Actual Freedom – Selected Correspondence by Topic

RESPONDENT: Don’t forget that creation continues, it did not took place and continues like machine.

RICHARD: What ‘creation’ are you talking of?

RESPONDENT: If creation stops now everything will collapse.

RICHARD: As there is no ‘creation’ in actuality there is nothing to either stop or collapse.

RESPONDENT: We don’t know many things scientifically, and as David Bohm said 95% of the phenomena are invisible.

RICHARD: Are you referring to what has been called ‘dark matter’ (also called ‘the missing mass problem’), the theory of which was first formulated by the astronomer Mr. Fritz Zwicky in 1933, which has been variously proposed to comprise of between 90-99% of the mass of the universe?

Or are you referring to Mr. David Bohm’s unmanifest ‘implicate order’ (which he proposed in contrast to the ‘explicit order’ of time and space and form)? Being timeless and spaceless and formless, and thus metaphysical, it would have to be invisible ... but you may be referring to something else, of course, because in another e-mail you wrote the following:

• [Respondent]: ‘Bohm was a physicist and was speaking for physical facts’. (Re:‘Phenomena’; Jul 13, 2003).

I say ‘of course’ because neither ‘dark matter’ nor ‘implicate order’ are physical facts. Mr. David Bohm, self-acknowledged to have been strongly taken by Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ phrase, had many dialogues with him ... the following excerpt may be of interest:

B: ‘Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that’.
K: ‘Would you say beyond that is this movement?’
B: ‘Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying’.
K: ‘Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement’.
B: ‘And it dies back into the movement’.
K: ‘That’s right. It has its being in the movement’.
B: ‘Yes, and matter also’.
K: ‘Quite’. (‘The Ending Of Time’; page 153; 1985. Harper and Row, San Francisco).

He clearly has [quote] ‘and matter also’ [endquote] having its being in the movement that the mind emerges from as a ground (which has been called ‘the mind of god’ by Mr. Paul Davies, another theoretical physicist, who was awarded the 1995 ‘Templeton Prize for Progress in Religion’, which carried a monetary award of $1 million, for his efforts to resolve the dichotomy between science and religion).

As you are familiar with the writings of Mr. Stephen Hawking you may have heard of Mr. Paul Davies already? If not, put briefly, he initially becoming interested in the theory of quantum fields in curved space-time at the University of Cambridge – focussing much of his research in that area – and in the early seventies he joined fellow-physicists Mr. Stephen Hawking and Mr. Roger Penrose, who were researching the thermodynamic properties of black holes at the time. He published ‘The Physics of Time Asymmetry’ (1974), the first of more than 20 books directed to either his professional colleagues or the general public. Mr. Paul Davies’ most recent publications were ‘The Matter Myth’; then one of his most influential works, ‘The Mind of God’; followed by ‘About Time: Einstein’s Unfinished Revolution’ and ‘Are We Alone?’.

The basis of what the above theoretical physicists write about may be a lot of things ... but science it ain’t.

RESPONDENT: So why you make dogmatic statements like the infinity of the universe?

RICHARD: Here is what the word ‘dogmatic’ can mean:

• ‘dogmatic: of philosophy or medicine: based on a priori assumptions rather than empirical evidence; concerned with propounding opinions; esp. (of a person, writing, etc.) asserting doctrines or views in an opinionated or arbitrary manner; of, pertaining to, or of the nature of a (religious) dogma or dogmas; doctrinal. [dogma: opinion, a belief; spec. a tenet or doctrine authoritatively laid down, esp. by a Church or sect; an arrogant declaration of opinion; doctrines or opinions, esp. on religious matters, laid down authoritatively or assertively]. (Oxford Dictionary).

First you propose a (continuing) ‘creation’ as if that were an established fact, plus you refer to Mr David Bohm as ‘speaking for physical facts’ when very little of what he spoke of was either physical or a fact, then you say ‘so why you make dogmatic statements ...’ as if I were the one making a priori assumptions, propounding opinions, or asserting doctrines, in an arrogant or arbitrary manner.

What on earth is the connection between the theoretical physics you keep on presenting to this mailing list and the direct experiencing of pure consciousness that would make you say ‘so why you ...’ as if there were some relationship?

Are the ... um ... the axioms of theoretical physicists facts for you?

IRENE to Vineeto: Compassion is not what is understood by Richard – [he calls it] the hopeless game of compassion – at least I don’t have that view at all. To me compassion is the full understanding through experiencing all the accompanying emotions of a particularly testing aspect of life, that this is what it is to be grieving, or to be angry or to intensely hate or to be desolate, lonely, utterly discouraged in all of life etc. and to accept it as belonging to the all-round human experience in order to become wise. Not that only the so-called negative feelings will grant wisdom; the positive ones can be even more important in that respect! The richness, the depth of each human feeling reveals the understanding of what it is to be a human being in such an empirical, intimate way that it is later instantly recognised in a fellow human being who is going through the same emotional, human experience and who can then be met by compassion, that very kind understanding that you will have enjoyed with another, not only when life was being particularly difficult or sad, but also when you wanted to share your utmost joy or love. It is indeed such comfort to talk to someone who doesn’t lecture you, but who is right with you in your deepest pain or your exquisite happiness and doesn’t condemn you or suggests all kind of predictable therapies. The reward is first of all in the understanding of being human and secondly it is a privilege to be of genuine help with a person who feels alone, confused and abandoned in their circumstances. Or to be invited by someone who wants to share their most precious feelings with you.

RICHARD: Hmm ... you have well described the trap of compassion – as I call it – for the giver and the receiver thus remain firmly locked into the piquant and seductive snare of the beauty of pathos. Literally the word ‘compassion’ means pathos in common ... and actually starts out as nothing more impelling than a coping-mechanism designed to alleviate – not eliminate – the existential pain and distress of being human. For to be human is to be suffering and to be suffering is to be in sorrow. Indeed, all sentient beings suffer – not only the human animal – and one can travel deeply into the depths of ‘being’ itself ... and come upon Universal Sorrow. The piquancy of one’s personal sorrow pales into insignificance when confronted with the pungency of all the sorrow of anyone who has ever lived or who is living now or who is yet to be born ... for one is indulging oneself in self-justifying grief. There the beauty of this universal pathos reveals what lies eternally silent at the heart of the mystique ... a god or a goddess that is The Truth.

There is an excellent description of what is possible to realise when one travels deeper and deeper into Universal Sorrow in a book called: ‘The Wholeness Of Life’ (Published by The Krishnamurti Foundation). In Dialogue VII May 20 1976 – Monday Afternoon, the conversations between Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti, Mr David Bohm and Mr. David Shainburg are particularly illuminating in this respect. Viz.:

• ‘Aren’t you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of thought, of self-pity, the sorrow of the image? ... Deep sorrow. Yes, that is the deep sorrow of mankind. For centuries upon centuries it has been like that – you know, like a vast reservoir of sorrow ... You know, sir, there is universal sorrow ... Then there is compassion. Is that the result of the ending of sorrow, universal sorrow? ... is there compassion which is not related to thought? Or is that compassion born of sorrow? Born in the sense that when sorrow ends there is compassion? ... When the organism dies [the organism] is finished ... if I don’t end the image, the stream of image-making goes on ... it is there, it manifests in people ... it is universal ... it is the effect of all the brains and it manifests itself in people as they are born ... there is something beyond compassion ... To penetrate into this, the mind must be completely silent ... Now in that silence there is the sense of something beyond all time, all death ... nothing ... not a thing ... and therefore empty and therefore tremendous energy. This energy is ... There is something beyond compassion which is sacred, holy ... What is the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and reality? ... Relationship comes through insight, intelligence and compassion ... You have an insight into the image ... into the movement of thought ... which is self-pity ... which creates sorrow. Now isn’t that insight intelligence? ... Which is not the intelligence of a clever man ... now work with that intelligence ... that insight is universal intelligence, global or cosmic intelligence ... now move further into it ... an insight into sorrow ... out of that insight compassion ... an insight into compassion ... and there is something sacred ... and that may be the origin of everything ... everything ... all matter, all nature’. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’ published by The Krishnamurti Foundation. Dialogue VII (May 20 1976 – Monday Afternoon).

And thus is a new religion born – and another sect to wage their vicious wars – which is why I call the alluring beauty of pathos ‘The Trap Of Compassion’.

There is, however, a third alternative to being human or divine.

RESPONDENT: What matter actually is, in the quantum view, is a probabilistic event, and does assume an observer, implicit or implied.

RICHARD: Yet this implies that human beings create actuality ... such solipsism is somewhat puerile, surely.

RESPONDENT: This in my view is the relationship between Quantum Mechanics and observer-observed analogy.

RICHARD: Okay ... saying ‘the observer is the observed’ is the same as saying ‘I am everything and everything is Me’, eh?

RESPONDENT: Bohm goes as on to posit consciousness as the third ingredient in which the universe manifests itself (as matter, energy, and consciousness). Please check www.wie.org/j11/peat.html for more details.

RICHARD: Yet the universe already always is (it does not ‘manifest itself’ from, or out of, something unknowable) and matter arranges and rearranges itself endlessly in innumerable forms with delightful variety. And, on planet earth, matter has arranged itself as carbon-based animate matter (life and/or nature) and also sensate animate matter wherein matter is conscious. In one such species, such conscious animate matter can think and therefore reflect and consciousness is thus conscious of being consciousness. No need to posit an ‘unmanifest’ realm at all ... here, all that exists exists now.

Infinitude has no secret reservoir.

*

RESPONDENT No 46: I refer you to the Heisenberg Principle as an excellent example – one cannot measure both the speed and the position of an electron simultaneously.

RICHARD: Firstly, are you saying that ‘the act of observation of an electron with an inanimate instrument perturbs the electron such that the inanimate instrument cannot completely measure both its speed and position’? Does the inanimate instrument give off ... um ... an electromagnetic field or some such similar force? If not, what is it that the inanimate instrument’s measuring activity is doing to the electron? Secondly, if I am to apply this ‘excellent example’ to a human being’s observation of themselves – as the applicable correlation – in what way does one’s observation of oneself cause what one is observing (oneself) to be perturbed? In what way, shape or form does this perturbation manifest itself? And why (as in what is the principle involved) would one be thus perturbed? And so as to be up-front as in regards myself, I have always enjoyed immensely finding out what made ‘me’ tick ... down to the finest, the most minute examination of the tiniest, the most trivial-seeming detail. After all ... it is me that gets to live this life.

RESPONDENT: I think the way in which this uncertainty (indeterminism) arises in such measurements is that matter itself has wave-like properties. These waves are too small (being in 10 to the power of -15 or so meters’ order) that they don’t interfere with ‘gross’ measurements (for example, motion of a baseball ball), but at the atomic and sub-atomic level, where the size of the particle is of the same order as the order of waves associated with the particle, it is not possible to determine simultaneously both the velocity and the position of the particle accurately.

RICHARD: I fully acknowledge there is matter such that cannot be ascertained with the naked senses and requires extensions to the senses (such as telescopes and microscopes and all the rest) but I am sure that you are aware that the ‘sub-atomic level’ is the realm of mathematical equations and has no actuality whatsoever?

RESPONDENT: At any given moment of time, the material world is but a probabilistic wave (function).

RICHARD: Yet this material world is what it irrefutably is each moment again ... there is nothing ‘probabilistic’ about actuality.

RESPONDENT: What I find intriguing is what is that gives this (apparently chaotic) mass-energy function a stability and order. I think Bohm refers to this order as the ‘implicate order’ of things.

RICHARD: His ‘implicate order’ is a dimension where there is no time or space or form ... and his ‘explicit order’ is the world of time and space and form.

RESPONDENT: In his world-view, the ultimate reality of the (material) world cannot be determined with any certainty, but the ‘implicate order’ of nature/universe can be grasped intuitively (and non-verbally).

RICHARD: Yes ... this is the same-same as ‘The Truth’ is ineffable and can only be accessed in a thoughtless mindless state.

RESPONDENT: The entity that thus grasps the ‘order’ is but that ‘order’ itself.

RICHARD: Aye ... ‘I am God’ or ‘I am That’ or (if one is really cunning): ‘There is only That’.

RESPONDENT: That is the best that I can do so far in explaining the observer-observed paradigm in Quantum Mechanics/ Bohmian terms so far. This view also seems to tally with the Vedantic view of the world (the inner reality being the same as the outer reality) that I posted on this forum two days back.

RICHARD: But of course it ‘seems to tally with the Vedantic view of the world’ because it is derived from Vedanta. In the west, the nineteenth century was optimistically called the ‘Age of Enlightenment’ (knowledge enlightenment) until eastern mystics came onto the world stage at the turn of the century with spiritual enlightenment ... busily being hell-bent on returning a burgeoning thoughtful part of humankind to the darkness of superstition. Western civilisation, which has struggled to get out of superstition and medieval ignorance, is in danger of slipping back into the supernatural as the Eastern mystical thought and belief that is beginning to have its strangle-hold upon otherwise intelligent people is becoming more widespread.

Prior to the recent influx of eastern philosophy, if one realised that ‘I am God’, one would have been institutionalised ... and, to some degree, rightly so. One has stepped out of an illusion, only to wind up living in a delusion. However, the trouble with people who discard the god of Christianity and/or Judaism is that they do not realise that by turning to the Eastern spirituality they have effectively jumped out of the frying pan into the fire. Eastern spirituality is religion ... merely in a different form to what people in the west have been raised to believe in. Eastern philosophy sounds so convincing to the western mind that is desperately looking for answers. The Christian and/or Judaic conditioning actually sets up the situation for a thinking person to be susceptible to the esoteric doctrines of the east.

It is sobering to realise that the intelligentsia of the West are eagerly following the East down the slippery slope of striving to attain to a self-seeking divine immortality ... to the detriment of life on earth. ‘Implicate order’, for example, is simply another term for ‘God’ (aka ‘The Truth’). At the end of the line there is always a god of some description, lurking in disguise, wreaking its havoc with its ‘Teachings’. I have been to India to see for myself the results of what they claim are tens of thousands of years of devotional spiritual living ... and it is hideous.

If it were not for the appalling suffering engendered it would all be highly amusing.

RESPONDENT No 30: Is there a division between the observer and the observed, fundamentally? I think what quantum physics points to is the lack of any real division between the two: there is none. <SNIP>

RICHARD: I would ask whether this ‘the observer and the observed’ relationship in quantum mechanics (which relationship seems to carry more than just a little weight on this Mailing List) has any validity at all. Mr. Victor Stenger, for example, is very clear on the subject in regards to ‘conventional quantum mechanics’. Viz.:

‘The seemingly profound association between quantum and mind is an artefact, the consequence of unfortunate language used by Bohr, Heisenberg and the others who originally formulated quantum mechanics. In describing the necessary interaction between the observer and what is being observed, and how the state of a system is determined by the act of its measurement, they inadvertently left the impression that human consciousness enters the picture to cause that state come into being. This led many who did not understand the physics, but liked the sound of the words used to describe it, to infer a fundamental human role in what was previously a universe that seemed to have need for neither gods nor humanity. If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than ‘observers’, perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement. Quantum mechanics does not violate the Copernican principle that the universe cares not a whit about the human race. Long after humanity has disappeared from the scene, matter will still undergo the transitions that we call quantum events. The atoms in stars will radiate photons, and these photons will be absorbed by materials that react to them. Perhaps, after we are gone, some of our machines will remain to analyse these photons. If so, they will do so under the same rules of quantum mechanics that operate today. (...) The overwhelming weight of evidence, from seven decades of experimentation, shows not a hint of a violation of reductionist, local, discrete, non-super-luminal, non-holistic relativity and quantum mechanics, with no fundamental involvement of human consciousness other than in our own subjective perception of whatever reality is out there. (... ...) The fact that the world rarely is what we want it to be is the best evidence that we have little to say about it. The myth of quantum consciousness should take its place along with gods, unicorns, and dragons as yet another product of the fantasies of people unwilling to accept what science, reason, and their own eyes tell them about the world’. ‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); Published in ‘The Humanist’, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15. http://www.trancenet.org/nlp/physics/stenger.shtml

I am no physicist, and I am not particularly enamoured of quantum physics anyway, but the little I do understand of this – mostly mathematical and theoretical – physics tells me that it is the instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ that affects these ‘thingamajigs’ being thus investigated ... not the human being (aka ‘the observer’). Mr. Victor Stenger writes about the ‘holistic quantum mechanics’ advocates in rather mordant terms:

‘Physicist David Bohm had proposed an alternative to the ‘Copenhagen Interpretation’ of quantum mechanics in which invisible ‘hidden variables’ were responsible for the wave-like behaviour of particles. John S. Bell showed the way to experimentally decide the issue. Now, after a series of precise experiments, the issue has been decided: the Copenhagen Interpretation quantum mechanics has been convincingly confirmed, while the most important class of hidden variables is ruled out. David Bohm, who died in October, 1992, had been the foremost proponent of a new holistic paradigm to take the place of reductionist quantum physics. The failure of his related hidden variable theory did not cause the proponents of the new continuity to loose faith. Rather they have turned the experimental confirmation of conventional quantum mechanics on its head by arguing that a basis has been found for super-luminal signals needed in a holistic universe. (...) The interpretation of quantum mechanics to which Einstein objected, and which Bohm sought to replace, still reigns supreme after being subjected to a similar period of rigorous experimental test, including the tests of Bell’s theorem. (...) Before the experimental results confirming conventional quantum mechanics came in, Bohm and his supporters had argued that conventional quantum mechanics should be discarded. Now that the results are in, the new holists argue that relativity must yield, since quantum mechanics provides a mechanism by which signals can move faster than light. Quantum mechanics is indeed ‘spooky’. So, bring out the spooks! An ethereal, universal field that allows for the simultaneous connection between events everywhere in the universe must exist after all’. ‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); Published in ‘The Humanist’, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15. www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt

I submit these quotes purely in the spirit of questioning whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal ... and not because I claim any proficiency in quantum physics whatsoever. I do note, however, that more than a few mystically inclined peoples have enthusiastically jumped upon the quantum band wagon by claiming that science now supports and proves what mystics have been saying for centuries. I also note that the recent probes to the planet Mars – and to all other destinations for that matter – were predicated upon and guided by the very ‘Copernican Principles’ and ‘Newtonian Mechanics’ and ‘Euclidean Geometries’ so scorned by the latter day ‘popular-press’ pseudo-scientists posing as quantum experts. Although I am more than willing to be advised otherwise on the matter.

RESPONDENT: The human being, when it is engaged in the activity of measuring, is also one of those measuring instruments and therefore affects that which is observed.

RICHARD: Yet the quote I provided (above) says:

‘If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than ‘observers’, perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement’. ‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); Published in ‘The Humanist’, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15. www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt

I took this to mean, along with many other articles I have read on quantum mechanics, that it is the inanimate instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ that affects these ‘thingamajigs’ being thus investigated and not the human being (aka ‘the observer’) ... which is different to what you are saying (‘the human being ... is also one of those measuring instruments and therefore affects that which is observed’).

So I am still left with the question: whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal.

RESPONDENT: It is a participatory universe we live in, yes?

RICHARD: In what way ‘participatory’? This world called planet earth – and this entire infinite and eternal universe – was here long before I was born and will be here long after I am dead. It therefore irrefutably exists totally independent of me and my ‘participation’ ... let alone being affected by any of my observations and measurements or whatever antic I get up to.

How do you affect the universe? In what way do you affect the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’? And what sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ do you affect? And why? And is your affect beneficial? Or is your affect detrimental? And how do you determine the nature of this affect ... either way?

How did you find out about all this?

RESPONDENT: Quantum mechanics does not completely support K’s assertion that ‘the observer is the observed’.

RICHARD: Ah, okay ... in what ways does quantum mechanics ‘support K’s assertion that ‘the observer is the observed’ then if not ‘completely’?

RESPONDENT: K’s assertion was that one cannot observe and completely separate oneself from the observed – one will always see through one’s own prejudices, beliefs, and views. Quantum mechanics asserts something similar, but differently – it postulates that the act of observation perturbs the observed such that one cannot completely measure all aspects of an object.

RICHARD: Okay ... yet the quote I provided (above) says:

‘If Bohr and Heisenberg had spoken of measurements made by inanimate instruments rather than ‘observers’, perhaps this strained relationship between quantum and mind would not have been drawn. For, nothing in quantum mechanics requires human involvement’. ‘The Myth of Quantum Consciousness’; Victor J. Stenger (Professor of Physics); Published in ‘The Humanist’, May/June 1992, Vol. 53, Number 3, pp. 13-15. www.phys.hawaii.edu/vjs/www/qmyth.txt

I took this to mean, along with many other articles I have read on quantum mechanics, that it is the inanimate instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ that affects these ‘thingamajigs’ being thus investigated ... not the human being (aka ‘the observer’). Now, nobody for a moment is suggesting that the inanimate instruments which measure the sub-atomic ‘thingamajigs’ have ‘prejudices, beliefs, and views’ so I am still left with the question: whether quantum mechanics even remotely supports Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti’s ‘the observer is the observed’ proposal.

RESPONDENT: I refer you to the Heisenberg Principle as an excellent example – one cannot measure both the speed and the position of an electron simultaneously.

RICHARD: Firstly, are you saying that ‘the act of observation of an electron with an inanimate instrument perturbs the electron such that the inanimate instrument cannot completely measure both its speed and position’? Does the inanimate instrument give off ... um ... an electromagnetic field or some such similar force? If not, what is it that the inanimate instrument’s measuring activity is doing to the electron?

Secondly, if I am to apply this ‘excellent example’ to a human being’s observation of themselves – as the applicable correlation – in what way does one’s observation of oneself cause what one is observing (oneself) to be perturbed? In what way, shape or form does this perturbation manifest itself? And why (as in what is the principle involved) would one be thus perturbed? And so as to be up-front as in regards myself, I have always enjoyed immensely finding out what made ‘me’ tick ... down to the finest, the most minute examination of the tiniest, the most trivial-seeming detail.

After all ... it is me that gets to live this life.

RESPONDENT: Don’t be misled by what Pupal Jayakar wrote. Some of the stuff is quite exaggerated.

RICHARD: I would not contemplate for a moment, even, basing my understanding only upon one person’s account ... that would be silly. And, after all, I did condition her statement quite clearly ... Viz.: ‘If her recollection of the incident is a factual record of what actually took place’. Still, I thank you for your warning.

Should I apply the same view of ‘stuff’ being ‘quite exaggerated’ in all the other writing as well? Including the, purported, verbatim transcripts of conversations between Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti and many, many other people over the sixty-odd years of public and private talks? Like the one between him and Mr. David Bohm, for example, that you snipped off the paragraph above? To wit:

• [K]: ‘There is something sacred, untouched by man (...) and that may be the origin of everything.
• [B]: ‘If you say the origin of all matter, all nature ... .
• [K]: ‘Everything, all matter, all nature.
• [B]: ‘All of mankind.
• [K]: ‘Yes. That’s right, sir. (‘The Wholeness Of Life’; pages 135-136; J. Krishnamurti; HarperCollins, New York; 1979).

To which I added the comment: ‘sounds like a divine mover to me ... almost a creator god, in fact’. Am I somehow misunderstanding this? Could you, perhaps, throw some light onto this issue? I have also listened to audio tapes ... are they exaggerated stuff too? And I have seen with my own eyes video tapes also purporting to be Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti talking ... and the image on the screen looked like the flesh and blood man to me.

Methinks you are defending the indefensible. Why?

RESPONDENT: What does your experience in ‘actualism’ say?

RICHARD: My personal experience says pretty well what I have been saying in all my posts since I came onto this List. Namely that to stop at dissolving the ego and becoming enlightened is to stop half-way. One needs to end the soul as well, then any identity whatsoever becomes extirpated, extinguished, eliminated, annihilated ... in other words: extinct. To be as dead as the dodo but with no skeletal remains. To vanish without a trace ... there will be no phoenix to rise from the ashes. Finished. Kaput.

Then there is peace-on-earth.

RESPONDENT: It is simple: if it is a movement, it can’t be absolute.

RICHARD: You are simply repeating what you said further above (‘that which changes can not be absolute’ and ‘if is moves, it can’t be absolute’) in a slightly different form ... perhaps another quote may break the stranglehold your logic has on an engaged enquiry? Viz.:

B: ‘Just going back to what we were saying a few days ago: we said we have the emptiness, the universal mind, and then the ground is beyond that’.
K: ‘Would you say beyond that is this movement?’
B: ‘Yes. The mind emerges from the movement as a ground, and falls back to the ground; that is what we are saying’.
K: ‘Yes, that’s right. Mind emerges from the movement’.
B: ‘And it dies back into the movement’.
K: ‘That’s right. It has its being in the movement’.
B: ‘Yes, and matter also’.
K: ‘Quite’. (‘The Ending Of Time’; page 153; 1985. Harper and Row, San Francisco).

As both ‘mind’ and ‘matter’ emerge from and have their being in this movement then surely the question into the nature of this movement is a seminal question, non?

RESPONDENT: Non. Bohm and K seem to be merely shooting breeze.

RICHARD: Perhaps you may care to access the following URL (which is where I obtained the above quote from) and read some more before dismissing it all as ‘merely shooting breeze’ ? Viz.: http://www.igc.org/shavano/html/bohm3.html#Dialogues

You will find that the question regarding the movement in the absolute is integral to Mr. David Bohm’s formulation of implicate and super-implicate order.

RESPONDENT: The entire discussion is pretty nonsensical, in my opinion.

RICHARD: No more ‘nonsensical’, for example, than saying that all existence (all time and all space and all form) is relative and that only Brahma (a timeless and spaceless and formless Hindu god) is absolute. Viz.:

• [Respondent]: ‘All existence is relative. Only Brahma or Void is Absolute. (...) Brahma himself is timeless, spaceless, and formless. So, it has nothing to with time, space or form’.

Here is a further excerpt from that URL above:

K: ‘Yes, it is a movement in which there is no division. Do I capture the significance of that? Do I understand the depth of that statement? (...) I am trying to see if that movement is surrounding man?’
B: ‘Yes, enveloping’.
K: ‘I want to get at this. I am concerned with mankind, humanity, which is me. (...) I have captured a statement which seems so absolutely true – that there is no division. Which means that there is no action which is divisive’.
B: ‘Yes’.
K: ‘I see that. And I also ask, is that movement without time, et cetera. It seems that it is the world, you follow?’
B: ‘The universe’.
K: ‘The universe, the cosmos, the whole’.
B: ‘The totality’.
K: ‘Totality. Isn’t there a statement in the Jewish world, ‘Only God can say I am’.
B: ‘Well, that’s the way the language is built. It is not necessary to state it’.
K: ‘No, I understand. You follow what I am trying to get at?’
B: ‘Yes, that only this movement is’. http://www.igc.org/shavano/html/bohm3.html#Dialogues

RESPONDENT: Ignore it.

RICHARD: Your advice comes too late because the identity, who was parasitically inhabiting this flesh and blood body all those years ago, sincerely enquired into the nature of that movement in ‘the absolute’ ... with salubrious results.

It turned out to be a seminal question.