Actual Freedom – Mailing List ‘B’ Correspondence

Richard’s Correspondence on Mailing List ‘B’

with Respondent No. 28

Some Of The Topics Covered

Ancient Wisdom – Krishnamurti – ego – delight – perfection – intent – pure consciousness experience – Actual Freedom – Euro-English – the many studies of altered states of consciousness – N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors – ‘out of body experiences’ (OBE’s) and ‘near death experiences’ (NDE’s) – the dissociative drug ‘ketamine’ – all these studies are usually overlooked/ignored/dismissed – if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do – examine the ‘Teachings’ so as to ascertain if they be liveable or not – the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world – what is the ‘logical basis’ for ensuring that all future children be born of not-nice people? – Love is the requisite up-leveller – the universe is neither timeless nor spaceless or formless – ‘I am humble – I am God’

February 22 1998:

RICHARD (to Respondent No. 12): Do descriptions and interpretations miss the mark? Maybe they do ... yet maybe they do not have to. Perhaps it is beneficial to experiment so as to discover whether this is possible or not. We will never know unless we try. What else can one do, given the medium of language that we are communicating with, via this Mailing-List? After all, the English language has upwards of 650,000 words in it ... plenty of room for nuance of expression. And I do so enjoy the challenge of putting into words one’s personal experience in such a way that the other can understand for themselves ... it is both fun and rewarding into the bargain. For through thoughtful discussion – both with oneself (which is what thinking is) and with the other – a clarity can emerge which gives rise to a purity of being that paves the way for whatever ‘it’ is, when it is adventitious, to become apparent.

RESPONDENT: What is it that can be experienced? How could one ascertain whether a specific existential understanding is ever possible or impossible if one starts with a goal of an understanding? Isn’t that self-fulfilling? How could Konrad’s own personal adventure be duplicated? Why is it even necessary to duplicate it? What does it really mean to seek an experience similar to what Konrad had? Konrad’s adventure is his own. Konrad makes the error by comparing his own adventure with that of Krishnamurti and thereby validating it. This is pure garbage. It does not make any sense when truth is existential and not entirely logical. If one could duplicate someone else’s existential understanding by going through a specific process, then that truth is contingent upon a method, and therefore, not unconditional and independent. Then that truth is stale and is not alive any more. Please feel free to critically examine this point and this point alone.

RICHARD: When you ask what it is that can be experienced, are you seriously suggesting that you do not know what is being referred to? The thrust of most of the posts to this list is how to rid oneself of ‘I’ and experience life in an ‘I’-less condition. The descriptions and methods may vary, yet almost everyone is in agreement that this is the way to eventuate whatever is lacking in their life and, by extension, in others. Peace-on-earth would be the eventual result. In fact, words relating to an attainable ultimate peace are freely scattered throughout the posts. Virtually everyone posting considers that ‘I’ is the spanner in the works and that with the dissolution of same, then the desired condition would manifest itself ... whatever it is made up of. This is the ‘it’ that is referred to.

Also, as the mailing List is under the auspices of the teachings that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti bought into the world, it is tacitly assumed that anyone joining the List is familiar with at least some of his words on the matter ... and if they did not they soon would be, anyway. As it is generally considered that Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti had indeed undergone some ‘process’, which resulted in experiencing living in a way somewhat different from the norm, it is similarly held that what he had to say could perhaps throw some light on the subject of human suffering. He pointed to ‘I’ and, questioning ‘my’ validity, indicated something else that lay beyond the dissolution of ‘me’, proposing that the cessation of suffering lay here. To pretend that one is not aware of all this is to be disingenuous.

However, you are not the only person adopting this stance of make-believe ignorance ... there are others on this List that like to think that by feigning unawareness of all this that they will achieve something. Just how this sleight-of-hand (or should I say sleight-of-mind) is going to be efficacious in bringing about the desired result remains to be seen. Nevertheless, such dissimulation is not unknown ... some Buddhists too, indulge in a similar craftiness. They pretend that they do not desire Nirvana ... in the hope that they will thus achieve it. Some Christians, maintaining that to be alive is to remain a sinner, manifest a spurious humility in order to be worthy of God’s Grace and admission into Heaven. Some Hindus – if my memory of their religious instruction serves me correct – maintain that by not enjoying the fruits of their labour they will gain the ultimate fruit of such labour ... called Moksha. The same sort of sanctimony holds true for many other religions and disciplines.

Having said that, let us move on to your proposition: You say that you wish me to critically examine one point and one point alone. Which is: ‘If one could duplicate someone else’s existential understanding by going through a specific process, then that truth is contingent upon a method, and therefore, not unconditional and independent. Then that truth is stale and is not alive any more’.

This could almost be a direct quote of Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti which, by your own standard as detailed above in your post, is not permissible as it is someone else’s specific existential understanding and not your own.

Never mind ... maybe you could become an engineer.

March 29 1998:

RESPONDENT No. 27: Maybe you can use this post as another attempt to flog a dead horse.

RICHARD: No thank you ... because you have closed the door on the possibility of perfection and peace-on-earth when you write: ‘Enlightenment can only be from moment to moment. Which does not imply that because one moment was clear, that the next moment will be clear’.

RESPONDENT: What do we do with that state of perfection that No. 27 is alleged to ignore?

RICHARD: Enjoy it, of course. Delight in being here doing this business called being alive. Luxuriate in the pleasure of doing it now. Drink in the nectar of being here at this moment in time and this place in space and breathe the ambrosial air of peace and harmony.

RESPONDENT: Is this goal that you are aiming for is likely to be of any use? If so, how?

RICHARD: The goal is that you will become happy and harmless. The goal is that you will be free of sorrow and malice. The goal is that you will become blithesome and benign. The goal is that you will be free of fear and aggression. The goal is that you will become carefree and considerate. The goal is that you will be free from nurture and desire. The goal is that you will become gay and benevolent. The goal is that you will be free from anguish and animosity. The goal is that, by being free of the Human Condition you will experience peace-on-earth, in this life-time, as this body.

And you ask: ‘Is this any use’? I would say yes, most definitely it is useful. It means the end of all the wars, the murders, the tortures, the rapes, the domestic violence, the corruptions, the sadness, the loneliness, the sorrows, the depressions and the suicides.

Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden.

RESPONDENT: What would you do with it if you are as perfect as you wished to be and the rest of the universe continues to be neither perfect nor imperfect?

RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect. The infinitude of this physical universe, being all that there is, has no opposite ... and that which has no beginning or end is perfect.

RESPONDENT: How would you exist?

RICHARD: That is just it ... there is no egoistic ‘I’ here. Nor an affective ‘me’. Psychological death and psychic extinction are the only doorways to an actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: If ‘peace-on-earth’ has never been achieved, what does then give you this understanding that with your perfection ‘peace’ will begin to unfold?

RICHARD: Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth.

Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace.

RESPONDENT: Isn’t that another wishful thinking? Another concept like ‘perfection’? Another goal?

RICHARD: If you do not want peace-on-earth, in this lifetime, as this body ... then you will never get it. Please, whatever you do, throw faith, belief, trust and hope right out of the window ... along with doubt, disbelief, distrust and despair ... and go for the actuality of peace and perfection ‘boots and all’. Use all of your determination – gather up all the intent you can muster and more – and jump in the deep end without a life-jacket.

Desire it like you have never desired anything before.

RESPONDENT: Are you perfect? If not, how would you ever know what perfection is, what perfection can or cannot do, what it is good for?

RICHARD: Perfection can be found via the pure consciousness experience (PCE) which happens during a peak experience ... which all humans have had at some stage in their life. A peak experience is when ‘I’ spontaneously cease to ‘be’, temporarily, and this moment is. Everything is seen and understood to be already always perfect as-it-is. Perfection can thus be known by anyone with apperceptive awareness ... which is this body being conscious without an ‘I’ in any way, shape or form. It is just that most people either forget about their PCE – for there is no emotional ‘I’ present to record the moment on its affective ‘tape-recorder’ – or they interpret the experience according to their culture’s icons. Apperception has a global occurrence ... it is universal in its scope.

The freedom of enlightenment is not an actual freedom ... it is a solution found within the human condition, for there is still an identity; be it as a self or a being or a presence or a spirit. Speaking personally, I am none of these ... I am this body being apperceptively aware. An actual freedom means freedom from the human condition. This what I experience twenty four hours a day is the same as is experienced in a PCE. This is the perfection and the purity of the infinitude of this physical universe personified. I am the universe – this material universe – experiencing itself as a sensate, reflective human being.

This is the on-going experience that is ambrosial.

RESPONDENT: If you are perfect, why do we still lack this state of ‘peace-on-earth’?

RICHARD: Because – I presume – people lack the gumption to proceed poste-haste to their destiny. ‘I’ saw perfect purity and peace-on-earth and ‘I’ went for it boots and all ... the requisite intestinal fortitude came to ‘me’ along the way.

RESPONDENT: What are you waiting for?

RICHARD: Once again, speaking personally, I am not waiting for anything. Everything I could wish for – and more – is already always here.

What are you waiting for?

March 31 1998:

RESPONDENT: Is it not possible to ‘enjoy’ the state of ‘imperfection’? If not, how do you explain what the entire world is enjoying, relishing so immensely right now?

RICHARD: Things must be remarkably different in the country where you live. Nobody here (other than a handful of people) is doing what you describe.

RESPONDENT: An ambrosial air of peace and harmony as a categorical truth needs chaos and disharmony for its existence. If I am to relish the drink in the nectar of being here I have to constantly prop it up with my defeats and humiliation of yesterday, with the hopes of a tomorrow.

RICHARD: If it is seen as a ‘categorical truth’ then you are right. When it is lived as an actuality, however, the ambrosial air of peace and harmony has no need of yesterday’s defeats or tomorrow’s hopes. It is already always here at this moment in time and this place in space and requires no props whatsoever.

It is rather magical, you see.

RESPONDENT: Consider this. You are with your goal of ‘perfection’ and, therefore, you concede a state of imperfection for yourself which only exists conditional upon your goal.

RICHARD: Speaking personally, I have no goals at all ... I have no ambitions; no desires or wants at all.

RESPONDENT: If there were no goal to start with, you could neither be imperfect nor perfect, correct?

RICHARD: Incorrect. You are as you are born ... with fear and aggression and desire and nurture. I call that imperfect, by any definition.

RESPONDENT: But now you create a paper-tiger yourself and then attempt to spend all your time thinking how to vanquish this paper-tiger and become happy, harmless, free of sorrow, free of malice, free of fear, etc. by overcoming it. A typical Don Quixotic syndrome, wouldn’t you say?

RICHARD: No, malice and sorrow is your current situation which you must deal with. Creating ‘paper tigers’ is dallying. To dally is to passively perpetuate all the anguish and animosity of humankind ... but it is your choice, each moment again. As long as you obey the legal laws and observe the social protocols, you are free to live your life as wisely or as foolishly as you wish.

RESPONDENT: What if you had no goal? You eat whenever you are hungry, you sleep when you are tired, you kill when you need to kill. You are compassionate when you need to be so, you are malice when that is demanded. Instead of planning what you must be, you could LIVE.

RICHARD: Basically, what you have described is what five point eight billion people are already doing. As it has resulted in 160,000,000 people killed in wars this century alone, I am not particularly impressed by your solution.

RESPONDENT: You say: ‘The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect’. If so, what is your problem? Don’t you trust existence?

RICHARD: No. ‘Existence’ (a nom de guerre for God) is notoriously untrustworthy. I can rely totally on this universe, however, because it is physical ... whereas ‘Existence’ is metaphysical.

RESPONDENT: How could that which is always perfect can ever become imperfect? And if it is really perfect as an ensemble with all in it, you too are already perfect. You cannot be imperfect and the universe would continue in its merry way in its state of perfection, can it? Either the existence is ever ‘perfect’ or it is not. The existence didn’t knock on your door and told you that it was imperfect – but you, the observer, put this label on the existence based on what you see. You are so disturbed by the existence that you think you could change its state by ‘doing’ something about it. Could it be that this sense of mitigation that you carry on your shoulder may be the root cause for what you observe? You really don’t believe the existence to be ever perfect because you are always attempting to mend it. So out of this conflict arise murder, mayhem, rapes, indifference, the chaos all around you and you become more riled up, become more intense for perfection which no one ever denied you. Instead of trusting the existence to take care of it, you are taking charge to mitigate it and thereby causing more chaos.

RICHARD: Wow, what a mouthful ... look, what happened was that ‘I’ disappeared and I found myself here in this already existing peace-on-earth. It is not as complicated as you make it out to be, above. You are trying to understand the ‘riddle of life’ whilst remaining in existence as a ‘being’. It is only when ‘I’ become extinct that the actual becomes apparent ... permanently. It can be glimpsed in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). Instead of formulating theories, just go for it.

You can make up a story about it afterwards.


RICHARD: Then we can truly work together to turn this earth into a paradise garden.

RESPONDENT: The paradise garden that you dream of is a childish infatuation men outgrew long time ago. If you want to work together what is stopping you? If you are perfect and I am not how can we ever work together? We can work together only if we share the same frame of reference. Furthermore, if a paradise is existentially dependent on you and I becoming perfect then that is a dream state – it is never going to be self-existing, self-consistent existence.

RICHARD: Now I did say in my last post: ‘Global peace can only come about when there are five point eight billion individual ‘outbreaks’ of peace-on-earth. Do not hold your breath waiting for global peace’.

I am living in a veritable paradise already ... but it can be tidied up a lot. This is how I experience my life:

• ‘It is always a joy to come shopping, so prolific is the supply of food available to all and sundry, at a reasonable cost. The shelves are stacked, from end to end, with a staggering array of viands from everywhere throughout the country ... indeed, from all over the world. Food-stuffs are virtually tumbling into my basket, so loaded are the shelves, and I am extremely happy to be here, partaking of the goods that are the result of human endeavour. I fully realise that I, personally, live in a western society – a consumer society it is belittlingly called – but even the developing countries, with assistance from the west, are usually able to feed themselves these days ... when they are not at war, that is. With this proviso in mind, it is heartening to reflect upon the great strides humankind has made this century in terms of material well-being, compared with what transpired over the tens of thousands of years that humans have been inhabiting this planet. Long gone are the days of the hunter-gatherer; days wherein the human race was at the mercy of the elements for their physical survival. Long gone are the times when humans had to eke out an animal-like existence; full bellies in a time of plenty, and starvation in a famine. Nowadays, when famine strikes one part of the world, aid in the form of basic provisions come in from other areas experiencing plenty.
• ‘In terms of the supply of goodies, I find that I am literally living in a veritable ‘Garden of Eden’. My every physical need is met with a bewildering array of abundance; it is a time of cornucopia, of which I am pleased to take full benefit as is my due. I am astonished at the lack of appreciation displayed so vehemently by peoples I meet and articles I read about in the press. Why do the peoples of this country not realise that they are well-off, luxuriating in the freedom from want? Why is there looks of dissatisfaction on the faces of my fellow shoppers? Why do they have the temerity to complain when they are living in the land of plenty? Is there no way of pleasing these people? Fancy complaining about ‘having to do the shopping’ when it is such a delight to share in the benefits of human inventiveness; ingenuity in the face of the vagaries of the natural world. I am immensely appreciative of being alive now and not at some other age in which I would have had to struggle for my ‘daily bread’... those dreadful times one reads about in the history books and literary works. It is amazing what has been achieved despite the Human Condition’.

RESPONDENT: Secondly, for you to be ‘perfect’ you would need me to be ‘imperfect’ – but then how would we ever exist together?

RICHARD: But, as I have already explained, I do not need you to be imperfect ... it is what you choose to be, each moment again. Your destiny is in your hands ... and your hands alone. Nobody is preventing you from living in paradise except yourself.


RICHARD: The universe, being infinite and eternal, is already always perfect. The infinitude of this physical universe, being all that there is, has no opposite ... and that which has no beginning or end is perfect.

RESPONDENT: What is your ‘opposite’? There is none, I do not know any ‘non-Richard’ that I could erect as your opposite. What was your beginning and what is your end?

RICHARD: My opposite is when I am no longer alive and breathing ... but the universe will still be here, as it was before I was born. Birth (conception to be precise) was my beginning and death will be my end.

RESPONDENT: Since you have neither the beginning nor the end, could I not say you, too, just like the rest of the universe is already in that state of perfection? So, why create a non-perfect paper-tiger to spend your life to demolish it?

RICHARD: May I suggest something? Instead of speculating about ‘The Truth’, simply look at what is actually happening. I am nigh on fifty one years old, and as my biological parents are seventy nine and eighty four, I can reasonably estimate being around for another thirty-odd years ... barring accidents or disease or war. I spent the first forty five years preparing to live ... and now I am living fully. Every moment wasted in ‘preparation’ is just that ... wasted.

RESPONDENT: How would you exist?

RICHARD: That is just it ... there is no egoistic ‘I’ here. Nor an affective ‘me’. Psychological death and psychic extinction are the only doorways to an actual freedom.

RESPONDENT: If there is no egoistic ‘I’, who is it that needs ‘perfection’?

RICHARD: Not me ... I am living it twenty four hours a day.

RESPONDENT: Who is it that needs ‘psychological death’ and ‘psychic extinction’?

RICHARD: Five point eight billion people.

RESPONDENT: Make up your mind which way you want to go. If you don’t exist as an ego, you can never be perfect or imperfect.

RICHARD: I think I will leave it to you to sort that one out.

July 07 1998:

KONRAD: Speaking about long mails. This one definitely is. My apologies, if that causes problems. It could also be the case, that the order of the mails is not correct everywhere. I have had severe computer troubles that are the cause of this. I have, however, done my best. And I think, that this exchange contains much material that is interesting independent of this discussion. Therefore I post it. This is a part of an on-going discussion between Konrad and Richard. It is about enlightenment, and its place in Mankind. The central question of this discussion is this: ‘Is there a condition beyond the enlightenment of J. Krishnamurti, that is far superior to it?’ Richard claims, there is. And that is a good thing, too. For enlightenment has, according to him, not only failed to deliver on its promise, but done something that is even worse. In fact, Richard claims that the fixation on this condition is the cause of much, maybe even all suffering of Man. He claims, that he has discovered a condition that is beyond enlightenment, that has none of the disadvantages of the enlightenment of Buddha, that was also present in J. Krishnamurti. Konrad on the other hand claims, there is not. He admits that enlightenment, in whatever form, including the form it has assumed in J. Krishnamurti and Buddha, and, as he claims, in himself, has its limitations. But as far as a transforming condition goes, the enlightenment J. Krishnamurti spoke about, which is the same condition discovered by Buddha, is the ultimate. There is nothing that is beyond it. The discussion began with a reply to a mail from No. 20. It made Richard introduce himself to Konrad. Now, if you spare the time, this can be a very entertaining mail.

RESPONDENT: It apparently took some 531 KB of plain text for Konrad to posit his thesis which unfortunately Richard does not agree with. Probably Richard would now posit his 531 KB thesis and we would continue from there on.

RICHARD: No, I have no intention of responding.

July 26 1998:

RESPONDENT No. 00: Mapping the unknown. Explorers badly needed.

RESPONDENT: Is there a dearth of speculators?

RICHARD: Or is the dearth of mappers actually a scarcity of gambollers?

August 04 1998:

RESPONDENT: The dark sucker hypothesis is another con job peddled by some jokester and you Richard peddled it back here as though it was a serious scientific finding. Please do refer to the URL: http://remus.rutgers.ed...s/Jokes/Misc/darksucker

RICHARD: Oh dear ... was it only a joke after all? Next you will be telling me that the following report is not genuine too. Vis.:

EURO-ENGLISH: The European Commission has just announced an agreement that English will be the official language of the European Community – rather than German (the other possibility). Having chosen English as the preferred language in the EEC, the European Parliament has commissioned a feasibility study in ways of improving efficiency in communications between Government departments.

European officials have often pointed out that English spelling is unnecessarily difficult; for example: cough, plough, rough, through and thorough. What is clearly needed is a phased programme of changes to iron out these anomalies. The programme would, of course, be administered by a committee staff at top level by participating nations.

As part of the negotiations, Her Majesty’s Government conceded that English spelling had some room for improvement, and has accepted a 5 year phase-in of new rules that would apply to the language and reclassify it as Euro-English. The agreed plan is as follows:

In the first year, the soft ‘c’ would be replaced by ‘s’. Sertainly, this will make the sivil servants jump with joy. The hard ‘c’ will be replased by ‘k’. This should klear up konfusion and keyboards kan now have one less letter.

There will be growing publik enthusiasm in the sekond year when the troublesome ‘ph’ is replased by ‘f’. This will reduse ‘fotograf’ by 20%.

In the third year, publik akseptance of the new spelling kan be expekted to reach the stage where more komplikated changes are possible. Governments will enkourage the removal of double letters, which have always ben a deterent to akurate speling. Also, al wil agre that the horible mes of the silent ‘e’s in the language is disgrasful, and they should eliminat them.

By the forz year, peopl wil be reseptiv to lingwistik korektions such as replasing ‘th’ with ‘z’ and ‘w’ with ‘v’ (saving mor keyboard spas).

During ze fifz year, ze unesesary ‘o’ kan be dropd from vords kontaining ‘ou’ and similar changes vud of kors be aplid to ozer kombinations of leters.

After zis fifz year, ve vil hav a reli sensibil riten styl. Zer vil be no mor trubls or difikultis and evrivun vil find it ezi to understand ech ozer.


July 11 2001:

RESPONDENT: ... whether one take pills from drug-vendors or lets the body produce the requisite drug instead should not be theoretically different. Isn’t that so? Can we say then hormones released by an arousal of kundalini are qualitatively no different from those realized through ingested drugs?

RICHARD: Yes ... there is no qualitative difference at all (although ‘hormones’ are not necessarily the only substances involved). There are many, many books, journals and articles on the subject ... fairly conclusive studies conducted in controlled circumstances rather convincingly show the mechanisms involved at what may be loosely called the mind-brain interface. The research shows that altered states of consciousness (ASC’s) such as are under discussion in this thread are mainly due to what occurs in the brain receptors (the drug binding sites) for the neurotransmitter glutamate. These binding sites are called the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptors. Conditions which precipitate ASC’s (and which can cause low oxygen, low blood flow, low blood sugar and so on) have been shown to release a flood of glutamate which over-activate the NMDA receptors in the process (and which can even kill brain cells in an event known as ‘excitotoxicity). The glutamate flood triggers an array of brain chemicals which bind to NMDA receptors, leading to the ASC.

For example, many, many peoples have had both spontaneous and self-induced ‘out of body experiences’ (OBE’s) and ‘near death experiences’ (NDE’s) and their reports have been painstakingly detailed and closely examined by many people of various persuasions. The epiphenomenon of an emergent consciousness was a fascinating study that I followed with interest years ago ... there are many and various documentaries on TV about it. One obvious point stands out clearly:

• They are all dependent upon a flesh and blood body, that is not actually dead, for their occurrence.

ASC’s have been initiated by religionists, spiritualists and mystics over the centuries via meditative trances, sleep deprivation, fasting, self-flagellation (or any other stoic submission to a multitude of self-inflicted pain), mindless chanting of mantras (or any other form of self-hypnosis), tantric sexual ecstasy (the etymological root of ‘ecstasy’ is ‘put out of place’ as in ‘beside oneself’) and so on through every conceivable means in virtually all cultures in every era. Today, the same effect can be initiated in ultra high-speed jet-fighter pilot’s brain when banking too swiftly (or in a centrifugal force flight simulator), causing the brain to be drained of sustenance, and thus an ASC can occur as a result of the brain shutting down (as the pilot goes ‘unconscious’ to an observer).

Surgeons, for another example, have known of the emergent consciousness effect for some time ... a less commonly used anaesthesia these days is the dissociative drug ‘ketamine’ because of its OBE and NDE side-effect. There is a wealth of information on the subject ... for example:

• [quote]: ‘Ketamine is a short-acting, hallucinogenic, dissociative anaesthetic related to phencyclidine (PCP). Both drugs are arylcyclohexylamines – they are not opioids and are not related to LSD. In contrast to PCP, ketamine is relatively safe, an uncontrolled drug in most countries, and remains in use as an anaesthetic for children (White et al., 1982). Anaesthetists attempt to prevent patients from having NDE’s (emergence phenomena) by the co-administration of benzodiazepines and other sedative substances which produce ‘true’ unconsciousness rather than dissociation. (Reich and Silvay, 1989). Ketamine produces an altered state of consciousness which is very different from that of the ‘psychedelic’ drugs such as LSD (Grinspoon and Bakalar, 1981). It can reproduce all features of the NDE, including travel through a dark tunnel into light, the conviction that one is dead, ‘telepathic communion with God’, hallucinations, out-of-body experiences and mystical states. If given intravenously, it has a short action with an abrupt end. (Grinspoon and Bakalar 1981, p34) wrote of: ‘... becoming a disembodied mind or soul, dying and going to another world’. Childhood events may also be re-lived. The loss of contact with ordinary reality and the sense of participation in another reality are more pronounced and less easily resisted than is usually the case with LSD. The dissociative experiences often seem so genuine that users are not sure that they have not actually left their bodies. A psychologist with experience of LSD described ketamine as ‘experiments in voluntary death’ (Leary, 1983, p375). (Sputz 1989, p65) noted: ‘one infrequent ketamine user reported a classic near-death experience ... ‘I was convinced I was dead. I was floating above my body. I reviewed all of the events of my life and saw a lot of areas where I could have done better’’. The psychiatrist Stanislav Grof stated: ‘If you have a full-blown experience of ketamine, you can never believe there is death or that death can possibly influence who you are’ (Stevens, 1989, p481-482). ‘Ketamine allows some patients to reason that ... the strange, unexpected intensity and unfamiliar dimension of their experience means they must have died’. (Collier, 1981, p552)’. [endquote]. (Dr. Karl L. R. Jansen, Psychiatrist. 63 Denmark Hill, London SE5 8AZ. United Kingdom; K@BTInternet.COM;

In other words: the transcendental non-temporal and non-spatial and non-material entirely other ‘otherness’, commonly known as ‘The Truth’, that is supposedly self-existent in its own right (and so beloved by religionists, spiritualists and mystics), is dependent for its very existence upon the material substances and the material human brain-mind that, generally speaking, most religionists, spiritualists and mystics tend to spurn.

Needless is it to say that all these studies are usually overlooked/ignored/dismissed by those of transcendentalist persuasion?

July 21 2001:

RESPONDENT: ... Does the observation imply that ‘real teacher’ would have none of these ‘aberrations’? Is this a fact?

RICHARD: Perhaps the following words may answer your very valid query? Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd).

July 24 2001:

RESPONDENT: ... Does the observation imply that ‘real teacher’ would have none of these ‘aberrations’? Is this a fact?

RICHARD: Perhaps the following words may answer your very valid query? Vis.: [quote]: ‘This is not just a verbal explanation: the speaker is telling you what he lives, not what he talks about; if he does not live it, it is hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’. (Talks In Saanen 1974; © 1975 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust, Ltd).

RESPONDENT: Now comes an interesting possibility for us. Is he asking us to ‘believe’ (or take it in face-value) that K is telling us truth?

RICHARD: No ... he is saying that it ‘is not just a verbal explanation’ (a theory or a philosophy or an illusion and so) because it is ‘what he lives’. Here is another example:

• Q: Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti’s teaching and truth ... is there such a thing as a teaching at all, or is there only truth?
• K: Is it the expression of truth? There are two things involved: the speaker is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the noise of an illusion, which he considers to be the truth. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’; Ojai, California. March 22 1977; © 1979 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd.).

RESPONDENT: Is this really necessary? If so, why?

RICHARD: Because his whole reason for speaking is expressly declared as ‘my only concern is to set men absolutely, unconditionally free’ in his ‘Truth is a Pathless Land’ statement on August 2, 1929.

RESPONDENT: If it is necessary, how do we find out if he really lived by his truth! I am least interested in ascertaining the veracity of K’s ‘assertions’ by what someone else proclaims (because that would be predicated by another set of beliefs on my part) or thinks of him, I want to know if there is a way to establish the truth value of this statement without relying upon another.

RICHARD: Simple: examine the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world so as to ascertain if they be liveable or not. For just one example:

• [quote]: ‘If you live peacefully you will have no problem at all. You may be imprisoned because you refuse to join the army or shot because you refuse to fight – but that is not a problem; you will be shot. It is extraordinarily important to understand this’. (J. Krishnamurti; ‘Freedom From The Known’ © 1969 Krishnamurti Foundation Trust Ltd).

Thus the bully-boys and feisty-femmes get to rule the world per favour of the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world because all the otherwise intelligent decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot.

RESPONDENT: How do we find out if it is really necessary? Of all the questions I asked in the last paragraph, it is the easiest question to tackle. If I take K as ‘pointers’ to my enquiries, K’s above statement is irrelevant.

RICHARD: Why is it ‘irrelevant’? He is on record in books, audio tapes and video tapes as commenting unfavourably about people in general for living the way that they do ... and if, as he himself said, he does not live it (the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world ) it is indeed ‘a hypocrisy, a dirty thing to do’ is it not?

RESPONDENT: The truth of what he points to has to be realized by me, if I am interested and has nothing to do whether K lived by it, or dreamt of it in his previous incarnation.

RICHARD: May I ask? Why do you automatically assume that what ‘he points to’ is indeed ‘the truth’ and not a theory or a philosophy or an illusion and so ... and thus go rushing off to realise it for yourself?

RESPONDENT: If K is taken as a ‘guru’ I hand him over the control and let him tell me what is to be ‘believed’ and what is to be discarded as pure fantasy.

RICHARD: By your use of the word ‘guru’ do you mean it in the generally accepted meaning of the word ... a Hindu spiritual teacher.

RESPONDENT: Now I like the first option for myself since this is the K I know that relates to me on a logical basis.

RICHARD: Am I to take it that you have examined enough of the words on record in books, audio tapes and video tapes so as to ascertain that the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world have a ‘logical basis’? What is the ‘logical basis’, for an example, for having the bully-boys and feisty-femmes rule the world and thus ensuring that all future children be born of ... um ... not-nice people (given that all the otherwise intelligent decent peoples understood that it was ‘extraordinarily important’ to be imprisoned or shot)?

RESPONDENT: Perhaps, some people are more comfortable with K on a quasi-belief mosaic and the Saanen set up is ideal for them, and for them K’s statement has a tremendous weight and relevance.

RICHARD: Or, alternatively, maybe they too figured that it was irrelevant whether he was indeed ‘telling you what he lives, not what he talks about’ (as in not a theory or a philosophy or an illusion and so) ... and maybe they too forgot to examine the ‘Teachings’ he brought into the world so as to ascertain if they be liveable or not?

‘Tis only an extrapolated speculation, though, as I am not privy to all those peoples’ motives.

July 24 2001:

RESPONDENT No. 33: Today dear friend No. 28 accused me of ‘making up’ the following comment that Krishnamurti made to Bohm: ‘... you and I are at a different level ...’. I do not have the exact quote with me, nor do I have the books with me, nary time to research the quote.

RESPONDENT: Consider the logical inadequacy of this statement. If, in their opinion, they are at a different level than ours, there can never be any communication between ‘us’ and ‘them’. In that case, publishing books and audio cassettes to get laymen like us to appreciate the seriousness of the problem does not make any sense.

RICHARD: Love is the requisite up-leveller, of course. Vis.:

• [quote]: ‘I hope you are giving sufficient attention to what is being said, because it is your life. You are not merely listening to words, or ideas, or formulas, but actually sharing in the investigating process so that we are together walking in the same direction, at the same speed, with the same intensity, at the same level. Otherwise we shan’t meet each other. That is part of love also. *Love is that communication with each other, at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity’*. (emphasis added). (Part Two, ‘Truth and Actuality’; 1975; Published by Krishnamurti Foundation India; ISBN PBTA78).

October 20 2001:

RICHARD: In short: I am mortal.

RESPONDENT No. 33: In long: this mortal is also the infinitude of the universe, that is timeless, etc. I thought we agreed upon that point: you and I, as universe, are infinite and timeless etc., didn’t we?

RESPONDENT: Luckily, you two agreed and the universe has now become infinite and timeless.

RICHARD: There is no agreement and neither is the universe ‘timeless’ ... nor is it spaceless or formless.

October 20 2001:

RESPONDENT: I like the short description. It is succinct and universally understood. :-)

RICHARD: I presume the following is what you mean by ‘the short description’? Vis.:

1. ‘Prajnanam Brahma’ (Consciousness is Brahman). (Aitareya Upanishad).
2. ‘Aham Brahmasmi’ (I am Brahman). (Brihadaranyaka Upanishad).
3. ‘Tat Tvam Asi’ (That Thou Art). (Chhandogya Upanishad).
4. ‘Ayam Atma Brahma’ (Atman is Brahman). (Mandukya Upanishad).

If so ... here is a very short description which is both ‘succinct’ and very easy to really be ‘universally understood’:

• ‘I am humble – I am God’.




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