|
Vineeto’s Correspondence on the Actual Freedom List Correspondent No 58
VINEETO: You commented on something I wrote to No 60 – Over the years there have been many correspondents to this mailing list who consider their particular spiritual teaching as non-spiritual, thus making a nonsense of the meaning of the word non-spiritual. Only lately one correspondent announced that he practiced Byron Katie’s methods and believed in the Advaita Vedanta teachings and yet had no reservations about labelling himself as being non-spiritual. Yet another correspondent is convinced that UG Krishnamurti is non-spiritual despite the fact that he is living in a state of undivided consciousness. RESPONDENT: Yo, you lying bitch.... where did I ever say that UGK is non-spiritual? Go ahead and dig through your archives. If you find something, I will take back that ‘you lying bitch’ comment... maybe. Perhaps you are assuming because I ask what makes you say he is spiritual?, this is the same as saying he is non-spiritual. How convenient, how very convenient. Have any of you bone-headed spiritual accusation hurlers defined undivided consciousness yet or asked UG what he means by it? You continually put words in his mouth like you know what he’s talking about. VINEETO: Ah yes, I forgot, you play the game that you learnt from U.G. Krishnamurti, which is not to label things or people. Obviously your practice of ‘not labelling’, first made popular in the West by the spiritual teachings of Jiddu Krishnamurti, doesn’t apply when you go about pasting explicit labels on me. RESPONDENT: And you consistently miss my point that you draw whatever meaning from certain words to further your proselytising mission to spread actualism and point out how it is 180 degrees opposite from anything else, just like a good cultist would do. Just like cults have been doing since the first cult. You think you are so different, yet you share the same motto as has every single other cult since the birth of cults...’We are 180 degrees opposite from anything else out there and everyone has got it wrong but us’. That refrain is as old as them thar hills. VINEETO: To suggest that I am proselytising actualism to a group of people who have all voluntarily subscribed to an un-moderated Actual Freedom mailing list does nothing but yet again demonstrate the lack of both substance and sense in any of your comments to this mailing list thus far. Put simply, if you don’t like reading about actualism then simply don’t read what actualists write. The remainder of your indurate protestations are so hackneyed as to be psittacine. * VINEETO: This correspondent further believes that U.G. Krishnamurti’s state is synonymous with Actual Freedom and complains that we are hung up on the words ‘undivided consciousness’. RESPONDENT: Ok you lying kunt ... where did I say that UGK’s term of a ‘natural state’ is synonymous with the state/condition of actual freedom? VINEETO: Here –
RESPONDENT: I was making a point about different terms ‘perhaps’ pointing to the same thing. VINEETO: When I read the above, I don’t see any perhaps in it at all. What I read is ‘he is doing the exact same thing’. The very next day you again said –
Again no perhaps in it all. Or do you want to change tack, follow the current fashion and quibble that the word ‘synonymous’ does not mean the same as ‘the same thing’? * RESPONDENT: If I remember correctly, UG’s natural state refers to the body and its senses only. IOW your precious ‘flesh and blood body’. VINEETO: Given that you have thus far misunderstood both U.G. Krishnamurti and actualism, relying on the accuracy of your memory is somewhat questionable. Of course a referenced quote from U.G. Krishnamurti would help to give credence to the accuracy of your claim. * VINEETO: This technique of re-labelling one’s beliefs as non-spiritual is akin to driving a Ford with a Rolls-Royce emblem mounted at the front and a Rolls-Royce nametag stuck at the back. I understand the reason why people try the technique of getting rid of their spiritual beliefs by labelling them as non-spiritual – whilst they find something attractive in actualism they are loath to give up what they believe because what they believe is an integral part of ‘who’ they think and feel they are. Re-labelling one’s spiritual beliefs to be non-spiritual or watering down the word non-spiritual to include things that are spiritual is but to shoot oneself in the foot because this ‘trick’ only makes the process of uncovering one’s beliefs an impossibility – it is impossible to be aware of something whilst one is busy denying it exists. RESPONDENT: You are obsessed with labels. Everyone has a different obsession but doesn’t go around trying to spread their obsession like it is some necessity in life like food, money, shelter, clothing. You really should see a shrink about your obsessions. VINEETO: Of course, to someone who has taken on board the doctrine that labelling is evil, clear communication and sticking to the commonly agreed upon meaning of words must appear like an obsession. It must be difficult for you in everyday life when you go shopping and have to point at everything you want instead of giving it a name, when you hop on a bus or a train and say ‘I’d like to go to uhhhhmm please’ or when someone asks what your nationality is or what political party you favour? I can only assume that devout followers of U.G. Krishnamurti had to learn to use sign language in order to avoid being labelled as being obsessed with labelling by other devout followers of U.G. Krishnamurti.
RESPONDENT: And you consistently miss my point that you draw whatever meaning from certain words to further your proselytising mission to spread actualism and point out how it is 180 degrees opposite from anything else, just like a good cultist would do. Just like cults have been doing since the first cult. You think you are so different, yet you share the same motto as has every single other cult since the birth of cults...’We are 180 degrees opposite from anything else out there and everyone has got it wrong but us’. That refrain is as old as them thar hills. VINEETO: To suggest that I am proselytising actualism to a group of people who have all voluntarily subscribed to an un-moderated Actual Freedom mailing list … RESPONDENT: Ok, you got me there ... this is a voluntary list. I suppose I could apologize for that proselytising comment as it shouldn’t apply to voluntary lists. So .... Sorry! VINEETO: I am pleased you recognize that you are here of your own volition. RESPONDENT: You see, I am not without admitting I am wrong.... you and your brethren should try it once in a while, although I won’t be holding my breath. VINEETO: Oh, I have no trouble admitting when I am wrong – that’s exactly how I managed to free myself of all of the beliefs I held. Time after time I was compelled to admit ‘Oh, I am wrong about that because I can see the fact of the matter now’, and yet another belief bit the dust. Although it was tough at first – a fatal blow to my pride in fact – once I got the hang of it the process of abandoning beliefs by acknowledging the fact of the matter was exhilaratingly liberating. * VINEETO: …does nothing but yet again demonstrate the lack of both substance and sense in any of your comments to this mailing list thus far. Put simply, if you don’t like reading about actualism then simply don’t read what actualists write. The remainder of your indurate protestations are so hackneyed as to be psittacine. RESPONDENT: Says you, but even you are entitled to your opinions. By the way, those are very impressive words – indurate & psittacine. Very impressive indeedy! VINEETO: Aye, and the words do have meaning. * VINEETO to No 60: This correspondent further believes that UG Krishnamurti’s state is synonymous with Actual Freedom and complains that we are hung up on the words ‘undivided consciousness’. RESPONDENT: Ok you lying kunt ... where did I say that UGK’s term of a ‘natural state’ is synonymous with the state/condition of actual freedom? VINEETO: Here –
RESPONDENT: I was making a point about different terms ‘perhaps’ pointing to the same thing. VINEETO: When I read the above, I don’t see any perhaps in it at all. What I read is ‘he is doing the exact same thing’. The very next day you again said –
Again no perhaps in it all. Or do you want to change tack, follow the current fashion and quibble that the word ‘synonymous’ does not mean the same as ‘the same thing’? RESPONDENT: Your quoted paragraph above refers to one man negating what another has said. It has nothing to do with one term being synonymous with another term. Nice try but keep trying, I am sure you can find something to make your useless point defending your chosen life style and your best game in town to play. VINEETO: Ok, my mistake. I inadvertently selected the wrong quote. This is the quote I had in mind when I wrote the above –
So to go back to your original comment –
As you can see your advice was to just substitute ‘actuality’ for ‘undivided consciousness’ which plainly indicates you believe the words to mean the same thing. It would appear that the only reason I am a ‘lying kunt’ is because you are an obstinate amnesiac. * VINEETO to No 60: Re-labelling one’s spiritual beliefs to be non-spiritual or watering down the word non-spiritual to include things that are spiritual is but to shoot oneself in the foot because this ‘trick’ only makes the process of uncovering one’s beliefs an impossibility – it is impossible to be aware of something whilst one is busy denying it exists. RESPONDENT: You are obsessed with labels. Everyone has a different obsession but doesn’t go around trying to spread their obsession like it is some necessity in life like food, money, shelter, clothing. You really should see a shrink about your obsessions. VINEETO: Of course, to someone who has taken on board the doctrine that labelling is evil, RESPONDENT: You are out of control, you lying bitch. Where did I ever say ‘labelling is evil’? Look, I even labelled you a ‘lying bitch’! VINEETO: Yet I did not say that you ‘did ever say ‘labelling is evil’ – your label was too rashly applied. I said ‘someone who has taken on board the doctrine that labelling is evil’. This is what you think about labelling –
If the word ‘evil’ is too strong for your taste, I can rephrase my statement – ‘someone who has taken on board the doctrine that labelling is neurotic, anal, useless and harmful because the very act of labelling brings into existence the one who labels’. * VINEETO: [Of course, to someone who has taken on board the doctrine that labelling is evil,] clear communication and sticking to the commonly agreed upon meaning of words must appear like an obsession. RESPONDENT: While your communication is in general fairly clear (although it seems, you in particular, tend to make things up (ie: labelling is evil), I am not so sure about you all using ‘commonly agreed upon meaning of words’. VINEETO: Can you now see that it was you who made up that I said that you said labelling is evil? As for your not being sure about us using commonly agreed upon meaning of words – it is you who ridicules actualists when they refer to definitions from the dictionary … the source of commonly agreed upon meanings of words. Vis –
* VINEETO: It must be difficult for you in everyday life when you go shopping and have to point at everything you want instead of giving it a name, when you hop on a bus or a train and say ‘I’d like to go to uhhhhmm please’ or when someone asks what your nationality is or what political party you favour? RESPONDENT: I guess that is your attempt at humour? All I can say is, Peter is obviously not hanging out with you for your sense of humour. Probably you are pretty decent looking, have an attractive body and/or are pretty good in the sack. Let’s hope so, because if not, Peter is even worse off than I could possibly imagine. (I have not gotten rid of my imaginative faculty although it is far from what it used to be) VINEETO: As for the reasons Peter is hanging out with me, he has made clear the basis of our living together in his journal. But I can assure you that delicious sex on tap is merely the icing on the all-round scrumptious cake of living together in utter equity and intimacy.
RESPONDENT: If I remember correctly, UG’s natural state refers to the body and its senses only. IOW your precious ‘flesh and blood body’. VINEETO: Given that you have thus far misunderstood both UG Krishnamurti and actualism, relying on the accuracy of your memory is somewhat questionable. Of course a referenced quote from UG Krishnamurti would help to give credence to the accuracy of your claim. RESPONDENT: Alright little missy ... try this on for size ... it’s from Mystique of Enlightenment: Part 2 http://www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq2.htm VINEETO: <snipped quote> RESPONDENT: I look forward to your usual nitpicking, hairsplitting objections to certain words and phrases. VINEETO: Given that you already decided that whatever I am going to say is the ‘usual nitpicking, hairsplitting objections to certain words and phrases’ I won’t bother responding as it would be a waste of pixels. If you are interested in having a sincere and in-depth conversation about the subject you first need to demonstrate a sincerity of interest in having such a conversation.
RESPONDENT: Well Hello Vineeto, you sexxy thing, you! VINEETO: So after calling me a ‘lying bitch’ and a ‘lying kunt’ I am now a ‘sexxy thing’ and just one day later you have referred to me as a ‘pathetic, arrogant, deluded slut – this not only shows how your perception is governed by your feelings but also reveals your one-track male instinctive outlook. Not only do you do everything possible to avoid having a sincere conversation by pre-disparaging any reply I may make but you also intersperse your posts with sexist comments that do nothing but further isolate yourself from the possibility of participating in a sincere discussion with me. Your game is transparently obvious and you are only shooting yourself in the foot. RESPONDENT: Let me first just put up a most recent quote from your previous post:
Yet after this apparently hollow threat, and my lack of ‘demonstrating any sincerity of interest in having such a conversation’ , you go on and on and on about not much as far as I can tell (in reference to your below replies to a week or two old post. Is this the best drivel you could come up with in 1-2 weeks?) VINEETO: I was simply making the point that your ‘list-style’ works against the possibility of any sensible discussion taking place. And yet despite your dismissal you go on to ask a question of me, which indicates that you are not entirely disinterested in having a conversation. RESPONDENT: … perhaps this will shed some new light on the subject [Richard is doing anything different to UG Krishnamurti]:
So Vineeto ... does ‘no separation’ = undivided ? Because it sure seems like it means the same thing to me. When in doubt, let’s refer to your Holy Bible:
So according to your Bible, aka, the dictionary, undivided means not separated. Strangely enough, extraordinarily similar to what your God, Richard, says to No 23, a mere mortal. Perhaps Richard and you should rename actualism, ‘Hairsplittingism’ or perhaps ‘Nitpickism’ because undivided and ‘no separation’ are too close to divide or separate if you ask me and probably if you asked any mere mortal or God outside of the Actualism God (Richard), they would agree. VINEETO: When you ask ‘does ‘no separation’ = undivided’ – it is important to remember where your reference to the word undivided came from and what it refers to –
So when you ask ‘does no separation = undivided’ you have not only dropped the word ‘state’ from U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement but also the word ‘consciousness’. U.G. Krishnamurti has qualified his state of consciousness as undivided, i.e. his state of consciousness is such that he feels his consciousness to be not divided from, or not separate from, an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness. In contrast, Richard reports that the separative ‘self’ born from the instinctual passions no longer exist in his flesh-and-blood-body. The separative identity is what separates every ‘self’ from every other ‘self’ and from the magnificence of the actual world, and when this separative identity died, an actual intimacy with everyone (every other flesh and blood body) and everything (trees, rocks, rivers, computer keyboards, televisions and images on television screens) became apparent. In other words, U.G. Krishnamurti is not separate from the imaginary universal Consciousness, whereas Richard, having no sperate psychological identity and no ‘non-separate’ psychic identity whatsoever, is a flesh and blood body only – not separate from flesh-and-blood human beings and from the material universe – these are not the same things but in fact 180 degrees opposite. To answer your query I have no need to ask God, Richard or anyone else because I have experienced both opposites myself – an altered state of consciousness whereby ‘I’ was one with an imaginary universal consciousness and many pure consciousness experiences where ‘I’ temporarily did not exist and where I experienced an actual intimacy with the actual world of plants, stars, birds, man-made things and fellow human beings.
VINEETO to No 38: This is what I wrote at the time –
RESPONDENT: You think you were ‘being outside of all those beliefs’ ... what a joke! You were inside your own beliefs thinking they were separate from all you were seeing. You were looking at yourself ... which consisted of – merely ideas, thoughts, constructs, dreams and hopes; nothing was factual about any of them. VINEETO: The night before I had been looking at myself and had suddenly realized that all of my thoughts and feelings were ‘merely ideas, thoughts, constructs, dreams and hopes; nothing was factual about any of them’. This was the moment something clicked in my brain, the stream of my thoughts and feelings suddenly came to a halt and ‘my’ ‘self’-centred bubble burst. The ‘self’-created reality ceased and for a short shocking moment I thought the world had ended. But when I looked around me, the couch I was sitting on still existed, the walls were still there, the floor was still solid under my feet and a fellow human being was sitting next to me on the couch. ‘My’ reality had crashed and only then did actuality become apparent … for the first time in my life. This is what I wrote at the time –
RESPONDENT: And you are now sitting in your different stall, offering your product (method) together with your particular belief-system, as you now try to convince customers of the reality of your particular version of ‘truth’. VINEETO: You have been down this ‘you are proselytizing’ track before and it is an equally limp protest this time around. To stay with your metaphor – for ‘customers’ to hover around this stall for months upon months, if not years upon years, complaining they are being proselytized to, or complaining about what is on offer, is patently perverse. As long as you insist on remaining trapped within the ‘self’-oriented bubble of your own social-instinctive identity then humanity’s ‘truths’, beliefs and ‘wisdom’ is all there is, and all there ever can be. What is reported on this mailing list and on the Actual Freedom Trust website is that there exists an actual world outside of and entirely independent from the mishmash of conflicting concepts, ideals and affective experiences that are generated by each and every human psyche. And not only that, there is also a method that anyone who so desires can use to progressively diminish and ultimately step out of one’s ‘self’ in order to experience the always existing peace-on-earth. You have made is clear in each of your 300+ posts to this list that you prefer to not change but to remain ‘who’ you are. You have also chosen to continually write to this list defending your borrowed ‘truths’ and cherished beliefs rather than explore the actuality which becomes apparent when ‘I’ step out of the way. Given that defending the status quo is your sole modus operandi you have no reason to complain that the gist of what we are talking about remains incomprehensible to you.
RESPONDENT: So Vineeto ... does ‘no separation’ = undivided ? Because it sure seems like it means the same thing to me. <snip> VINEETO: When you ask ‘does ‘no separation’ = undivided’ – it is important to remember where your reference to the word undivided came from and what it refers to – <snip>
So when you ask ‘does no separation = undivided’ you have not only dropped the word ‘state’ from U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement but also the word ‘consciousness’. U.G. Krishnamurti has qualified his *state of consciousness* as undivided, i.e. his state of consciousness is such that he feels his consciousness to be not divided from, or not separate from, an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness. RESPONDENT: Where the hell do you get ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’?? Do you just make stuff up to justify your point of view? Where did UG say that? VINEETO: I don’t have to ‘make stuff up’ to know what U.G. Krishnamurti means by his ‘state of undivided consciousness’ – I have an intimate knowledge of what he is talking about from having had a few temporary experiences of such a state of undivided consciousness myself. This is how U.G. Krishnamurti describes his state of undivided consciousness –
This is how ‘the turiya state’ is explained in the Encyclopaedia Britannica –
* VINEETO: To answer your query I have no need to ask God, Richard or anyone else because I have experienced both opposites myself – an altered state of consciousness whereby ‘I’ was one with an imaginary universal consciousness and many pure consciousness experiences where ‘I’ temporarily did not exist and where I experienced an actual intimacy with the actual world of plants, stars, birds, man-made things and fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: I have a suggestion... why don’t you just press your damn button already and get it over with? Perhaps you can’t find your button? Maybe the next time you and Peter are going at it, he will find it for you and press it himself. Or perhaps you could perform some actualist version of 69 and press each others buttons and extirpate each other simultaneously. You would be doing this world, that world and every world a big favor! Die already you big big talker carrying no stick. VINEETO: Oh, but I pressed the button
VINEETO: So when you ask ‘does no separation = undivided’ you have not only dropped the word ‘state’ from U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement but also the word ‘consciousness’. U.G. Krishnamurti has qualified his state of consciousness as undivided, i.e. his state of consciousness is such that he feels his consciousness to be not divided from, or not separate from, an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness. RESPONDENT: Where the hell do you get ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’?? Do you just make stuff up to justify your point of view? Where did UG say that? VINEETO: I don’t have to ‘make stuff up’ to know what U.G. Krishnamurti means by his ‘state of undivided consciousness’ – I have an intimate knowledge of what he is talking about from having had a few temporary experiences of such a state of undivided consciousness myself. This is how U.G. Krishnamurti describes his state of undivided consciousness –
RESPONDENT: And how exactly do you get ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’ out of that? He says nothing about any all pervading, all-encompassing consciousness, much less imaginary which you insert to add an exclamation point to your point. VINEETO: Given that you were not interested in taking into account what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about ‘the turiya state’ –
what is your understanding of the state that U.G. Krishnamurti calls ‘turiya’? Can you explain in what way ‘turiya’ is not ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’? * VINEETO: To answer your query I have no need to ask God, Richard or anyone else because I have experienced both opposites myself – an altered state of consciousness whereby ‘I’ was one with an imaginary universal consciousness and many pure consciousness experiences where ‘I’ temporarily did not exist and where I experienced an actual intimacy with the actual world of plants, stars, birds, man-made things and fellow human beings. RESPONDENT: I have a suggestion... why don’t you just press your damn button already and get it over with? Perhaps you can’t find your button? Maybe the next time you and Peter are going at it, he will find it for you and press it himself. Or perhaps you could perform some actualist version of 69 and press each others buttons and extirpate each other simultaneously. You would be doing this world, that world and every world a big favour! Die already you big big talker carrying no stick. VINEETO: Oh, but I pressed the button RESPONDENT: You better press it again. I don’t think you pressed hard enough. This time put your whole being into it ... all your spirit. Don’t you worry, I am doing just fine.
VINEETO: So when you ask ‘does no separation = undivided’ you have not only dropped the word ‘state’ from U.G. Krishnamurti’s statement but also the word ‘consciousness’. U.G. Krishnamurti has qualified his *state of consciousness* as undivided, i.e. his state of consciousness is such that he feels his consciousness to be not divided from, or not separate from, an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness. RESPONDENT: Where the hell do you get ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’?? Do you just make stuff up to justify your point of view? Where did UG say that? VINEETO: I don’t have to ‘make stuff up’ to know what U.G. Krishnamurti means by his ‘state of undivided consciousness’ – I have an intimate knowledge of what he is talking about from having had a few temporary experiences of such a state of undivided consciousness myself. RESPONDENT: Your so-called intimate knowledge is not only an exaggeration but a boastful macho testosterone laden joke. VINEETO: For someone who says about himself ‘I am not a student of states of consciousness’ (UG’s imagination, 4.5.2004) you have, by your own statement, no reference point from which to make this unsubstantiated allegation. I was a ‘student of states of consciousness’ for 17 years, I met several enlightened masters and a few self-realized teachers and I can also compare my own experiences of altered states of consciousness with enlightenment and ‘self’-realization descriptions of these people. I intimately know of what U.G. Krishnamurti is talking about. * VINEETO: This is how U.G. Krishnamurti describes his state of undivided consciousness –
RESPONDENT: And how exactly do you get ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’ out of that? He says nothing about any all pervading, all-encompassing consciousness, much less imaginary which you insert to add an exclamation point to your point. VINEETO: Given that you were not interested in taking into account what the Encyclopaedia Britannica has to say about ‘the turiya state’ –
what is your understanding of the state that U.G. Krishnamurti calls ‘turiya’? Can you explain in what way ‘turiya’ is not ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’? RESPONDENT: I never heard of turiya before and am clueless on its definition and what UG means when he uses it. VINEETO: So when you say ‘he says nothing about any all pervading, all-encompassing consciousness, much less imaginary’ you are, by your own admission, expressing your cluelessness. Further, by your own words, you are not only clueless about what U.G. means when he uses the term ‘turiya’, you also persistently refuse to inform yourself on the meaning of the term even when it is presented in this very correspondence. Apparently your approach to enquiring into the facts of the matter is to adopt the ‘submerge one’s cranium in grains of silica’ method. RESPONDENT: UG grew up in a religious atmosphere, studied religions, philosophy and theosophy, so he may use all these words as expressions that you and Richard are so quick to jump all over and label him this or that. Certain words, phrases or expressions make an easy mark for you and makes you feel good that you can label your competitors spiritual or solipsistic. VINEETO: I don’t perceive U.G. Krishnamurti as a competitor at all – he simply got trapped in his spiritual and religious conditioning like millions of others, so much so that he, like a few others, ended up entrapped within the ‘turiya’ state. The reason I call a spade a spade when it comes to people teaching spiritual enlightenment is that others who are seeking freedom from the grim reality of the human condition may recognize the trap of delusion before they fall into it themselves. RESPONDENT: Lucky for you, since you are unable to ask UG what he meant by that word, that he defines it for you above: as ‘A total absence of this division in your consciousness into wakeful, dream and sleep states may be called ‘turiya’ – not transcending these things but a total absence of this division.’ But still, how you are able to infer ‘an imaginary all-pervading all-encompassing consciousness’ from that, has not only got me beat but stumped and aghast at the fertility of your virile virulent imagination. VINEETO: You better sit down on a chair whilst reading as your protestations have, by your own admission, no leg to stand on. Given that you said of the state of ‘turiya’ that you are ‘clueless on its definition and what UG means when he uses it’ and that you ignored the explanation from the Encyclopaedia Britannica that I previously posted, here is an explanation of what ‘turiya’ means from a different source –
RESPONDENT: Why you go to the dictionary when he tells you exactly what he means is part of your game. VINEETO: On the one hand you say ‘he tells you exactly what he means’ yet on the other hand you say ‘I am clueless on its definition and what UG means when he uses it’. I am left wondering how someone can manage to balance two contradictory statements whilst having his cranium firmly immersed in grains of silica – not to mention not having a leg to stand on. If you want to keep repeating U.G. Krishnamurti quotes it would be sensible to at least try to understand what they mean before you send them – unless you are wanting others to do your thinking for you, that is. * VINEETO: As for your ‘A little UG blurb for you proud atheists’ 1.5.2004 – U.G. Krishnamurti, along with all the other Eastern gurus, long ceased to be an authority as to how I should live my life. When I had a pure consciousness experience I knew that the actuality experienced when the ‘self’ does not interfere beats any spiritual state by a country mile. U.G. Krishnamurti is, by his own description, neither happy nor harmless. He terms his transformation as a calamity and describes himself as a never to be repeated sport of nature. The only thing that he, along with all the other Eastern gurus, taught me is what not to do. Vineeto’s & Richard’s Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust: 1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
