDENT: I did look up the word in the actualist glossary and found a few noteworthy statements: [quote] ‘As this is being written, only a handful of people have managed to become free of the Human Condition ...’ [endquote]. As it has recently been established that the number is 1 – that hardly constitutes a ‘handful’. Also, [quote] ‘... everyone – and I do mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook on life’ [endquote]. I’m curious what definition of ‘spiritual’ you are working with, Richard. Do you include all of ‘humanity’ as having a ‘spiritual’ outlook on life? So that even if someone says they are a ‘materialist’ or ‘atheist’ – they are actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise?

RICHARD: As I did not write the glossary article you are referring to – unless otherwise notated only the web pages with my name in the URL are written by me – your comment and queries would be better directed to Peter.

RESPONDENT: Also, specifically why do you say that No 53 is ‘spiritual?’

RICHARD: Mainly because he will not ... the most recent ‘advaita shuffle’ being but the latest demonstration.

March 31 2004

RESPONDENT: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’?

RICHARD: The 521,697 words at the following URL: [snip link].

RESPONDENT: Yes, I have read many of those words – yet am still not convinced that UG is clearly ‘spiritual’. He certainly does have affinities with ‘spiritual’ teachings – non-duality, the ‘search’ is the problem, ‘thought’ is your enemy, etc. Yet it is not clear at all that he believes in an individual soul or universal soul in any sense whatsoever. So – on the one hand he definitely has affinities with some teachings of ‘spiritualists’ – yet it isn’t clear there is any ‘spirit’ in or behind it all.

RICHARD: Are you familiar with the term ‘Sahaja Samadhi’ (in Sanskrit ‘together-born’ and ‘placed-together’) which is used to designate the natural state of non-duality/union?

If so, the following will be of interest:

• Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘For hours and hours I can sit here and watch the clock pendulum moving there – I can’t be bored – I really don’t know what it is. The pendulum is moving there – the whole of my being is that movement. For hours and hours I can sit here and look at it. You are not interested in that thing; you are interested in something else, some meditation. This individual is always in a state of meditation. ‘Where is that movement?’ I am wondering – that is the meditation that is going on. Not that I am wondering in the usual sense of the word; this individual remains in a state of wonder for the rest of his life. ‘Outside’ and ‘inside’ are created by thought. When there is no movement of thought, you don’t know whether it is inside or outside. This is just like a mirror. This is a live mirror reflecting things exactly as they are. There is nobody here: I don’t see anything; the whole of my body is reflecting things exactly the way they are out there.
The recognising and naming mechanism is in the background except when there is a need for it. This absence of the movement of thought which recognises and names things is the state of samadhi, sahaja (natural) samadhi. You imagine that samadhi is something he goes into and comes out of. Not at all; he’s always there. Whether the eyes of such a man are open or closed, he does not know what he is looking at.
A person who has come into such a state of samadhi is like a madman and a child rolled into one. Madcaps function in exactly the same way – the thoughts are disconnected, disjointed things, and so the actions are also disconnected, the feelings are also disconnected. But their thoughts are accompanied by hallucinations, mental images, seeing something that isn’t there – that’s the only difference. This state is always a state of wonder; he doesn’t know what he is looking at, he doesn’t know what he is smelling, and yet his senses are working at their peak capacities, extraordinarily sensitive, taking in everything. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: (www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

Apr 01 2004

RESPONDENT: ... I did look up the word [‘spiritual’] in the actualist glossary and found a few noteworthy statements: [quote] ‘As this is being written, only a handful of people have managed to become free of the Human Condition ...’ [endquote]. As it has recently been established that the number is 1 – that hardly constitutes a ‘handful’. Also, [quote] ‘... everyone – and I do mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook on life’ [endquote]. I’m curious what definition of ‘spiritual’ you are working with, Richard. Do you include all of ‘humanity’ as having a ‘spiritual’ outlook on life? So that even if someone says they are a ‘materialist’ or ‘atheist’ – they are actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise?

RICHARD: As I did not write the glossary article you are referring to – unless otherwise notated only the web pages with my name in the URL are written by me – your comment and queries would be better directed to Peter.

RESPONDENT: Perhaps they would be better directed to Peter ...

RICHARD: As I did not write the glossary article you are referring to there is no ‘perhaps’ about it ... your comment and queries would indeed be better directed to Peter.

RESPONDENT: ... yet when I wrote the above questions I was aware of the fact that you did not write the actualist entry for ‘spiritual.’ I was, and still am interested in your response to the above questions if you care to reply.

RICHARD: Sure ... in regards to what definition of the word ‘spiritual’ I was working with when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was not referring to what Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from. Vis.:

• [Peter]: ‘When I was leaving the spiritual world and began to really investigate what others had to say about the human condition, I was amazed to discover that everyone – and I do mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook on life. The spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc.

I was clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind ... not someone whose [quote] ‘spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc.’ [endquote].

In regards to me including all of humanity as having a spiritual outlook on life when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was, once again, clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind and not to such persons as Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from.

In regards to someone saying they are a materialist or atheist actually being spiritualists in disguise: I am not aware that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has ever said he is a materialist or an atheist ... as we have discussed before. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘U.G. is an atheist.
• [Richard]: ‘I sent the search function of this computer through the data-base of all his published words ... and quickly found this quote:

• Q: Are you a materialist?
• U.G.: I don’t know. People call me a materialist. People even go to the extent of calling me an atheist just because I say that God is irrelevant. But that does not mean that I am an atheist. (‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; Chapter Seven’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991: www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

It would appear that he does not want to be labelled. Here is another in this non-labelling vein:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... these labels that I am a pessimist and others are optimists do not really mean anything. They have put me into the framework of a pessimist, a nihilist, an atheist, and many others. How can you, for instance, call me a god-man when I sometimes go to the extent of saying that God is irrelevant? If I make a statement like that, I don’t mean that I am questioning the existence of God’. (‘No Way Out’, Chapter Three; Originally Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1991: www.well.com/user/jct/noway.htm).

Anybody that avoids labelling themselves end up, by default, leaving it to others to make their own appraisal (just as you did with ‘atheist’ and I did with ‘spiritual’). Speaking personally I find it much clearer, more up-front and honest to label myself so as to leave no need for speculative discussions, such as this one, when other peoples come across my writings.
I like my fellow human being and have no wish to make something simple into something complex.

RESPONDENT: Let me rephrase my query: Do you agree with the entry that everyone on the planet (excepting actualists) are ‘spiritualists?’

RICHARD: In order to understand what Peter is referring to it is essential to comprehend that he is using the word ‘spiritual’ as a catch-all word to describe that which is not material – the primary antonym for the word ‘spiritual’ in a dictionary is the word ‘material’ – and is best explained by his observation in his journal (page 86) that, when he met me, he realised that [quote] ‘Richard was the only atheist I had met and seemingly the only one that has ever been’. [endquote].

It is the same for a person who does not believe in the spiritualist’s soul, either (and no materialist does believe in one): not believing in a soul does not mean that ‘me’ as soul (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) has become extinct ... and that includes an actualist on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

And as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has made it abundantly clear on many an occasion that the instinctual passions are still operating then so too is ‘being’ itself still extant.

RESPONDENT: And ... if you agree with that statement, are ‘materialists’ and ‘atheists’ actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise?

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where Peter ever said that ... if you could provide the passage (or passages) it would be appreciated.

RESPONDENT: IF that were the case, it would seem that actualism might best be referred to as the 2nd alternative – as there really is no such thing as materialism. [quote] ‘materialism, n.: 1. Philosophy. The theory that physical matter is the only reality and that everything, including thought, feeling, mind, and will, can be explained in terms of matter and physical phenomena. 2. The theory or attitude that physical well-being and worldly possessions constitute the greatest good and highest value in life. 3. A great or excessive regard for worldly concerns. [endquote].

RICHARD: Ha ... I have already been down this path with another:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘... though it has been (as I have understood sensible) to discriminate between being worldly and spiritual at this point I do not longer find that a sensible discrimination.
• [Richard]: ‘The classifications ‘materialism’ and ‘spiritualism’ existed long before I was born ... I am merely keeping with that convention for the sake of both consistency and clarity in communication.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Given the fact that at large spiritual and political notions are so well blended that it seems that the one can/needs not be <accurately/sensibly> discriminated from the other. I for one find this aptly reflected in the rhetoric (albeit somewhat more or less pathetic) of most of the world leaders I have listened to. Thus the third alternative (this being actualism) I from now would like to consider as the second alternative thus possibly facilitating the choice to be made by aspirant students between the traditional ways (tried and proved to have been a failure) and a hitherto not existing alternative now named Actualism. If you have a different opinion as to this matter of discrimination naturally I would gladly take notice of.
• [Richard]: ‘Better than mere opinion I can state it as a fact that there is neither ‘materialism’ nor ‘spiritualism’ here in this actual world (the former being an illusion and the latter a delusion born out of the illusion).
Thus there is not even a ‘second alternative’ in actuality.

Apr 02 2004

RESPONDENT: ... when I wrote the above questions I was aware of the fact that you did not write the actualist entry for ‘spiritual.’ I was, and still am interested in your response to the above questions if you care to reply.

RICHARD: Sure ... in regards to what definition of the word ‘spiritual’ I was working with when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was not referring to what Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from. Vis.:

• [Peter]: ‘When I was leaving the spiritual world and began to really investigate what others had to say about the human condition, I was amazed to discover that everyone – and I do mean everyone – has a spiritual outlook on life. The spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc. Peter’s Journal, Spiritual Search

I was clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind ... not someone whose [quote] ‘spiritual viewpoint permeates philosophy, science, medicine, education, psychology, law, etc.’ [endquote]. In regards to me including all of humanity as having a spiritual outlook on life when I said to another ‘you are not the first to be sucked into thinking that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is non-spiritual and, presumably, will not be the last’ I was, once again, clearly referring to a person who actively sought – and attained – the spiritual solution to all the ills of humankind and not to such persons as Peter wrote about in the glossary article you quoted from.

RESPONDENT: OK, I see that you are saying that Peter was using ‘spiritual’ in a different, broader sense of the word than when you were referring to Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. So even though most everyone on the planet is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of being under the illusion of being an identity – thus metaphysical, not everyone is ‘spiritual’ in the sense of believing in somebody or something supernatural. Correct?

RICHARD: What Peter realised very early in the piece was that, as long as the flesh and blood body hosted an affective ‘being’, an intuitive ‘presence’ which is the instinctual passions in action, there was no way that anyone – and he means anyone – can actually be non-spiritual ... even though they do not believe either in a god or truth (by whatever name) or a post-mortem soul or spirit (by whatever name).

This may be an apt moment to re-post something I wrote early last year:

• [Richard]: ‘... I am yet to meet an atheist who does not ponder, when questioned deeply, whether there may be something substantive post-mortem after all. For example, many years ago I went to see an accredited psychiatrist and established right from the beginning that he be an atheistic materialist – he said emphatically upon being questioned rather rigorously in this regard that everything was molecular (material) and modifications of same including consciousness itself – because another psychiatrist I had previously seen was exigently talking about guardian angels looking after me within the first five minutes of our discussion ... yet when regaling this second psychiatrist of my on-going experiencing of life in this actual world his eyes opened in awe as the full import (of what he heard) struck home and he said ‘you may very well be the next Buddha we have all been waiting for’.
I kid you not ...’

Not only is Buddhism known, in some quarters at least, as an atheistic philosophy so too is Jainism – the tradition that Mr. Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain was brought up in – thus not only do some Buddhists classify themselves as atheists so too do more than a few people known nowadays as ‘Friends of Osho’ (neé ‘Rajneeshee’).

As do some of those who read about/listen to what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say.

*

RICHARD: In regards to someone saying they are a materialist or atheist actually being spiritualists in disguise: I am not aware that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has ever said he is a materialist or an atheist ... as we have discussed before. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘U.G. is an atheist.
• [Richard]: ‘I sent the search function of this computer through the data-base of all his published words ... and quickly found this quote:

• Q: Are you a materialist?
• U.G.: I don’t know. People call me a materialist. People even go to the extent of calling me an atheist just because I say that God is irrelevant. But that does not mean that I am an atheist. (‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; Chapter Seven’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991: www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

It would appear that he does not want to be labelled. Here is another in this non-labelling vein:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... these labels that I am a pessimist and others are optimists do not really mean anything. They have put me into the framework of a pessimist, a nihilist, an atheist, and many others. How can you, for instance, call me a god-man when I sometimes go to the extent of saying that God is irrelevant? If I make a statement like that, I don’t mean that I am questioning the existence of God’. (‘No Way Out’, Chapter Three; Originally Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1991: www.well.com/user/jct/noway.htm).

Anybody that avoids labelling themselves end up, by default, leaving it to others to make their own appraisal (just as you did with ‘atheist’ and I did with ‘spiritual’). Speaking personally I find it much clearer, more up-front and honest to label myself so as to leave no need for speculative discussions, such as this one, when other peoples come across my writings.
I like my fellow human being and have no wish to make something simple into something complex.

RESPONDENT: Right, and it’s still not clear to me exactly where UG ‘stands’ – if he ‘stands’ anywhere at all.

RICHARD: As he is talking from the very state he refers to it is not a stand – in the typical connotation of that word – but rather a description/explanation of that state, as it is happening, then it is the nature, or character, of that state which is still not clear to you ... and not whether he is in a state at all.

Or is it that it is still not clear to you if he is in a state at all?

RESPONDENT: I do recall bringing some information outside of his texts to them when I first read them – that was that I met of of UG’s friends on a weekend retreat about 4 years ago with Bernadette Roberts. UG’s friend (if my memory is correct) stated pretty strongly that UG is an atheist, so it is entirely possible that I read his words with that in mind.

RICHARD: It could be possible that the person who stated it strongly may have meant ‘atheist’ in the same way that those of a certain buddhistic persuasion (as described further above) mean it ... whatever the case may be it certainly does look like that is where you gained that impression from because it is not borne out anywhere in what he has to describe/explain about himself.

RESPONDENT: What I am mainly uncertain of is whether his references to not questioning the existence of God and reticence at accepting the label of an atheist is due to not wanting to be labelled, or rather as it sometimes seems that maybe he is agnostic – or even spiritual as you say.

RICHARD: Perhaps this may be of some assistance:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... You see, if there is no answer, the question can’t stay there. You are waiting for an answer either from outside or from inside. When both these areas prove to be of no use at all, what happens to that question? The rejection is not because I don’t agree with the statements or experiences of others, but because they are not valid as far as I am concerned. So, it may be true, but it is not valid, so I reject them all. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

What he is explaining, both before and after that passage, is that the questioner has to come to an end – that it is the questioner who creates the answer, and the questioner comes into being from the answer, otherwise there is no questioner – therefore he rejects all questions/answers whether he agrees with the statements or experiences of others or not ... not because they are not true but because they are not valid, as far as he is concerned.

He gives a very faithful description/explanation of this process, in regards a clock pendulum, in the longer quote I posted recently in another thread ... perhaps if you were to re-read it bearing in mind what he says above it may become more clear.

And this should help as well:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... When I say ‘understanding’, ‘seeing’, they mean something different to me. Understanding is *a state of being* where the question isn’t there any more; there is nothing there that says ‘now I understand!’ – that’s the basic difficulty between us. By understanding what I am saying, you are not going to get anywhere. [emphasis added]. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

*

RESPONDENT: Let me rephrase my query: Do you agree with the entry that everyone on the planet (excepting actualists) are ‘spiritualists?’

RICHARD: In order to understand what Peter is referring to it is essential to comprehend that he is using the word ‘spiritual’ as a catch-all word to describe that which is not material – the primary antonym for the word ‘spiritual’ in a dictionary is the word ‘material’ – and is best explained by his observation in his journal (page 86) that, when he met me, he realised that [quote] ‘Richard was the only atheist I had met and seemingly the only one that has ever been’ [endquote].

It is the same for a person who does not believe in the spiritualist’s soul, either (and no materialist does believe in one): not believing in a soul does not mean that ‘me’ as soul (aka ‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself) has become extinct ... and that includes an actualist on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition.

And as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has made it abundantly clear on many an occasion that the instinctual passions are still operating then so too is ‘being’ itself still extant.

RESPONDENT: I am getting a much better idea why you call UG ‘spiritual’. Not only does he share some ideas with ‘spiritualists’ like thought is the enemy, the ‘search’ is the problem, Buddha was in a state of undivided awareness, etc. – but ‘being’ is still operating, which means that his experience is still metaphysical – not actual – thus in some sense ‘spiritual’.

RICHARD: Exactly ... and, as he says in the latter quote I posted (further above), that his understanding, his seeing, is a state of being (and thus not intellectual/ cognitive but affective/ intuitive) it can only be some variation of an altered state of consciousness (ASC).

*

RESPONDENT: And ... if you agree with that statement, are ‘materialists’ and ‘atheists’ actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise?

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where Peter ever said that ... if you could provide the passage (or passages) it would be appreciated.

RESPONDENT: I do not mean to imply that Peter said that. It is a natural inference ...

1) Everyone but Richard is ‘spiritual.’

2) There are ‘materialists’ other than Richard.

3) ‘Spiritualists’ and ‘materialists’ are normally mutually exclusive.

4) Therefore, ‘materialists’ are actually ‘spiritualists’ in disguise.

I do understand after your explanation of Peter’s usage of the word ‘spiritual’ though that it would not necessarily be exclusive of being a ‘materialist’ – since his usage was a broader sense – more likely a synonym for ‘metaphysical’.

RICHARD: I cannot say I follow your points 1-4 (especially No. 2) but it does not really matter as the issue now seems to be satisfactorily clarified ... I could add, however, that because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook (to use the more likely synonym).

Just as a matter of related interest: has all this thrown some more light upon the topic of atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians and their cosmogonical and/or cosmological theories?

*

RESPONDENT: Just as a matter of interest – how do you normally use the word ‘materialist’? Do you use it to mean ‘someone who believes there is only matter’ – or ‘someone who pursues ‘worldly’ possessions and concerns as their highest value in life’? I find that the word normally straddles those two meanings (the second blending 2 and 3 from the above definition) – yet those two meanings can mean 2 quite different things. For example, you cannot have ‘someone who believes there is only matter’ who also ‘believes in the divine’. (A spiritual materialist). But you can have ‘someone who believes in the divine’ who ‘pursues worldly possessions and concerns as their highest value in life.’ (A materialistic spiritualist).

RICHARD: I have located the following exchange:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘As I see AF is a mix of materialism, spirituality (in a good way, no nonsense), atheism, and nihilism.
• [Richard]: ‘Hmm ... materialism, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a chance, random event in an otherwise empty (meaningless) universe; spirituality, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is a purposeful manifestation by or of the supreme being who created or creates the universe; atheism, as a generalisation, typically holds that, as there is no such supreme being, ethical considerations and human love and/or compassion – instead of moral dictates and divine love and/or compassion – are the way to live (somewhat) peacefully and harmoniously; and nihilism, as a generalisation, typically holds that life is whatever one makes of it and, as it is all pointless anyway, the only true philosophical question is whether to commit suicide, or not, and if so, then whether now or later.
As actualism is none of the above (bearing in mind that they are all generalisations) then whatever ‘mix’ it is that you are seeing it has nothing to do with what is on offer on The Actual Freedom Trust web site.

As well as that I also favour the following definition:

• ‘materialist: an adherent of materialism [the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications; also, the doctrine that consciousness and will are wholly due to the operation of material agencies]; a person who takes a material [relating to the physical as opposed to the spiritual] view of things or who favours material possessions and physical comfort. (Oxford Dictionary).

April 09 2004

RESPONDENT: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’? Possibly you could define exactly what you mean by the word ‘spiritual’?

RICHARD: There is a simple way to ascertain whether the word means the same, or similar, to you as it does to me ... for example, would you say that Mr. Gaudapada (aka Mr. Gowdapada) qualifies as spiritual?

RESPONDENT: Yes. The reason is because of his belief in a Soul, souls, or spirit in some sense.

RICHARD: Oh? I will refer you to the following exchange:

• [Respondent]: ‘... it’s still not clear to me exactly where UG ‘stands’ – if he ‘stands’ anywhere at all.
• [Richard]: ‘As he is talking from the very state he refers to it is not a stand – in the typical connotation of that word – but rather a description/ explanation of that state, as it is happening, then it is the nature, or character, of that state which is still not clear to you ... and not whether he is in a state at all.
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes, this makes sense.
• [Richard]: ‘Or is it that it is still not clear to you if he is in a state at all?
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes, it is clear that he MUST be in a ‘state’.

Would you say that Mr. Gaudapada was in a state? Or would you say he was in what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti calls ‘the field of duality’ (immediately below)?

*

RICHARD: The reason why I provide that example is because of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about him: [quote] ‘The saints are trying to tell you, so they are always in the field of duality; whereas the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in the state of undivided consciousness. He does not know that he is a free man, so for him there is no question of trying to free others. He is just there, he talks about it, and then he goes. Gaudapada had no disciples – he refused to teach anybody’. [endquote]. And: [quote] ‘You must challenge what I am saying without the help of your so-called authorities. You just don’t have the guts to do that because you are relying upon the Gita, not upon yourself. That is why you will never be able to do it. If you have that courage, you are the only person who can falsify what I am saying. A great sage like Gowdapada can do it, but he is not here. You are merely repeating what Gowdapada and others have said. It is a worthless statement as far as you are concerned. If there were a living Gowdapada sitting here, he would be able to blast what I am saying, but not you’.

RESPONDENT: OK, so you are saying that since UG says that Gowdapada can falsify his [UG’s] words, and that he was a ‘great’ sage means that UG is spiritual?

RICHARD: In the first passage (further above) he clearly says [quote] ‘the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in *the state of undivided consciousness*’. [emphasis added] ... would you say that Mr. Gowdapada, whom Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti says is ‘a great sage’, was in such a state?

If so it is pertinent to see how Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti describes his own state:

• ‘All these visions and everything were happening for three years after the ‘calamity’. Now the whole thing is finished. The divided state of consciousness cannot function at all any more; it is always in *the undivided state of consciousness* – nothing can touch that. [emphasis added]. (from Part One, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

To not put too fine a point on it: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has defined Mr. Gowdapada with the label ‘great sage’ (and others like him with the labels ‘sage’ or ‘seer’) because he – and they – are not in what he calls ‘the field of duality’ but are in what he calls ‘the state of undivided consciousness’ ... has he not?

Is his report of himself (with ‘the divided state of consciousness’ no longer functioning and thus always being in ‘the undivided state of consciousness’) all that markedly different that he would not apply the same labels to himself had he not painted himself into a corner with some weird thou-shalt-not-label-thyself/thou-shalt-not-define-thyself rule?

Here is another one:

• ‘In this state [the natural state] there is *no division*. Our situation is that I cannot transmit and you cannot receive that fact. In addition to it, you have gone one step further and created a more complex problem for yourself by placing *the undivided state* outside yourself as you are; this means search. [emphases added]. (from Chapter Three, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

The Encyclopaedia Britannica article I part-quoted from (now snipped) reports Mr. Gaudapada as saying words to the effect that [quote] ‘... there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through maya (‘illusion’); and only nonduality (advaita) is the final truth’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘there is ultimately no individual self or soul (jiva), only the atman (all-soul), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space’ [endquote].

Here is what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about Atman (aka Jivatman) being Brahman (aka Paramatman) when time is not there (aka the timeless state):

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... there is nothing to happen. Happening is in time. When time is not there, there is no happening, nothing to happen there. Atman is Brahman – that is exactly what it means – the Brahman you want in the future is already here; there is nothing to happen here. Achieving (it doesn’t matter what you call it) is in time, so it is bound to be caught up in cause and effect. You want to produce a result, but this is not a result, not a happening, not an achievement. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

Maybe it does take one (albeit an ex-one) to know one ... but is this really all that difficult to comprehend that you cannot see it for yourself?

April 09 2004

RESPONDENT: A related point – what do you make of UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination?’ I haven’t read him in a while, but I remember that was one of the things I took note of when I read him a couple years ago.

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where he says that ... if you could provide the passages it would be most appreciated.

April 09 2004

RICHARD: Here is what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about Atman (aka Jivatman) being Brahman (aka Paramatman) when time is not there (aka the timeless state): [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... there is nothing to happen. Happening is in time. When time is not there, there is no happening, nothing to happen there. Atman is Brahman – that is exactly what it means – the Brahman you want in the future is already here; there is nothing to happen here. Achieving (it doesn’t matter what you call it) is in time, so it is bound to be caught up in cause and effect. You want to produce a result, but this is not a result, not a happening, not an achievement. [endquote]. Maybe it does take one (albeit an ex-one) to know one ... but is this really all that difficult to comprehend that you cannot see it for yourself?

RESPONDENT: This last quote prompted me to go back and read part of ‘The Mystique of Enlightenment’. There are places where he discounts any talk of Atman or Brahman, but I think you have aided me in understanding better what he is getting at. He is like J Krishnamurti in many, many ways (though there are marked differences as well). He is like him in the sense that he discounts religious belief held by anybody with an ‘I’ still outstanding, but then gives them a new meaning or attempts to go back to the ‘original’ meaning as born in his experience – rather than belief.

RICHARD: Yes – with all due allowance for using the word ‘experience’ – that hits the nail right on the head.

RESPONDENT: My point being that Atman and Brahman are ‘laughable’ (for UG) when considered as beliefs or thoughts or pursuits or concepts from a ‘divided consciousness’ – but they are exactly spot on when experienced as UG says.

RICHARD: Again with all due allowance for using the word ‘experienced’ ... yes, that is indeed the point.

*

RESPONDENT: It strikes me (and I have wondered about this before) – that there is a kind of solipsism of experience going on here – as in much of the spiritual literature on enlightenment and non-duality.

Douglas Harding expresses it quite well in his idea of ‘having no head’. I heard Bernadette Roberts put it exactly that way – and I also see it in UG’s statements about not being aware of his body. The ‘experience’ might be characterized by a consciousness being unable to reflect upon itself as to have ‘self’-consciousness – which is why they make so much of it being a non-experience.

Ludwig Wittgenstein made this a dominant theme in his life and writing as well. It is an extreme scepticism about thought and knowledge that J Krishnamurti shares to some extent with UG, Wittgenstein, Bernadette Roberts, Douglas Harding, and probably most spiritualists – which is why the limits of knowledge is so important to them. JK talked about intelligence awakening when it discovers it’s limits – UG has similar themes, BR identifies greatly with the ‘Cloud of Unknowing’ and makes much of unknowing, and Wittgenstein was instrumental in giving birth to the current spirit of postmodernism where doubt and scepticism are trusted more highly than common sense knowledge.

I’m going on here, but I’m just writing as it occurs to me. The common theme is that reflective consciousness no longer comes into play in this state. The world doesn’t really have a past or future (only timelessness), there is no ‘self’, objects appear flat (no-3D), no ‘attachment’ to the past or future since they don’t exist, all that exists is what is given to present experience – everything else is ‘unknown’.

Take that formula and turn in into a life and you get UG’s undivided consciousness.

RICHARD: Yes ... an ‘undivided consciousness’ means there is, literally, no observer and the observed (aka subject and object) – the observer is the observed (aka ‘Tat Tvam Asi’/‘Thou Art That’) – wherein there is only observation (aka witnessing).

In a word: solipsism.

RESPONDENT: Could it be this easy? Undivided Consciousness = Solipsism of Present (non-reflexive) Consciousness?

RICHARD: It is indeed that easy (although even the word ‘Present’ becomes nonsensical as it is a timeless state).

RESPONDENT: I don’t know if you understand what I’m getting at, but I’m beginning to wonder whether you have a big smile of recognition on your face indicating that you understand it all too well – as in what you lived through?

RICHARD: Indeed so ... and it is why I am responding to this e-mail ahead of the others awaiting my attention.

RESPONDENT: Is this also be the reason why you sniff out solipsism wherever it rears it’s ugly head, because of the relationship between solipsism and spiritual realization?

RICHARD: Yes, phrases such as ‘we are all one’ (as in an oceanic feeling of oneness) are meant to be taken literally (as in ‘there is no other’) ... as is ‘I Am That’ (not the ego-‘I’ though) or ‘Thou Art That’ meant to be taken literally.

And if the mystic is really coy (which I was) they say ‘There is only That’ – hence the ‘Anatta’ (‘No-Self’) doctrine of Buddhism – and either decline to comment on after-death states or declare there is no such thing as death (such as I did).

To awaken in the dream is to be but dreaming lucidly ... and is not to be taken as being awake.

April 13 2004

RESPONDENT: I do understand after your explanation of Peter’s usage of the word ‘spiritual’ though that it would not necessarily be exclusive of being a ‘materialist’ – since his usage was a broader sense – more likely a synonym for ‘metaphysical’.

RICHARD: ... I could add, however, that because of ‘being’ itself an atheistic materialist cannot help but be, to some degree at least, metaphysical in outlook (to use the more likely synonym). Just as a matter of related interest: has all this thrown some more light upon the topic of atheistic and/or materialistic physicists and/or mathematicians and their cosmogonical and/or cosmological theories?

RESPONDENT: Yes, very much so. Mainly – by clarifying that ‘spiritual’ is sometimes used synonymously with ‘metaphysical’.

RICHARD: As the word ‘metaphysical’ can mean, for example, ‘of or relating to the transcendent or to a reality beyond what is perceptible to the senses’ (Merriam-Webster Dictionary) it is not all that remarkable it is sometimes used synonymously with the word ‘spiritual’.

RESPONDENT: Mostly, though it clarifies much of what Peter has written about what it is to be ‘spiritual’ – that I thought [at the time] would be better called ‘metaphysical’.

RICHARD: The word ‘metaphysical’ (of, belonging to, or of the nature of metaphysics) comes from the Greek phrase ‘ta meta ta phusika’ – literally ‘the (works) after the physical (works)’ – which is derived from the title of Mr. Aristotle’s treatise on the subject (from its position in his collected works) and refers to the fundamental nature of reality and being.

Here is what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say, in its article on metaphysics, on the origins of the term:

• ‘[the term metaphysics] means ‘what comes after physics’; it was the phrase used by early students of Aristotle to refer to the contents of Aristotle’s treatise on what he himself called ‘first philosophy’, and was used as the title of this treatise by Andronicus of Rhodes, one of the first of Aristotle’s editors. Aristotle had distinguished two tasks for the philosopher: first, to investigate the nature and properties of what exists in the natural, or sensible, world, and second, to explore the characteristics of ‘Being as such’ and to inquire into the character of ‘the substance that is free from movement’, or the most real of all things, the intelligible reality on which everything in the world of nature was thought to be causally dependent.
The first [task] constituted ‘second philosophy’ and was carried out primarily in the Aristotelian treatise now known as the Physica; the second [task], which Aristotle had also referred to as ‘theology’ (because God was the unmoved mover in his system), is roughly the subject matter of his Metaphysica. (...) the connection marked in the original titles is a genuine one: the inquiries about nature carried out in the Physica lead on naturally to the more fundamental inquiries about Being as such that are taken up in the Metaphysica and indeed go along with the latter to make up a single philosophical discipline.
The background to Aristotle’s divisions is to be found in the thought of Plato, with whom Aristotle had many disagreements but whose basic ideas provided a framework within which much of his own thinking was conducted. Plato, following the early Greek philosopher Parmenides, who is known as the father of metaphysics ...’. (©1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

The use of the term ‘Being’ in metaphysics – popularly used to indicate any absolute or supreme being held to be the uncaused/uncreated source of everything/underlying reality – may also have its beginnings per favour of Mr. Parmenides, of the Eleatic School in the Greek colony of Elea in southern Italy in the fifth century BCE, as the Encyclopaedia Britannica has this to say:

• ‘Parmenides held that the multiplicity of existing things, their changing forms and motion, are but an appearance of a single eternal reality (‘Being’), thus giving rise to the Parmenidean principle that ‘all is one’. (...) The only true reality is Eon – pure, eternal, immutable, and indestructible Being, without any other qualification. (...) In Fragment 8, verse 5, Parmenides said that the absolute Being ‘neither was nor will be, because it is in its wholeness now, and only now’. Thus, its presence lasts untouched by any variation in time; for no one can find a genesis for it, either from another being (for it is itself already the totality of Being) or from a Not-Being (for this does not exist at all)’. (© 1994-2002 Encyclopaedia Britannica).

Even though metaphysics has been spiritual from the very beginning, and in the long run it really does not matter which term is used to describe the instinctive/intuitive outlook of ‘me’ as soul (‘me’ at the core of ‘my’ being ... which is ‘being’ itself), the usage of the word ‘spiritual’ as Peter means it – ‘of, pertaining to, or affecting the spirit or soul’ (Oxford Dictionary) – it is more direct and to the point.

RESPONDENT: It also goes a long way towards understanding how someone can be an atheist, yet ‘spiritual’ at the same time.

RICHARD: Yes ... which is why I have classified myself in the following way on many an occasion:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘God is the doer – he acts through me and through you.
• [Richard]: ‘Your god may very well act through you ... but I can assure you that no god acts through me: I am a thorough-going atheist through and through. There is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality, mysticality or metaphysicality in me whatsoever.
I am an actualist ... not a spiritualist.

Here is another instance:

• [Richard]: ‘... I am a thorough-going atheist through and through; there is not the slightest trace of religiosity, spirituality or mysticality in me whatsoever. To be actually free of the human condition is to be sans ‘I’ as ego (the ‘thinker’) and ‘me’ as soul (the ‘feeler’) which is to be this flesh and blood body being apperceptively aware. And where there is no ‘I’ as ego and ‘me’ as soul (no psyche) there is no imaginative/intuitive faculty ... hence no ‘this other ‘mind’’ metaphysical projection [you refer to].
It is all so simple here in this actual world.

April 30 2004

RESPONDENT: Some thoughts on what it means to be ‘spiritual’.

On the one hand, being ‘spiritual’ can mean believing in a god, truth (by whatever name), the afterlife, etc. i.e. – belief in the supernatural.

On the other hand, being ‘spiritual’ can refer to an attitude or outlook on life which values such things as family, community and community service, a feeling of unity with the universe and all peoples and beings.

It is this second sense of the word ‘spiritual’ that everyone inevitably shares to some extent. As a feeling being ‘I’ cannot help but attempt to unite my ‘self’ with other ‘selves’ for security and fortification. It is ‘my’ very nature to do so.

I used to attend a Unitarian Universalist church some years ago where ‘spiritual beliefs’ were de-emphasized and the ‘spiritual outlook’ was the focus. In other words, what Unitarian Universalists have done is to strip away ‘spiritual’ beliefs from the ‘spiritual’ outlook everyone shares to some extent and attempt to use this commonality to be ‘tolerant’ of the various diverging spiritual beliefs, so that everyone lives under the same roof relatively peacefully – as long as it is agreed that shared spirituality and values are what is really important, as opposed to the particular beliefs people have (Agnosticism and Doubt are Virtues). This way, the unity amongst peoples can be felt, and the atrocities and indulgences of various religions and philosophies and teachings can be ignored, as long as the essential ‘spirituality’ is sanctified.

Not too long ago, I attended a single Humanist meeting. I was surprised to find out that on the one hand, spiritual beliefs were shunned as primitive belief, yet ‘spirituality’ (as in community, connection with all beings, etc) was quite important. So, even in a room where I presume were mostly atheists, spirituality was accepted and sacrosanct.

As I see it, this is the reason why it is an important insight that virtually everyone is ‘spiritual’ at least in their desire to connect with others, the truth, the universe, or whatever. It is the ‘real’ existence of the psychic web which makes the feeling of unity possible and the search for this unity in whatever form the essence of the ‘spiritual’.

RICHARD: There are times where I am particularly pleased when something comes into my mail-box ... this is one of them.

May 02 2004

RESPONDENT: A related point – what do you make of UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination’? I haven’t read him in a while, but I remember that was one of the things I took note of when I read him a couple years ago.

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where he says that ... if you could provide the passages it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: [UG] ‘There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end. I don’t know how to put it. The absence of imagination, the absence of will, the absence of effort, the absence of all movement in any direction, on any level, in any dimension – that is the thing’. (from Mystique of Enlightenment Pt 4).

RICHARD: Oh, so that is what you meant by ‘UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination’’ ... I had, of course, done a word-search for the word ‘imagination’ when you first asked me what I make of such claims (which is why I said I had been unable to find where he says that) and had already come across that instance. Here is the other occasion where he says imagination must go:

• ‘How can you understand that silence – chaotic or otherwise? Is it possible for you to capture that silence? When that silence starts operating through you, it is something extraordinary, something vital and living. This structure which is trying to understand the nature of it, capture it, contain it or give expression to it, cannot co-exist with it. The difficulty is you seem to know a lot about this state – you have imagination. You imagine it to be what is described as ‘Silence is Brahman’ and begin to think about it. This imagination must go. That [silence] is something living and the structure which is trying to capture it is a dead structure. (from Book Two, ‘Stopped In Our Tracks’; by K. Chandrasekhar: www.well.com/user/jct/stopped.htm).

Nowhere could I find an instance of him stating he has no imagination.

Did you read what was being talked about before he said [quote] ‘There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end’ [endquote] so as to find out what it was that the other person seemed to know that occasioned him to say there is no such thing as experience?

Put briefly it was about ‘extraordinary’ experiences/‘profound’ experiences/‘sudden expansion of consciousness’ experiences ... none of which experiences, he says, means anything. Then there is this informative observation:

• ‘The realisation dawns on you that those experiences, however profound they may be, aren’t worth anything, that’s all. You may be in a blissful state – even after that ‘calamity’ you have blissful states, ecstatic states, a sudden melting away of everything that is there – it doesn’t mean anything. You experience, I experience – what is the difference? In India holy people experience some petty little thing called a ‘blissful state’ or the ‘absence of body consciousness’ and they think something marvellous is happening’. [endquote].

It would appear that imagination still operates for him (as well as the ability to experience), eh? Also, further up that page, he says that knowledge must come to an end:

• ‘All questions are variations of the same question; they are not different questions. How earnest are you? How serious are you? How badly do you want the answer to that question? A question is born out of the answers that you already know. You want to know what my state is and make it part of knowledge, your knowledge, i.e. the tradition; but knowledge must come to an end. How can you understand this simple thing? Your wanting to know only adds momentum to your knowledge. It is not possible to know what this is, because knowledge is still there and is gathering momentum. The continuity of knowledge is all you are interested in. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

As he obviously still has knowledge (even though he also says it must come to an end) there is no reason to infer that he has no imagination just because he similarly says it too must come to an end.

It would appear that he is talking about [quote] ‘the continuity of knowledge’ [endquote] as being a product of imagination and that it is this that must come to an end (more on this below).

*

RESPONDENT: Also ... [quote] ‘I give you the example of what a friend wanted me to do when I was in a hill resort in India. He said that when he reached the top of a particular mountain then he would have a 360 degree view of the whole place. So he dragged me up to the top. Unwillingly, hesitantly, I pushed myself to the top of that hill and tried to experience what he called a 360 degree view of the whole place. I said to myself, ‘That fellow is kidding himself and imagining things. How is it possible to experience the 360 degree view of this place? I can see only 180 degrees. So what he thinks he is experiencing is born out of his own imagination’. This (pointing to himself) is singularly incapable of creating images. Translating the sensory perceptions into images is the cultural input there. When my eyes are not looking at you, there is no way that this organism (pointing to himself) can create the image of what you look like. The problem is the creation of images which is born out of our imagination and mostly out of what is put in there by our culture’. (Thought Is Your Enemy, Chapter 3).

RICHARD: Again in this instance he is talking about imagination as the continuity of knowledge (as in ‘the totality of experiences’) coming to an end because in the paragraph immediately before this one you have provided he explains that [quote] ‘What I am trying to put across to those who are interested in listening to what I have to say is that there is no such thing as the totality of experiences. Memory is in frames.’ [endquote] ... and the example he then goes on to give (of the 360 degree view incident you quoted) amply illustrates this latter point as, quite obviously, no human eyes have a 360 degree panoramic vision.

Plus he also provides, two paragraphs later, the example of a movie camera capturing whatever is happening in frames as a simile.

As for the second part of the (above) quote regarding images: he clearly states, on various other occasions, that he has no ability to create images ... for example:

• ‘Knowledge creates images. But there is no way that this physical functioning can create any image. The moment I turn to this side, the whole thing on the other side is wiped out. (...) You [the person he is talking to] disappear, because the eyes are not looking at you but at him or at that chair or at whatever they are focusing themselves on. But if he asks me, ‘Wasn’t she pretty?’ ‘pretty’ is a word, not an image. Do you understand? ‘She is very ‘sharp’’. Another word. I will talk about you in words, and it is a word-picture. But the images, the physical images are totally absent. The so-called psychological images have no place in the scheme of things. The eyes are like a camera. If you turn the camera from what it is looking at to something else, the whole thing where it was focused on earlier is wiped out. And what is there in the computer (pointing to his head) is only the word-picture, and probably the sounds. (...) The word-picture is here. That is all I give – a word-picture. If I am not looking at you, I cannot create any image, because the eye is not focused on you. The problem is very simple. I don’t know what you look like as I have no way of creating the image inside of me. (from Chapter Eleven, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

And:

• ‘U.G. is drawing a detailed map of an area in London. This is to help me find the book shops I would like to visit while I’m there. I’m quite amazed by this seventy-seven year old man’s memory. It has not faded with time. Not a trace of senility here. ‘No images for me. When I draw the HMV Shop on the map, I don’t have an image of it inside of me. All I have is just a word. You can’t understand what I am saying. If you did, it would put an end to you’. Marisa, who is also listening to what U.G. is saying, turns to me and unhesitantly says, ‘We don’t have to use all that U.G. says, Mahesh. If we did, that would put an end to our art. No painting for me, buddy, and no movies for you. Can you imagine living a life without being able to recreate images? Who the hell wants this? It would be a terrible life’. And to this U.G. adds, ‘Not only would you not be able to paint. You would not be able to have any relationship with anything or anybody’. (from ‘A Taste of Death’ by Mahesh Bhatt: www.well.com/user/jct/mahesh.html)

RESPONDENT: Incidentally, as I think I stated previously ... Bernadette Roberts (BR) made the comment to me that she has no imagination as well.

RICHARD: Yes ... what you previously said was [quote] ‘On my weekend with Bernadette Roberts, I took note of the fact that she also stated her imagination was extinct’. [endquote].

As I have no text to go by I am unable to ascertain whether she did, in fact, say her imagination was extinct, or in any other way specifically state she has no imagination whatsoever, so all I am left with is that, as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does not say that imagination is extinct for him either, or in any other way specifically state he has no imagination whatsoever, whatever it was that she was conveying to you it may not be what you remember it to be.

RESPONDENT: There are a good deal of similarities between UG and BR that I won’t go into now.

RICHARD: Okay ... it may be helpful to bear in mind, when you consider what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and Ms. Bernadette Roberts have to say about imagination, that what they are describing is how a timeless state functions and that it is the memory of the sequence of events which creates the impression of what normal people experience as time (as in past/present/future).

In other words, what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti refers to as ‘the continuity of knowledge’/‘the totality of experiences’.

October 24 2005

RESPONDENT: Richard, I have been considering what people mean by ‘free-will’ or ‘freedom of choice’, etc.

RICHARD: You may find the following to be of interest:

• [Co-Respondent]: ‘You think you have free will?
• [Richard]: ‘No.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘What determines your actions?
• [Richard]: ‘The situation and the circumstances in the world of people, things and events’.

And:

• [Richard]: ‘The ego – or even the soul as pure spirit – is not to be confused with will. The bodily needs are what motivates will – and will is nothing more grand than the nerve-organising data-correlating ability of the body – and it is will that is essential in order to operate and function ... not an identity. Will is an organising process, an activity of the brain that correlates all the information and data that streams through the bodily senses. Will is not a ‘thing’, a subjectively substantial passionate ‘object’, like the identity is. Will, freed of the encumbrance of the ego and soul – which are born out of instinctual fear and aggression and nurture and desire – can operate smoothly, with actual sagacity. The operation of this freed will, is called intelligence. This intelligence is the body’s native intelligence ... and has naught to do with any disembodied ‘Intelligence behind the Universe’ It is a joy to be me going about my business with freed-will in this wonderful physical world’. (page 76, Article 10; ‘Richard’s Journal’; Second Edition ©2004 The Actual Freedom Trust).

RESPONDENT: I had a vague recollection of you saying something about the subject – so I dug up the following quote:

[Richard]: ‘One can argue about a belief, an opinion, a theory, an ideal and so on ... but a fact: never. One can deny a fact – pretend that it is not there – but once seen, a fact brings freedom from choice and decision. Most people think and feel that choice implies freedom – having the freedom to choose – but this is not the case. Freedom lies in seeing the obvious, and *in seeing the obvious there is no choice, no deliberation, no agonising over the ‘Right’ and ‘Wrong’ judgment. In the freedom of seeing the fact there is only action*. [My emphasis].

The context isn’t relevant for my question, so I will leave off a link to the text, especially since it can be easily located in many places on the actualism website. My question for you is whether, being actually free from the human condition, you experience making a ‘choice’ at all or ‘deliberating?’

RICHARD: Yes ... mainly based upon preference (ease of living, creature comforts, life-style options, and so on) and on being pragmatic/ practical (as contrasted to being principled/ logical) as in utility/ serviceability and effectivity/ efficacy.

To be able to safely be pragmatic/ practical does, of course, depend upon being happy and harmless (and thus having no hidden agenda/no ulterior motive).

RESPONDENT: I know a few places where you have talked about the existence of options or making a choice – so I’m wondering whether you would say that when one is actually free ... do choice and deliberation disappear completely – or is it possibly only ‘affectively influenced’ choices and deliberation that disappear.

RICHARD: As the choice and deliberation in the quoted text was specifically about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ judgments as opposed to seeing the fact – and as it is the fact (the situation and the circumstances) which determines the appropriate response – there is really no need of affectively influenced choices and deliberation for anyone ... for anyone who sees that (that very factuality/ facticity), that is.

For to be in accord with the fact (being aligned with factuality/ staying true to facticity) is what being sincere is ... being authentic/ guileless, genuine/ artless, straightforward/ingenuous.

RESPONDENT: From my own experience, it appears that deliberation by an affective being is often accompanied by at minimum mild anxiety and doubt – yet at the same time, there is a kind of deliberation that is more straightforward and matter of fact, where one simply ‘chooses’ the most sensible of several possible avenues – not turning the choice into anything even mildly anxiety provoking. I can only guess that the choices made by a flesh and blood body – sans identity – would be of the latter kind.

RICHARD: Yes, of the matter-of-fact (of what pertains to the realm of fact) and of the sensible (of the down-to earth) kind – in conjunction with being of the practical, judicious, prudent, provident, and so forth, kind as well – all of which are greatly facilitated by a sense of humour.

Life is way too much fun to take it seriously.


RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX

RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX

RICHARD’S HOME PAGE

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 and Use Restrictions and Guarantee of Authenticity