Actual Freedom – The Actual Freedom Mailing List Correspondence

January 09 2002

RESPONDENT No. 27: U.G. Krishnamurti (I am aware there is only superficial similarity between you and he) says the eyes are interested in seeing, but not as beauty – and the ears are interested in hearing, but not as music. (snip).

RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in a rather odd position – I read all that is on offer by him and by others associated with him when I first came on the internet in 1997 – as he is still basically spiritual whilst denying/decrying much of what spirituality has to offer ... nevertheless he comes the closest to what I have to report (of all the peoples I have read or spoken with).

RESPONDENT No. 23: How is U.G. still basically spiritual?

RICHARD: Here are some examples: he says that time and space and matter do not exist outside of the mind. 

Viz.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is nothing which exists ‘outside’ or independent of our minds’. (from Chapter Five, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).  

And this is what he means by ‘our minds’ : Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as your mind and my mind. Mind is everywhere, sort of like the air we breathe’. (from Chapter Four , ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).  

An omnipresent mind, in other words ... here is a similar quote about an omnipotent energy that is quite explicit: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘When the question burns itself out, what is there is energy. You can’t say anything about that energy – it is already manifesting itself, expressing itself in a boundless way; it has no limitations, no boundaries. It is not yours, not mine; it belongs to everybody. You are part of that. You are an expression of that’. (from Part Three , ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: http://www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).  

This omnipotent energy that he is an expression of is otherwise known as ‘Truth’ or ‘God’: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘Supposing I tell you ‘This is the way’, – then where are you? You experience what I tell you. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced God, that you have experienced Reality or that you have experienced Truth. But that is not the Truth. That is not God’. (‘Stopped in Our Tracks. Book Two: Excerpts from U.G.’s Dialogues’; compiled from audio tapes by K. Chandrasekhar; Translated from the Telugu and Edited by J.S.R.L.Narayana Moorty: http://www.well.com/user/jct/chandra.htm). 

If that is not convincing enough this one is a classic spiritual teaching if there ever was: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘You are never born and you never die. How can there be any death when you are not born?’ (‘Stopped in Our Tracks. Book Two: Excerpts from U.G.’s Dialogues’; compiled from audio tapes by K. Chandrasekhar; Translated from the Telugu and Edited by J.S.R.L.Narayana Moorty: http://www.well.com/user/jct/chandra.htm).  

Then there is the typical spiritual stance that thought is the problem: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘When thought creates time, a space is created there; so thought is also space as well. Thought also creates matter; no thought, no matter’. (from Chapter Five, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).  

And: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘Thought creates matter (...) They [physicists] also say that there is no such thing as thought, there is no such thing as matter, there is no such thing as space, and there is no such thing as time (...) Is there space? No. There is no space. (...) First, you create thought, then thought creates space, and then time is necessary to cover the distance, to experience the space, to capture it, and do something with it. So, then time comes in. But there is no time’. (from Chapter Seven, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): http://www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm). 

Again: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘What tells you that there is something called space? Without thought is there space at all? There is not. Thought creates time as well as space. The moment thought is there, there is time and space’. (from Chapter Three, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).  

Once more ... short and to the point: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘Time and space, apart from the ideas of ‘time’ and ‘space’, do not exist at all’. (from Chapter Six, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).  

This will all sound so very familiar to anyone at all conversant with spirituality ... but I will finish with one more quote that is self-explanatory in regards to the marked distinction between spiritualism and actualism. 

Viz.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. (from Chapter 11,’U.G. Krishnamurti: A Life’, copyright Mahesh Bhatt, published as a Viking book by Penguin Books India (P) Ltd., 1992: http://www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm). 

There are many more quotes where these few came from.

RESPONDENT: Richard, you stuck your nose out when answering on these posts.

RICHARD: How so? Just for starters, Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti explicitly says that time and space and matter do not exist outside of [an omnipresent] mind and that he is an expression of [an omnipotent] energy ... as per the quotes I provided (above). In other parts of his books he oft-times states that thought does not originate in the human brain ... and in the quotes (detailed above) he specifically says that time and space and matter are the product of thought.

If that is not a spiritual experience – a projection of the human mind and thought into the metaphysical realm – I would like to know what is. Palaeontology evidences that time and space and matter existed long before human minds and human thought appeared on the scene.

RESPONDENT: You are a human suffering just as we all do.

RICHARD: I rather fail to see how you can draw this conclusion just because I provided some quotes that demonstrate that Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti is basically spiritual.

RESPONDENT: You are an artist and you are using people for your creation.

RICHARD: This sounds strikingly similar to the line that another subscriber to this Mailing List was running for a while some months ago.

RESPONDENT: Your philosophy are great, your wisdom as well.

RICHARD: I have neither a ‘philosophy’ nor a ‘wisdom’ ... I provide a lucid report directly from on-going experiencing.

RESPONDENT: But still, your EGO is not dead at all. It is still kicking and alive.

RICHARD: If you say so then it is so – for you that is – but given that you supply no support for your conclusions other than that I supposedly stuck my nose out when commenting on what Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say regarding ‘mind’, ‘energy’ and ‘thought’ I will keep my own counsel on the matter.

You will need to provide reasons if you wish to be taken credibly.

February 24 2002

RESPONDENT: I have monitored and read the most of discussions here on the Actualist forum. I am not so impressed.

RICHARD: When I first went public with my discovery of the already always existing peace-on-earth my aim was not to impress people but to jog their memory of a pure consciousness experience (PCE) so that they could recall for themselves, or experience again, the perfect purity of being alive right here at this place in space just now at this moment in time.

RESPONDENT: Actualism has some things right, a sceptic and scientific approach to reality is good. On the other hand actualism have also a totally wrong and perverted view of the human life.

RICHARD: If peace-on-earth, in this lifetime as this flesh and blood body, is a ‘totally wrong and perverted view of human life’ according to you then so be it ... and thus will all the wars and murders and rapes and tortures and domestic violence and child abuse and sadness and loneliness and grief and depression and suicides roll on forever and a day.

RESPONDENT: Every thing we experience is a feeling.

RICHARD: Please, speak for yourself ... nothing I experience is a ‘feeling’.

RESPONDENT: I, an entity, which we have no good explanation of, experience every thing possibly to experience.

RICHARD: Again, please speak for yourself as I have a very accurate explanation of ‘I, an entity’ ... plus ‘I, an entity’ has not, does not, and cannot experience the perfection and purity that is startlingly evident in a PCE.

RESPONDENT: But still this ‘me’, I am real, I experiences reality as good as possible ...

RICHARD: ‘Tis a strange business that people will settle for second-best (Viz.: ‘reality as good as possible’ only) when the best (Viz.: the perfection and purity of actuality) is freely available ... for those that dare to care and care to dare.

RESPONDENT: ... It, I am alive!

RICHARD: It is pertinent to note that 160,000,000 similarly ‘alive’ people were killed in wars alone, in the last 100 years, by their similarly ‘alive’ fellow human beings ... and an estimated 40,000,000 similarly ‘alive’ people suicided in the same 100 years.

Put simply: the ‘reality’ you are exclaiming about sucks.

RESPONDENT: Actualism as a belief or perspective, is close to suicide.

RICHARD: Whereas actualism, as an actuality, is all about ‘self’-immolation for the benefit of this body and that body and every body.

RESPONDENT: Actualism is a perspective for people denying life full of experiences and feelings.

RICHARD: However, as actualism is not a ‘perspective’ but a lived experiencing, it is not about mere denial ... rather it is about the elimination of all that prevents actuality from being apparent in all its magnificence.

It would appear that you have missed something vital to the comprehension of actualism as-it-is, for all of your monitoring and reading, and as such then writing this post may very well have been an auspicious occasion for you as it is now possible for your observations to be exposed in the light of sensible discussion with your fellow human beings ... and your reservations put to rest once and for all.

After all ... such interaction is what this mailing list was set-up for.

February 26 2002

RICHARD: It would appear that you have missed something vital to the comprehension of actualism as-it-is, for all of your monitoring and reading, and as such then writing this post may very well have been an auspicious occasion for you as it is now possible for your observations to be exposed in the light of sensible discussion with your fellow human beings ... and your reservations put to rest once and for all. After all ... such interaction is what this mailing list was set-up for.

RESPONDENT: Yes, I might have missed something, or I have for sure missed a lot of things. Actualism as you describes it is an interesting new approach to reality.

RICHARD: I wonder if you are aware of the fact that I draw a vital distinction between reality (the physical world experienced via ‘self’) and actuality (the physical world experienced sans ‘self’)?

RESPONDENT: Actualism has something good and something totally wrong. My first objection is the pseudoscientific description of the brain and how we all are functioning.

Speaking personally, I did not know of any research on this subject when I started to actively investigate the human condition in myself 21 or more years ago: as I intimately explored the depths of ‘being’ it became increasingly and transparently obvious that the instinctual passions – the source of ‘self’ – were the root cause of all the ills of humankind.

The descriptions of the brain are provided so that nobody has to take my word for it.

RESPONDENT: Every experience is a feeling, and we must handle our feeling as good as possible.

RICHARD: Please, speak for yourself as nothing I experience is ‘a feeling’ ... and I find it a strange business that people will settle for second-best (Viz.: ‘as good as possible’ only) when the best (Viz.: the perfection and purity of actuality) is freely available for those that dare to care and care to dare.

RESPONDENT: Denying feelings is to deny reality.

RICHARD: Yet as I have never suggested that anyone go about ‘denying feelings’ – and neither have I advised people to ‘deny reality’ – your observation just does not apply to actualism.

RESPONDENT: Your solution is self-immolation, or suicide.

RICHARD: No ... my solution is ‘self’-immolation – psychological and psychic suicide – and not what you are making it out to be (I follow the entirely sensible convention of using smart quotes when referring to the entity who has taken up a parasitical residence in the flesh and blood body).

RESPONDENT: As a solution for peace and harmony it perhaps works, if we all are dead then we all have peace.

RICHARD: As nowhere have I ever advocated physical death as being ‘a solution for peace and harmony’ your observation just does not apply to actualism.

RESPONDENT: But now when living we all have to deal with life and life is emotions and experiences.

RICHARD: The whole point of actualism is that life does not have to be how you describe it to be in these posts ... there is now a totally new way of living.