Others ~ Selected Correspondence

Uppaluri G. Krishnamurti

I have studied UG Krishnamurti, Bernadette Roberts, and Richard’s writings all very closely. I can tell you that what Richard is reporting is not at all the same as UG or Ms. Roberts. In fact, I flew to California a few years ago to a weekend seminar given by Bernadette to observe her closely – what she says, how she speaks, how her experience of the world is... etc. Not only is she far from Richard, but there is some distance (though maybe not as much) from UG as well. It may do well to keep in mind that because someone’s ‘state’ of consciousness might be labelled by ‘enlightenment’ or ‘no-self’ – there appear to be wide varieties of instantiations of such.

That is more than obvious.

OK, but since I started this particular thread in response to your claim that (according to you)

‘And what I found for my self is that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti, Ms. Bernadette Roberts share this same experience as your though they interpret it differently (perhaps misinterpret it)’

– has it also become ‘more than obvious’ that UG and BR are not of the same variety as an actual freedom?

I can only disagree.

May I ask on what grounds?

*

Thanks, but I already own her books. Do you also realize that she is a practicing Catholic that believes that Jesus is the saviour of humanity, as well as believing in ‘heaven’ and purgatory? AND that ‘Christ’ and the ‘Eucharist’ are keys to understanding her experience.

Her clues are very telling to me without resorting to believing in those. She herself admitted that when there is no self, there is no god also.

It is not for her that there is ‘no god’ when ‘there is no self’. Here experience of God is what vanished, not her belief in God. She has characterized her sharing of her ‘experiences’ as ‘for the glory of God’, so it is not at all in question whether or not she believes in God.

Richard would say that it is not possible for him to believe in God, since such a thing would require the ability to imagine, yet it is still possible for Bernadette Roberts to believe and preach that God exists, etc.

Though maybe she calls this godhead she does this (and many others symbolic similes) because that is her mode of expressing. When we talk of understanding one’s background etc. here is good example how the no-self exp. can be veiled (by Christianity) still being valid.

It might be helpful to hear just a bit of how she describes her own ‘experience’. First, she would not claim that she is using a ‘mode’ of expressing – she would say that she is speaking the truth – not simply a ‘mode’ of expressing. To strip her claims of what you are calling her ‘mode’ is to not take seriously what she says. Another clue can be found in the fact that BR describes her experience of the world as ‘flat’. In other words, people and things appear to her almost as if they were cardboard cut-outs, like a 2 dimensional scene in a play – except everything is like that – which is a clue to recognizing her ‘state’ as dissociation.

Richard says he recognizes such experiencing from the time he spent ‘enlightened’. The world is now experienced in full 3D according to his reports.

Also, BR, not unlike UG has represented her transition to ‘no-self’ as something of a ‘calamity’ as well – saying that she wouldn’t ‘wish it on a dog’. Upon clarification, she did state not that her state of consciousness is undesirable, but the transition from her mystical union with God to ‘no-self’. Richard does describe some disorienting symptoms that occurred when he became actually free, but states explicitly that the event is wonderful, glorious – in fact, unimaginably so.

*

This topic is, in fact, not ‘so vast’ at all. I don’t know much about Richard’s familiarity with Bernadette Roberts, but I do know that he has read UG quite closely. UG would the better candidate of the two that might be ‘closer’ to what Richard is reporting as Bernadette Roberts is still quite religious and one does not have to wander far into her reports to see that it is a far cry from what Richard reports. But upon close inspection, UG will also be seen to be far, far, away.

Could you show some blatant discrepancies?

I have been doing so. Here are a few more –

• UG gets angry and malicious towards other people. Richard says he never gets upset or even has a twinge of fear.

• UG calls his state the ‘natural state’, and thinks that ‘thought’ is the problem. Richard emphasizes that ‘thought’ is not the problem – rather, the source of the problem is the instinctual passions.

• UG says his state came as some strange (not understandable) freak ‘accident’. Richard’s came by an intentional process of whittling down and finally extinguishing the ‘self’. UG says that such a thing is not possible.

• UG says that direct sense perception (unmediated) is impossible. Richard says that direct perception is his constant way of experiencing.

*

A good starting point to think about this is the fact that Richard recommends self-immolation, resulting in a persistent, irreversible PCE – which is the final accomplishment, the ‘meaning of life.’ Whereas UG does not recommend pursuing his state of consciousness and refers to it as a ‘calamity.’ No small difference there.

I listed below some quotes which are just a bit of all, but as you said you already read all.

Well, I did not say I have ‘read all’. I said I studied them closely.

I think they are very clear, rational and helpful and come from empirical experience. What is unacceptable for instance about them?

Other interesting: ‘For the most part it rarely occurs to anyone that the human sensory system can function without consciousness. Usually people believe it is the other way around – namely, that consciousness can function without the senses. This latter belief, however, is based on the notion that consciousness is eternal or an immortal soul perhaps, but in truth, matters are actually the reverse. Man, like the animal, can function without consciousness, but neither man nor animal can function without the senses...’ <snipped more quotes from Bernadette Roberts>

Just a few comments: First, BR makes out the problem of self as a problem of consciousness – the tendency to objectify or reify. This is the typical stance of ‘thought’ is the problem. She also describes empirical reality as ‘empty and meaningless’ – yet a direct experiencing of actuality is neither empty nor meaningless – rather it is magical.

UG and BR both make out the ‘problem’ – as in why normal people don’t ‘experience’ the world the way they do as being the structure of experience – that experiencing requires an experiencer – get rid of the experiencer and you no longer have experiencing – just some sort of meaningless sensation. This is far, far away from what Richard and other actualists are describing. Experience continues, yet is pure and unmediated by an emotion based ‘self’.

Possibly a way to cut right to the essential part of all of this is that both UG and BR are in some sense solipsists. Other people and things are like ‘cardboard cut-outs’ in their ‘flat’ world, and there is no ‘other’ for them because they themselves do not exist as separate entities. And all of this is directly opposite to actualism.

You could say that mysticism pursues the subjective to the vanishing point of the self – everything becomes subjectivity. In other words, ‘I’ envelope the world to the point where the distinction between subject and object no longer makes sense and the objective is ‘sucked into’ the subjective with no distinction between the two.

Actualists pursue objectivity to the vanishing point of the self – ‘I’ become so whittled down that eventually the distinction between the objective and the subjective collapses, but this time it is the objective that replaces the subjective – everything becomes (as it already is) objective – factual. No 37 to No 61(R)

In your last email you have quite amply demonstrated that you are not interested in sincere discussion. Let me know if and when you change your mind about how you approach the topics currently under discussion and I will be happy to continue.

OK, thanks for the offer. Let me know if and when you change your mind about how I approach the topics currently or futurely discussed and I will be happy to oblige. It’s quite amazing how rigid, how set, how dogmatic, how what has been taken on board here, has taken on a religious quality for certain practicing actualists.

Let me put it this way No 58, in case it isn’t clear to you by now. U.G. Krishnamurti brand-name says that he is neither this/nor that, meaning neither a materialist nor a spiritualist, and that this and that are but illusions... all the time Being That all right (living an Altered State of Consciousness). This was a very comfortable position for ‘you’ and your superiority, sort of a spiritual high-ground or material Golan Heights, from which you could smirk at both conventional spiritualists and materialists.

Now imagine this... there’s another guy who says that he’s neither this/nor that, but that he is quite another thing, different from both this and/or that. His discovery hits right at the heart of your disassociated identity.

What can ‘you’ do? You start on a mission to prove that this another thing is both this and that (‘a deluded conman, same-old same-old religion, a mixture between western psychology and Ramana plus Gurdjieff, yet another version...’) in order to protect the mask of your identity and the (cyber) persona you pose as. Although you may claim that you’re neither a spiritualist nor a materialist, the specific instances in which you act in your life point to the contrary.

I made an analogy with the ‘gender’ identity vs. spiritualism/ materialism. You can repeat to yourself countless times that you have neither a ‘male’ nor a ‘female’ identity, that you cannot be labelled either way... it will not make it a fact. The visible instances in which you acted on this list showed that you have a ‘male’ identity and with a lupanar add-on.

You really stopped at nothing, including verbal abuse directed towards Vineeto (being a female, the easiest target). You believed it will provoke feelings responses in her or in the worst case scenario she will not react to it and thus prove your point that she’s just deceiving herself... or in the latter case, that actualism is simply another version of spiritualist pacifism. Either case, you’ll win... easy prey these actualists, actually sitting ducks, no? Your mate No 59 merrily entered the stage informing the audience, while Vineeto was made a ‘dumb slut’ by you, that ‘tis only friendly banter, so don’t worry... No 58 is a ‘good’ guy, (s)he only wants to help Vineeto realize that she’s deceiving and thus harming herself.

Between this and an actual rape is only a difference in degree, not in kind. If I’ll abuse Vineeto I can prove to her and to the others that she still has feeling responses (thus actualism is ineffective and a deceit). While No 59 is letting everyone know that No 58 is only joking, can’t you see that she is the culprit? ... the other looser of the trio (No 30) walks around singing ‘Everything’s gonna be all right’ and ‘No woman, no cry’.

No 60 saw what happened, came later and reassured Vineeto and the others on the list that she can handle it, as if she’s especially trained to cope with such instances... only in this particular case unable to see that Vineeto was actually being, not feeling, insulted.

The hunter hunted ... such an action deserves a mind-fuck ... if only for feeling the taste of it.

Until you’re able to see through Mr. U.G. Krishnamurti mask, being but the latest version of a disassociated identity (what spiritualism is expert at producing) and your cynical attitude, you’ll be unable to have any fresh perspective, firstly on your life and secondly on actualism. No 32 to No 58, 27.1.2005

Simple: I have problems... which will not go away by saying "be quiet; quiet mind is noble; ..." etc. so I understand why I am not being quiet and happy given that this is the only life and why am I wasting it away. Then I get into the psyche and remove the misconceptions and things get better.

I have no clue as to the mental state and No 58’s current intentions: except that he and you are saying the same thing in essence: methods cannot work... words/knowledge rubbish.... yours is similar to JK and his to UGK... yours to arrive at some stillness through negation... his to negate for negation’s sake... No 33 to No 56, 10.2.2004

Richard: [UG] he clearly states, on various other occasions, that he has no ability to create images ...

You have drawn an important distinction between the ability to create images and having an imagination. I had previously thought that the two were the same thing. My statement that UG says he has no imagination was merely my paraphrase of his statements where he clearly states that he cannot create images.

In one of the quotations you provided, UG does seem to talk about having blissful experiences, which would indicate the presence of imagination, yet without the ability to create images.

Regarding Bernadette Roberts, I’m pretty sure it’s the same sort of situation because what I was reporting (to my best recollection) is that she stated that she had no ability to create a mental image. She also talked about a kind of ‘development’ of her no-self state as if it kept on going, and that there was still more to come that she had only glimpsed – it would be hard not to chalk that one up to imagination, since a changing state means that one or the other is not final, and would indicate a ‘state.’

The more I read what UG says about experience coming in ‘frames’ – an inability to create images, knowledge coming to an end, etc – it all starts to make sense as solipsism. ‘Forget what you know, everything anyone ever told you, including what you think you remember as the past and future – all that is Real is the moviescreen of MY experience NOW.’ So much for ‘unknowing.’

Douglas Harding seems to have understood pretty well what enlightenment is all about...
http://www.headless.org/English/main.html

*

... to just give one example of an ‘alleged’ misrepresentation of others then yourself: vis:

Indeed it does and that holds for the first human free of the human condition as well. But this attempt at avoiding the issue under examination, that being your misrepresentation of UG’s use of the word knowledge to mount a critique, does not go unnoticed. (No 58, RE: UG’s Imagination, 2.5.2004)

To me that is clearly stating that Richard is [misrepresenting UG’s use of the word knowledge]

Yes, it is a clear statement that Richard is [allegedly] misrepresenting UG’s usage of the word ‘knowledge.’ I don’t see any reason to think that No 58 is correct. Besides, the point that Richard was making [that just as one needn’t infer from UG’s statements that knowledge must come to an end – that UG says he has no knowledge, likewise one needn’t infer from UG’s statements that imagination must come to an end – that UG says has no imagination] was not necessary for making a distinction between the ability to create images and having imagination still intact.

It only illustrates that there is at least one other instance where he says something must come to an end [in some sense] whereas it still operates in him [in some possibly other sense].

So, regardless of whether Richard’s point about UG’s words about ‘knowledge’ is valid – it makes no essential difference, as the essential point is that it is possible to have an affective imagination still present without the ability to create images. This can be concluded from the fact that on the one hand UG says clearly that he cannot create images, and on the other that he still experiences [in some sense] fear, aggression, bliss, etc.

A ‘normal’ person might have trouble understanding why the presence of fear, aggression, bliss, etc would indicate the presence of imagination, but if one understands actualism’s statement that all feelings only have a felt ‘reality’ – then it is easily understood why the presence of feeling indicates an imaginative faculty still present.

So what do you think do you find my claim still hmm unsubstantiated.

Based upon this ‘substantiation,’ yes. No 37 to No 23

Don’t to you see anything of value in anybody’s writing so far?

So you were entertained to some extent by all the mails, writings in this list etc. but apart from that nobody’s writing has had any other value (like learning something new). Is this correct?

Trying to extract some positive comments from you :). Basically apart from the small benefits you posit, haven’t you learnt anything else? OK.

*

3. How about outside this mailing list? How about UG Krishnamurti? Anything of value anywhere, in anybody’s writing/ saying/ experience in this world?

You have enjoyed reading many things... have you retained anything other than ‘enjoyment’ from reading/interacting with others? I am interested about UG Krishnamurti because your style of communicating seems to be very similar to UGK (contradicting yourself, others, bashing every kind of attempt etc.)

Yes actualism is contradiction free zone according to my reading and experiencing. You don’t think you are influenced by UGK, then?

Initially I thought Peter’s and Vineeto’s style was bashing type... that was long back... and yesterday I read Peter’s journal again and I saw how clearly he has described his experience... I must have felt that way before because of the contradiction (cognitive dissonance) I had with my beliefs (do consider this possibility for yourself... just for a second... you might be pleasantly surprised). However, your style is bashing not because of this reason but because of your imperative statements: throw these people out, stop reading stuff, you are deluding yourself etc.

And your favouring contradiction is mystical in style, and UGK was a specialist in contradiction and glorified it so much. I think he said ‘I say something and contradict it in the next statement’.... sounds like your response to Peter. Do you contradict yourself in your everyday life too? So frequently? Of course the everyday spoken words are not recorded so one can even deny that one is contradicting. In fact, I consider that using memory and seeing how one changes has value in itself: it is an act of common sense and intelligence (which was crippled due to reading Krishnamurtis’ [both of them] bashing on thought and memory and intellect).

*

4. Is it possible for you to communicate without using derogatory, personal insults?

Well, the words ‘ass kissing’, ‘jerking off’.... to my mail and to others’ (quoting from my memory)... ‘fuck off... dickhead’... don’t appear to be otherwise to me. To you?

You accuse of others misquoting you when they quote you well. But you don’t care if you quote others well.

Actualists never said that compliments and insults are like water off a ducks back.... it was only Richard (who is an actualist too, but more importantly: he is free that’s why he said so) who said that. Actualist is somebody who is on the way.... who has taken up investigation. Depending upon which stage... he/she might have some emotional reactions. Whe he/she does with it is different to what goes on in the real/spiritual world.

*

How are your communications outside this mailing list, in everyday life? Is it like this?

The reason I asked this is because if I think of sending a mail response to you, then I immediately think that you might start calling names etc.... some kind of fear of your response. I was wondering if people around you are scared of you because you call them names etc. and go to attack mode.

I suppose you better study harder to get rid of any fear or fears your current identity experiences. Perhaps you should thank me for exposing your hiding fear so you can investigate it and eradicate using actualist surgical techniques for removing any sort of emotion emanating from the illusion of self.

*

There is no world of actualism (there is actual world but not ‘world of actualism’). Yes I thank you for such an exposure. But it doesn’t mean that I intellectually accept such ‘foul mouth’ (as in I won’t go about doing it) as I can see the harm it can cause.

Good to know that the experience for the people around you in the real world is contrary to the one is felt by me in the mailing list.

*

But since actualism is not about holding others responsible for one’s emotion, I have looked into issues like why do I feel unpleasant when somebody uses such strong words and resorts to calling names... there is an automatic instinctual aggression/ fear once one feels insulted/ threatened etc... solving this doesn’t mean that one becomes a pacifist, it does not result in withdrawal or anything... of course you may say, this is all meaningful only to me and not to you... as it is my experience... as you have expressed everywhere. But if there was a sensible dialogue between you and me, I am sure it will be an interesting discussion because though I don’t know you, you and I being human beings must have landed in similar situations and must have similar mechanisms... comparing notes if possible, is not only enjoyable but can be freeing/learning experience. Opens one’s eyes to other’s experiences etc. Of course this being actualism mailing list, our discussions will be like: ‘this approach of actualism doesn’t work for me.... how can you say that?’ etc. (i.e. sensible discussion about actualism based on personal experience... it doesn’t mean that you have to agree to whatever it is said in this list/site... you can say it doesn’t work etc.).

When you are cleaning the house, if you see dirt at one corner it doesn’t mean that you give up... you clean it and it goes away. It works, and it has gone away: the proof is I can mail you with sensible words instead of holding a grudge, instead of aggression or instead of hiding. Just for your intellectual understanding: Actual freedom is when some irrevocable thing happens in the brain as it did to Richard or a temporary experience of PCE where one is in the actual world. The method of actualism is a process where one can incrementally (note the word incrementally) clean oneself up of the emotional baggage (produced by the illusion of self as you say... do you understand that it is an illusion?)...

I have learnt one thing in my own experience and from others’: when one holds prejudices against others, one doesn’t read what is written carefully. And most of the problems and miscommunications I see are due to the fact that due attention is not paid to what is written. Once I saw this (even now I err, but less) I started reading carefully: whether one agrees with the other or not, one at least sees what the other is saying and it puts an end to endless repetitions and rounds of clarification.

Don’t you think your discourse about fear is identical to UGK? (if you are interested in proof, I can provide from UGK where he says exactly the same.... but I won’t copy and paste because of your allergy to it). You said somewhere above:

I must say that for the most part, you actualists are a polite pleasant lot

... why do you now say ‘Actualism is a very violent religion’ ? Because of its ruthless exposure of the illusion of self? Because of its critique on compassion? You accuse so much what you feel obvious to you... I do not deny that you feel it so.... otherwise you may not be writing all this. But can you prove one accusation beyond doubt? Just one? (I know you are not interested in proving).

I ask this because feelings, the most valued stuff by everybody, is not a reliable device for finding out what is actual.... one feels so strongly because of something and takes it to be true... once the feeling goes away... one feels the opposite. No 32, 2.4.2004

Well, it has got to another night sitting out under the stars, after a superb barbecue. It has been a delightful few weeks here, with glorious sunny days and balmy evenings. I have been experimenting with a question, which has finally resolved itself into ‘what is preventing this moment from experiencing (or living) me? It has been ‘churning’ for a couple of weeks now and, in the last few days has started to produce some interesting results. These ‘results’ are possibly (at least partially) caused by the external events mentioned at the start of this post. One other influence is that I have been reading quite a bit of the writings, or rather transcripts, of Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti. The main thing I have ‘got’ from these is that everything I do is simply ‘me’ trying to do something – trying to make something ‘happen’ – and it is impossible for ‘me’ to achieve the result which ‘I’ desire. Everything ‘I’ do only reinforces ‘my’ precious existence. And this is where the difference between what he states and what Richard states comes in. Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is of the opinion that one can do nothing to achieve what one is seeking. We have already proven that not only can one achieve results far beyond the ‘norm’, in the near future, at least one of us is going to prove that diligence and application can indeed result in the death of ‘me’. And the point remains, getting back to the point (if there is any) of this rave, that my life now (and yours and Vineeto’s and Mark’s and possibly others) is so superior to what it was previously that no more ‘proof’ is necessary. The living of a life of virtual freedom beats any spiritual path hands down – it delivers the goods right here, right now, as this body in this lifetime. Alan

A bit more on Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti.

An important point I did not cover in my posting of yesterday is that nowhere, in what I have read of Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti, does he state how marvellous it is to be alive on this planet. There is no mention of joy, delight, fun and marvel. He uses ‘wonder’ quite a lot, but it is more in the sense of ‘I wonder what is going on’, rather than ‘I look in wonder at what is going on’. The only similarity between him and Richard is that both seem to be without a sense of identity – there is no longer a person called Richard in existence and there is no longer a person called Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti in existence. And that seems to be all he can offer – there is no way ‘I’ can achieve what ‘I’ desire and ‘I’ cannot understand, or experience, what he is talking about. It is certainly not ‘enlightenment’ he is experiencing and yet, just as surely, it is not ‘actual freedom’, as described by Richard. One can only take him at his word and accept that he is an unrepeatable freak of nature.

And, until one of us demonstrates otherwise, Richard also is a freak of nature – except he is categorically stating that his condition is repeatable by anyone and everyone. Personally, I would rather aim for the condition described by Richard than that described by Mr Uppaluri Krishnamurti. I know, from the experience of the PCE, exactly what my goal is – to live that perfection and purity for 24 hours of the day – and a handful of people are already living proof that a virtual freedom is possible for anyone. Perhaps we do not extol enough the benefits of a life of virtual freedom (though you do an excellent job, Peter) and that was the message I was attempting to get over in my last posting. Even if one never achieves the ultimate condition, my life now is so far, far superior to what has ever been envisaged as possible that a bit of ‘drum banging’ is called for. Alan

Actualism Homepage

 Actual Freedom Homepage

Freedom from the Human Condition – Happy and Harmless

Web page designed by The Actual Freedom Trust