|
Richard’s Correspondence On The Actual Freedom Mailing List with Correspondent No. 27
RESPONDENT: Richard, I recently joined the mailing list for Actual Freedom. I’m including a copy of my first post in this email. I have read much of what’s on offer at the AF website. I want to pose a specific question for your response – my first post is included merely to give you context. In the forefront of my investigations right now is ‘beauty’ versus what you are calling ‘sensate delight.’ At first, upon reading the material at the AF website, I was stricken with a fear of what my life would be like if I gave up my experience of beauty – thinking that to be inhuman. RICHARD: Yes ... when I was first catapulted into an actual freedom from the human condition I was astonished to discover that beauty had disappeared (I had trained as an art teacher and had made a living as a practising artist). Howsoever I was to discover that beauty is but a pale imitation of the purity of the actual. Even so, it was initially disconcerting (to say the least). RESPONDENT: Then, I realized that you apparently have no problem in delighting in things I would have considered ‘beautiful.’ Sunsets, gardens, sexuality, etc. Indeed, the website itself uses delightful pictures of nature and music to enhance the reader’s experience. So it dawned on me that much of what we commonly call beauty can be experienced on two levels – mental/ emotional and ‘sensate’. For you, the prior is gone. Now apparently you experience purely on the sensate level. I have never had much interest in painting, sculpture, or what is normally considered ‘art’ – so I have no problem stripping it of ‘beauty’ and replacing it with the sensate – just the delight of colour and pleasingness to the eye. Now music is a whole different story, since I’ve spent quite a bit of my life experiencing and developing my ability to experience ‘beauty’ in music. Is there something similar in the realm of music? RICHARD: Yes ... to feel pleasure affectively (hedonistically All the while is the apperceptive wonder that this marvellous paradise actually exists in all its vast array. RESPONDENT: It seems to me there must be a similar distinction – some sounds are more pleasing to the ear than others – and they don’t necessarily have to do with beauty. Is there ‘music’ without ‘beauty?’ RICHARD: Yes ... if by ‘music’ you mean a melody or a tune (some bird-sounds, for example, are melodious whilst others are not). RESPONDENT: Is there room for music appreciation without the affective? RICHARD: Yes ... although it must be born in mind that most musical appreciation is determined by a cultural aesthetic (Chinese opera, for example, does not sound like the music the typical Western ear is accustomed to). RESPONDENT: If so, what’s it like? RICHARD: In a word: pure. RESPONDENT: U.G. Krishnamurti (I am aware there is only superficial similarity between you and he) says the eyes are interested in seeing, but not as beauty – and the ears are interested in hearing, but not as music. So I am really interested in knowing whether there is any appreciation for music in your actual freedom – and what it’s like. RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in a rather odd position – I read all that is on offer by him and by others associated with him when I first came on the internet in 1997 – as he is still basically spiritual whilst denying/decrying much of what spirituality has to offer ... nevertheless he comes the closest to what I have to report (of all the peoples I have read or spoken with). RESPONDENT: Here follows my original post. (snip) ... one of the fears I’ve had to confront is that of losing my lifetime ‘love’ of music. Confronting that fear has shown me how foolish it is to hold something like that so dear to my heart which could be lost with physical disability. I read some of Richard’s comments scattered through the website about music – mostly which seemed to suggest that enjoyment of music is affective – a passion. Then I began to question just what I thought ‘music’ is ... there is music designed to pull at the heartstrings – music to rally soldiers to war – music which is intended as sorrowful – music intended to be happy – music that is educational and fun – and music which doesn’t seem to have any purpose at all. Not that I can catalogue all the different types, but I soon realized that the word ‘music’ doesn’t really have anything in particular that it describes – rather a loose association of actualities. Now, it seems to me that most any actuality can be ‘experienced’ on 2 levels – what Richard calls ‘sensate’, then also the ‘mental/emotional’. So, remembering that the idea behind moving toward virtual or actual freedom is minimizing emotional highs and lows, what would music be like on a purely sensate level? RICHARD: Basically, in this context, it is a blessed release from all the emotional ‘highs and lows’ . RESPONDENT: I remember Richard remarking that he is not interested in ‘beautiful music’ or even artistic ‘beauty’. Does that then eliminate any interest in ‘music’ or ‘art’ all together? RICHARD: No ... but the interest is far removed from the pathetic interest RESPONDENT: It would seem to me that just as there is a level on which we can delight in what is ‘pleasing to the eye’ without involving beauty – that we can also delight in what is ‘pleasing to the ear’ – as in various musical forms – without involving the beautiful and the sorrowful. RICHARD: Yes, you have hit the nail upon the head ... and where there is no beauty there is no ugly as only purity abounds. RESPONDENT: P.S. If you would like to post this on the AF mailing list and include your response for the benefit of everyone – I have no objection. I’m just sending this to you since it’s your response I’m specifically interested in – in this case. RICHARD: You will notice that I did indeed post my response to The Actual Freedom Mailing List as I rarely, if ever these days, correspond privately ... the mailing list is the most suitable forum for airing these matters as all peoples interested can read and/or join in, thus ensuring maximum input and diverse approaches and/or experiences. This also has the effect of exposing any flaws or weakness in what is being presented – a peer-group review as it were – and can only serve to further the establishment of anything factual. Also, an actual freedom from the human condition works in the market place and not behind cloistered walls ... and even so the relative anonymity of the internet medium allows for an uninhibited expression that is unequalled anywhere else anyway. I appreciate your well-considered e-mails.
RESPONDENT: Though I agree that U.G. is in general very perplexing ... RICHARD: I am none too sure what person you are agreeing with ... I do not find him ‘perplexing’ at all. His words do indicate a dichotomous nature (sometimes he speaks materialistically and at other times he speaks spiritually) which is why I said in my initial reply that he is in an odd position but that he is basically spiritual. RESPONDENT: ... I doubt that it is correct to characterize him as ‘spiritual’. RICHARD: Why not? He clearly states that time and space and matter do not exist outside of [an
omnipresent] mind and that he is an expression of [an omnipotent] energy – as per the quotes I recently provided in a post to
another RESPONDENT: He emphasizes time and time again that he does not intend anything ‘spiritual’. RICHARD: I am well aware that he sometimes says words to that effect ... I simply provided quotes that contradict his own assessment of himself. RESPONDENT: Now, it can be argued that he has a bad ‘spiritual hangover,’ but I think it’s a bit over the top to call him spiritual. RICHARD: Hmm ... he certainly speaks like a spiritualist at times (as per the now-snipped quotes regarding the mind-dependent and thought-dependent existence of time and space and matter as already discussed above). RESPONDENT: His expression is often done clumsily in spiritual language, but my approach is to take him at his word that he is not intending to be understood in a spiritual sense. RICHARD: I too took him at his word when I first started to read him (back in 1997 when I first came across him on the internet) but the more I read the more it became obvious that he neither has a ‘spiritual hangover’ nor is he merely expressing himself clumsily in ‘spiritual language’ . The most outstanding book in this regard was ‘Stopped in Our Tracks’ wherein it becomes patently obvious that he is indeed basically spiritual. Vis.: http://www.well.com/user/jct/stopped.htm RESPONDENT: I’ll be happy to dig up quotes later if prompted, but I’m short on time at the current moment, but wanted to add a few things to this discussion. RICHARD: No problem ... I do not need any quotes as I am cognisant of all what is published on-line. * RICHARD: Here are some examples [that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is basically spiritual]: he says that time and space and matter do not exist outside of the mind. Vis.: (snip three quotes about ‘mind’ and ‘energy’). This omnipotent energy that he is an expression of is otherwise known as ‘Truth’ or ‘God’: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘Supposing I tell you ‘This is the way’, – then where are you? You experience what I tell you. This knowledge you are going to use and create a state of being and think that you have experienced God, that you have experienced Reality or that you have experienced Truth. But that is not the Truth. That is not God’. RESPONDENT: I think it’s a mistaken interpretation to think that U.G. is talking about an actual God here. RICHARD: How so? He clearly states that if the listener uses the knowledge he provides to create a state of being that they think is God, Reality or Truth then that (the knowledge-created state of being) is not God or Truth. RESPONDENT: He is merely telling others that there is nothing they can do to find ‘God,’ since God doesn’t exist. RICHARD: He does not say that God does not exist ... he only says that their knowledge-created God is not God. RESPONDENT: ‘God’ is a figment of their imagination in U.G.’s view. RICHARD: Aye ... and ‘their’ imagination is the key-word here in this context. * RICHARD: If that is not convincing enough this one is a classic spiritual teaching if there ever was: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘You are never born and you never die. How can there be any death when you are not born? RESPONDENT: Here he means that there is no self – therefore there is nothing to die. He talks of us mistaking what we are for a self and that if we realize that we never existed in the first place – then we’ll know that there is nothing to die. He is NOT implying that there is something that exists of our being that pre-existed and will exist after death. RICHARD: What about the [omnipresent] mind and the [omnipotent] energy? It is traditional Indian spirituality that the omnipresent mind or omnipotent energy (aka God or Truth) is never-born and never-dies ... Mr Mohan ‘Rajneesh’ Jain had those ‘never born; never died’ words carved on his marble epitaph. RESPONDENT: The ONLY time he speaks in THAT manner is when he talks about ‘life in general.’ By that, I understand he means physical life – in the sense that it is recycled. So in that sense I am billions of years old and who knows how long my body will continue to live in some form or another? U.G. says that death is just the rearranging of atoms, nothing more. So the body dies, but there is no self to die. RICHARD: I do understand his ‘rearranging of atoms’ statements ... that is not what he is speaking of above (obviously the body is born and the body dies). It is well worth remembering that for him the body (and its constituents atoms which he talks about so often) have no existence outside of an [omnipresent] mind and are an expression of an [omnipotent] energy. * RICHARD: (snip four quotes about ‘thought’ creating time and space and matter). This will all sound so very familiar to anyone at all conversant with spirituality ... but I will finish with one more quote that is self-explanatory in regards to the marked distinction between spiritualism and actualism. Vis.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. [endquote]. RESPONDENT: On this particular claim – I believe Richard is claiming that his lived ‘sensate’ experience has contradicted. Thank God for that! And that is not a claim about an actual God! LOL. RICHARD: Yes, I make it unambiguously clear that time and space and matter exist independent of any human being’s perception of them ... and that ‘direct sense-experience’ is possible (I call this direct perception apperception). Such an experience is startling evident in a pure consciousness experience (PCE). * RICHARD: There are many more quotes where these few came from. RESPONDENT: No doubt U.G. uses spiritual vocabulary and expression. RICHARD: No doubt at all ... the question is why? RESPONDENT: Yet, is it not also a fact that he seems to despise that interpretation? RICHARD: Yes ... I already said in my initial reply (now snipped) that he denies/decries much of what spirituality has to offer. RESPONDENT: I think it would be correct to say that he intends to be understood non-spiritually. RICHARD: Again ... I would recommend reading ‘Stopped in Our Tracks’. RESPONDENT: U.G. is an atheist. RICHARD: I sent the search function of this computer through the data-base of all his published words ... and quickly found this quote:
It would appear that he does not want to be labelled. Here is another in this non-labelling vein:
Anybody that avoids labelling themselves end up, by default, leaving it to others to make their own appraisal (just as you did with ‘atheist’ and I did with ‘spiritual’). Speaking personally I find it much clearer, more up-front and honest to label myself so as to leave no need for speculative discussions, such as this one, when other peoples come across my writings. I like my fellow human being and have no wish to make something simple into something complex. RESPONDENT: There is no afterlife for U.G. RICHARD: Not a personal after-life, no. RESPONDENT: There is also no ‘spiritual-growth’ ... RICHARD: That is quite a common spiritual teaching these days ... Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti also says this (and he makes no secret about being spiritual). RESPONDENT: ... or anything ‘spiritual’ for him for that matter. RICHARD: So he says, yes. RESPONDENT: There is also no ‘enlightenment’. RICHARD: Mr. Jiddu Krishnamurti was also cagey about using that word. RESPONDENT: Why not take him at his word and not call him by the term he despises? RICHARD: Again ... I did initially take him at his word but the more I read the less I could continue to do so. RESPONDENT: Wouldn’t it be better to say that much of his expression is muddled, unclear, and has spiritual remnants – rather than using the term ‘spiritual’ to describe him – a term he personally rejects? RICHARD: Is that the best that can be done ... to explain it away by saying that he is muddled, unclear and has spiritual remnants in him (and that he uses a spiritual vocabulary and expression plus has a spiritual hangover and a clumsy spiritual language)? You make him sound like a person hardly worth listening to.
RESPONDENT: ... I doubt that it is correct to characterize U.G. as ‘spiritual’. RICHARD: Why not? He clearly states that time and space and matter do not exist outside of [an omnipresent] mind and that he is an expression of [an omnipotent] energy – as per the quotes I provided in the last post – as in a mind that is everywhere and as in an energy that he cannot say anything about (other than it is manifesting itself in boundless ways without limitations or boundaries). RESPONDENT: I am not at all clear that he means to say there really is an omnipresent mind or that there is anything such as omnipotent energy. RICHARD: It was me that inserted the words ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omnipotent’ – and explained why in my initial posting of the quotes – he does not use those words. RESPONDENT: I understand his notion of ‘mind’ as a myth – an illusion. RICHARD: He means that the mind inside the skull is a myth ... not the mind that he says is everywhere. RESPONDENT: His references to mind being everywhere are confusing, but I’ve interpreted him as seeing ‘mind’ like ‘culture.’ Just as culture is omnipresent (but not a thing) – mind is very similar. RICHARD: Except that ‘culture’ is inculcated from birth onwards via the oral tradition and the written tradition ... if it were not for human beings it would not exist. RESPONDENT: I’ve always thought for U.G. that mind is an abstract concept with nothing actual corresponding to it. RICHARD: Ahh ... but a metaphysical abstraction and not a physical abstraction. RESPONDENT: He specifically attacks the idea of universal mind. RICHARD: He attacks a lot of things only to then replace them with his own words ... perhaps if I put it this way: he proposes that thought creates time and space and matter (as per the quotes I have already provided) which means that thought creates the universe. Now, he is most specific that thought does not originate in the human brain but in a ‘thought sphere’ ... you just recently provided a quote detailing this, in another thread, where he says that there is a thought sphere that is not yours or mine and which is always there (note the ‘always there’ phrase). This means that the universe comes from, originates in, or is created by, this metaphysical thought sphere. Perhaps now you may begin to see why I inserted the words ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omnipotent’?
RESPONDENT: U.G.s references to mind being everywhere are confusing, but I’ve interpreted him as seeing ‘mind’ like ‘culture.’ Just as culture is omnipresent (but not a thing) – mind is very similar. RICHARD: Except that ‘culture’ is inculcated from birth onwards via the oral tradition and the written tradition ... if it were not for human beings it would not exist. RESPONDENT: The quotations I provided make clear that U.G. specifically defines mind as ‘the totality of all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation.’ (per my last post). So I don’t see him saying that mind is there independent of any human being. RICHARD: Yes, you have a good point here ... I had overlooked that when this quote caught my attention:
The phrase ‘your mind and my mind’ of course has to include each and every person that has ever existed... which effectively wipes out his ‘all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation’ statement. It would appear that he is either contradictory or, as you say (below) talking of a physical abstraction. * RESPONDENT: I’ve always thought for U.G. that mind is an abstract concept with nothing actual corresponding to it. RICHARD: Ahh ... but a metaphysical abstraction and not a physical abstraction. RESPONDENT: He specifically attacks the idea of universal mind. RICHARD: He attacks a lot of things only to then replace them with his own words ... perhaps if I put it this way: he proposes that thought creates time and space and matter (as per the quotes I have already provided) which means that thought creates the universe. Now, he is most specific that thought does not originate in the human brain but in a ‘thought sphere’ ... you just recently provided a quote detailing this, in another thread, where he says that there is a thought sphere that is not yours or mine and which is always there (note the ‘always there’ phrase). This means that the universe comes from, originates in, or is created by, this metaphysical thought sphere. RESPONDENT: This ‘thought sphere’ for U.G. is nothing but ‘the totality of all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation,’ as stated by U.G. Take for example the following quote ... Q: So you say that the mind, the brain has really no non-physical traces. Now, I just don’t see how you can interpret this as thought originating in some metaphysical or omnipresent mind. U.G. is using a physical abstraction – NOT metaphysical. RICHARD: Indeed I cannot – not in those particular quotes – but the following quote contradicts the ones you provide:
I am starting to see that he is indeed contradictory and that it is a mistake to take just one quote out of many (no wonder you say people are confused or perplexed by him). I had seen him as alternating between speaking materialistically and speaking spiritually (perhaps according to the background of the questioner?) Howsoever, we are still left with his statements about thought creating time and space and matter (aka the universe). * RICHARD: Perhaps now you may begin to see why I inserted the words ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omnipotent’? RESPONDENT: Indeed, I believe I understand precisely why you use those words. I also think it is a misinterpretation. I would be happy to agree with you if it weren’t so clear that you are making a drastic mistake on this point. To repeat probably the most contradictory quotation to your interpretation ... U.G. ‘What I am trying to put across is that there is no such thing as God. It is the mind that has created God out of fear. Fear is passed on from generation to generation. What is there is fear, not God. If you are lucky enough to be free from fear, then there is no God. There is no ultimate reality, no God – nothing. Fear itself is the problem, not ‘God’.’ (‘Mind is a Myth’ chapter 1). I just don’t see how this can be squared with your interpretation of omnipresent mind. RICHARD: Again I see that he is contradictory. Vis.:
Yet he says, in the quote you provide, that ‘if you are lucky enough to be free from fear, then there is no God’ . I do remember watching a video of his back in 1997 where he says when asked by an interviewer on television that he does not experience fear but that the body does ... obviously he draws a distinction between himself and the body (yet he says there is no self inside the body). I appreciate the attention and research you are putting into this discussion – it has persuaded me look again at why I inserted ‘omnipresent’ and ‘omnipotent’ and that can only be beneficial as I have always said that he comes closest to what I report – do you have a non-spiritual explanation as to what he means when he says that thought creates time and space and matter (aka the universe)? Some spiritualists have it that the universe is a thought in the mind of God. •••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• P.S.: Here are some of the quotes about thought creating time and space and matter (aka the universe):
And:
Again:
Once more ... short and to the point:
RESPONDENT: The quotations I provided make clear that U.G. specifically defines mind as ‘the totality of all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation.’ (per my last post). So I don’t see him saying that mind is there independent of any human being. RICHARD: Yes, you have a good point here ... I had overlooked that when this quote caught my attention: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as your mind and my mind. Mind is everywhere, sort of like the air we breathe’. (from Chapter Four, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html). The phrase ‘your mind and my mind’ of course has to include each and every person that has ever existed ... which effectively wipes out his ‘all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation’ statement. RESPONDENT: I don’t see how the ‘your mind and my mind’ phrase wipes out his definition. Just like when my wife and I leave our house – it is always there and independent of myself and her – yet still dependent upon culture and humankind since we didn’t build it. RICHARD: Yet somebody, at some time, did build it ... culture did not build it and neither did humankind. RESPONDENT: The thought sphere is not created by either ‘you or me’ yet it still exists. RICHARD: Who created it then if it was not you or me or anybody else that is living or has ever lived? Does it appear ex nihilo? RESPONDENT: It depends on the physical abstraction of ‘culture.’ Just like when one tells a joke – nobody normally knows its origin – we just know it didn’t originate with us – yet we also don’t think it originated itself! RICHARD: Of course the joke did not originate itself – and neither do thoughts originate themselves in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ that nobody created – the joke (and the thoughts) originate in a particular human brain in a particular human skull at a particular time at a particular place. Now that the metaphysical source of the ‘thought sphere’ has been removed his observations simply become nonsensical ... if I sit here writing this e-mail and the bladder indicates that it is full and there is the thought ‘shall I finish writing this paragraph and then go and relieve the pressure or shall I go now’ that thought is originating in this human brain and in this human skull (not in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ which exists outside of this brain). Vis.:
This now reads like a nonsense statement. * RESPONDENT: This ‘thought sphere’ for U.G. is nothing but ‘the totality of all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation,’ as stated by U.G. Take for example the following quote ... Q: So you say that the mind, the brain has really no non-physical traces. U.G.: I don’t think there is any such thing as mind separate from the activity of the brain.’ (‘Thought is Your Enemy’ chapter 7). Now, I just don’t see how you can interpret this as thought originating in some metaphysical or omnipresent mind. U.G. is using a physical abstraction – NOT metaphysical. RICHARD: Indeed I cannot – not in those particular quotes – but the following quote contradicts the ones you provide: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘The thoughts do not come from here [pointing to his head], they are coming from outside’. (from Chapter One, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): http://www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm). RESPONDENT: There is nothing metaphysical at all about that quote. U.G. is big on saying that no one is an individual – we are built from belief and culture, etc. So this meshes quite well with his view that he is not originating thought – but operating as conditioned by the ‘thought sphere’ so to speak – which is not a metaphysical notion for him. RICHARD: The more you explain it the more nonsensical it becomes. The brain inside this skull does not pick-up thoughts from outside that exist in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ ... it originates its own thoughts as occasioned by the current situation and circumstances. * RICHARD: I am starting to see that he is indeed contradictory and that it is a mistake to take just one quote out of many (no wonder you say people are confused or perplexed by him). I had seen him as alternating between speaking materialistically and speaking spiritually (perhaps according to the background of the questioner?) RESPONDENT: I think it appears this way to you because you are only too willing to fall back on your prior (mistaken) interpretation that U.G. intends something metaphysical by ‘thought sphere,’ and continue to read into it a metaphysical interpretation. RICHARD: I did say ‘had seen’ in the sentence above – it was the way I made sense of what he was saying at the time – but I do now see that his ‘thought sphere’ is not a metaphysical concept but a (useless) abstraction of what literally happens in each and every brain in each and every skull that is living and has ever lived. RESPONDENT: Possibly this is the case because of the way you interpret what he says about time and space ‘creating the world’. RICHARD: Just to keep the record straight he actually says that thought creates time and space and matter (and not ‘time and space creating the world’ as you have inadvertently put it). RESPONDENT: In other words, you are still on the fence. Get rid of ANYTHING metaphysical in U.G. and you will finally get him right. RICHARD: Okay ... more on this below. * RICHARD: Howsoever, we are still left with his statements about thought creating time and space and matter (aka the universe). RESPONDENT: U.G. also says that ‘we create our own reality’. RICHARD: Yes, I have no issue with this ... there is a ‘real’ world that the ‘self’ within superimposes as a veneer over the actual world so precisely that it fits like a surgeon’s glove. However, it is not just thought (or concepts) that does this. RESPONDENT: He doesn’t mean that in a physical sense, but a conceptual sense. So he means that thought creates our concepts of time and space. RICHARD: It would be handy if he said that rather than baldly saying that thought creates time and space and matter. Vis.:
I took him literally where he says ‘no thought, no matter’ ... you are saying that he actually means ‘no thought, no conceptual matter’. RESPONDENT: I remember seeing where he explained ‘Maya’. He interprets ‘maya’ literally as ‘measure’. It is the distance or separation between ‘me’ and ‘you’. So when U.G. is talking about ‘space’ he means ‘separation’ which disappears when the self disappears. RICHARD: Yes, I have no issue with this either – separation from the world of people, things and events does indeed disappear when the ‘self’ within disappears – then there is a direct perception of the actuality of every body and every thing and every event ... yet he says such direct experience (apperception) is not possible. Vis.:
A trifle curious, non? RESPONDENT: By ‘time’ he means ‘continuity of moments’ which disappears when the self disappears. RICHARD: Only this moment is actual ... which is not to deny that past moments were actual when they were happening or that future moments will be actual when they do happen. As such there is a seamless continuum. RESPONDENT: So thought doesn’t create the universe in any objective or metaphysical sense – rather, (for U.G.) it creates the universe conceptually in each human being that uses thought. RICHARD: Ahh ... is he talking about himself or people in general? Speaking personally, thought does not create a conceptual universe when it operates in this brain in this skull ... apperception (aka ‘direct sense-experience’) keeps on keeping on. RESPONDENT: You many want to reread the quotes you provide about time and space – replace ‘thought’ with ‘conceptual thinking happening in the brain only’ (received from culture of course) – rather than ‘thought’ in some omnipresent Mind sense. RICHARD: I did and I see that it would have been far better, as I have already commented, if he had said that thought creates conceptual time and conceptual space and conceptual matter ... can you point me towards some quotes where he makes it unambiguously clear that he is speaking of thought creating a conceptual universe? You see, it is that bit about ‘direct sense experience’ being impossible that makes me wonder if that is what he means. RESPONDENT: I think you will see that he is saying each one of us creates ‘time’ and ‘space’ relative to self. RICHARD: Sure ... but is he not saying that about himself too? RESPONDENT: U.G. isn’t saying that Thought creates Time and Space in any real or metaphysical sense. RICHARD: Good ... I have always said that I would be most pleased to find somebody else that experiences what I report. When I first came across his words on the internet in 1997 I read all the information with rapidly diminishing interest. Something fundamental had happened to him that I could relate to – the total annihilation of any psychological entity whatsoever – but he clearly states that he himself does not know what it was that happened, unfortunately. He makes it clear that he has nothing to offer to advance humankind’s knowledge about itself, which makes his a hapless condition. He makes no bones about considering himself as being a ‘sport of nature’, which is not about to be repeated, so therefore he concludes that no good will be obtained by talking with him. Of course, I am in accord with his oft-repeated statements about Spiritual Enlightenment being a waste of time, but it is one thing to speak out against something – whilst offering nothing in its place – and another thing entirely to propose a viable, liveable and delightful alternative to what one is knocking down. I did not read him saying anything about how deliciously enjoyable it is to be finally free of the Human Condition; what a pleasure it is to be alive at this moment in time; how life is an adventure in itself by the simple fact of being here; what a felicitous experience it is to be the universe’s experience of itself as an apperceptive human being; to be able to fully appreciate the infinitude of this physical universe by being alive as this flesh and blood body ... and so on. In fact he called what happened to him a ‘calamity’ ... and has this to say about his ‘natural state’:
RESPONDENT: The quotations I provided make clear that U.G. specifically defines mind as ‘the totality of all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation’. (per my last post). So I don’t see him saying that mind is there independent of any human being. RICHARD: Yes, you have a good point here ... I had overlooked that when this quote caught my attention: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as your mind and my mind. Mind is everywhere, sort of like the air we breathe’. (from Chapter Four, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html). The phrase ‘your mind and my mind’ of course has to include each and every person that has ever existed ... which effectively wipes out his ‘all that has been known, felt, and experienced by man, handed down from generation to generation’ statement. RESPONDENT: I don’t see how the ‘your mind and my mind’ phrase wipes out his definition. Just like when my wife and I leave our house – it is always there and independent of myself and her – yet still dependent upon culture and humankind since we didn’t build it. RICHARD: Yet somebody, at some time, did build it ... culture did not build it and neither did humankind. RESPONDENT: Yes, but no one particular person (brain) invented the modern-day ‘house’. You can’t pin that person down in this case – like you can the builders of a particular house. RICHARD: You are now straying from the point of your analogy and talking about the form it has (the cultural design of the house)... whereas you were originally speaking about the fact that neither you or your wife built it. Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti says that thoughts come from a ‘thought sphere’ ... not just the form that thought takes. Vis.:
Whereas thoughts actually originate individually in each and every human brain in each and every human skull (in other words thoughts are indeed ‘located in the brain’ and are indeed ‘manufactured by the brain’) ... as exemplified by the ‘full bladder’ example I give further below. * RESPONDENT: The thought sphere is not created by either ‘you or me’ yet it still exists. RICHARD: Who created it then if it was not you or me or anybody else that is living or has ever lived? Does it appear ex nihilo? RESPONDENT: Nor can you designate any particular person who created U.G’.s ‘thought sphere’. RICHARD: That is precisely what I am saying (further above) ... yet you responded by stating that ‘I don’t see how the ‘your mind and my mind’ phrase wipes out his definition’ . RESPONDENT: Culture and ‘reality’ is a holistic phenomenon, one must consider the whole system, including people AND their environment which participates in the evolution of thought. RICHARD: On the contrary, the phrase ‘your mind and my mind’ has to include each and every person that has ever existed ... therefore no person or persons, living or dead, can have created, or participated in creating, his ‘thought sphere’ if his argument is to be consistent for all time and all people. Hence it must appear ex nihilo. * RESPONDENT: It depends on the physical abstraction of ‘culture’. Just like when one tells a joke – nobody normally knows its origin – we just know it didn’t originate with us – yet we also don’t think it originated itself! RICHARD: Of course the joke did not originate itself – and neither do thoughts originate themselves in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ that nobody created – the joke (and the thoughts) originate in a particular human brain in a particular human skull at a particular time at a particular place. RESPONDENT: OK, granted many jokes originate with one person, with a time and place. RICHARD: Good ... whereas Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti would have people believe, like he does, that nobody originates thought and that all thoughts come from some abstract ‘thought sphere’. RESPONDENT: What I was trying to get across is the sense in which a joke can go through modification by the time it gets to you – no one in particular originated it after its been mutated. Probably a much better example would be oral tradition. There very well may be someone who originated any given story in an oral tradition, but the fact that it is passed down for generations and mutated, means that it no longer has an ‘originator’ in its evolved form. RICHARD: Of course ... here you are talking about the evolved form it takes – just like in your house analogy – but Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is speaking of thoughts coming from a ‘thought sphere’ (which the brain, acting like an antenna, picks up out of the ... um ... the ether, as it were, on a ‘common wavelength’). I will repeat the quote from above for the sake of emphasis:
* RICHARD: Now that the metaphysical source of the ‘thought sphere’ has been removed his observations simply become nonsensical ... if I sit here writing this e-mail and the bladder indicates that it is full and there is the thought ‘shall I finish writing this paragraph and then go and relieve the pressure or shall I go now’ that thought is originating in this human brain and in this human skull (not in some abstract ‘thought sphere’ which exists outside of this brain). RESPONDENT: I would suggested looking at your use of ‘originating’. RICHARD: I did and I am ... the thought does indeed originate in this brain (when triggered by the pressure of the full bladder). This brain is not acting like an antenna and picking-up the thought ‘shall I finish writing this paragraph and then go and relieve the pressure or shall I go now’ from some abstract ‘thought sphere’ that exists ex nihilo. RESPONDENT: Now, there is a sense in which your thought of a full bladder originates in your brain, but for you couldn’t THINK about email, the bladder, relieving, and pressure without the influence of culture. RICHARD: Once again you are talking about the form that the thought takes ... not the thought itself. RESPONDENT: The thought happens in your brain – but it doesn’t ‘originate’ there. RICHARD: Au contraire ... the thought both happens in the brain and originates there (otherwise he is ascribing omniscience to this ‘thought sphere’ in that it can know about this particular full bladder). Only this body can sense that its bladder is full ... and thus originate the thought about it. RESPONDENT: I think U.G. is saying that nothing ‘originates’ in the brain. RICHARD: Aye ... and as such it is a nonsensical notion. RESPONDENT: We don’t cause ourselves, just like we don’t cause our thoughts. RICHARD: This body is the direct result of a spermatozoa fertilising an ovum; the thoughts this body has originate in this brain as occasioned by the current situation and circumstances ... they do not come from some omniscient ‘thought sphere’ that knows this body’s every sensation. * RICHARD: Vis.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘The thoughts do not come from here [pointing to his head], they are coming from outside’. (from Chapter One, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): http://www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm). This now reads like a nonsense statement. RESPONDENT: What’s perplexing is U.G. use of ‘outside’. He loves to point out that no one is an individual, that all of our thoughts are gotten from someone else, that no one really is original and all that. RICHARD: I do not find it ‘perplexing’ ... I find it nonsensical. RESPONDENT: So I think he is just once again indicating that there is no original thought – all thought originates in his ‘thought sphere’. RICHARD: Surely it must be beginning to be obvious that unless this ‘thought sphere’ is omniscient it simply cannot know each and every persons’ current situation and circumstance and then dutifully send the appropriate thought to the antenna-like receiving brain in question? RESPONDENT: Individuals just perpetuate thought – not create it. RICHARD: Well this particular individual does indeed create thought ... and so do other people whom I have checked this with. RESPONDENT: Forgive the length of the following quote – but it’s packed with stuff relevant to this whole conversation ... (begin quotation). Q: Then what is matter? What is basic matter? The most interesting parts of this to me is when U.G. talks about ‘where thought comes from’. He talks about how our thoughts come from outside – then gives an example of recognizing thunder – almost as if the thought came the interaction between your neurons and the thunder. Information from outside is what makes thought. Also, notice that he speculates that thought is passed down through education, culture, and genetics. Nothing metaphysical there. His point about knowledge ‘creating a space here’ reveals that he thinks concepts create what we know as ‘matter,’ ‘time,’ and ‘space’. RICHARD: If you look back towards the beginning of the text in the quote you provide here you will see that the basic premise he makes is false ... thus all of the following discussion is based upon an error. Here is the specific text:
Yet it is this simple: the body is sitting in front of the computer monitor reading this sentence; the eyeballs see these words; the hand may reach for the words and touch the glass that is but a scant few millimetres to the front of the pixels; the physical fingertips touching physical glass (matter-on-matter) requires no ‘past knowledge’ to sensuously ascertain that the glass is hard as an actuality ... and the same applies to softness when touching the cushion of the chair that the body is sitting upon. Thought is not required in this sensate verification ... touch is immediate and direct. RESPONDENT: I think it a bit strange though how he thinks dogs have their own thoughts. RICHARD: Yes, and if you look again at the sequence you will see that the questioner raised a legitimate question, about whether thought does in fact create matter, by citing the example of a dog (or any animal would have done for an example) which does not think ... but Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does not go into the obvious implications of the question (presumably because it upsets his theory) and the questioner, unfortunately, does not persist. Yet it is a valid question and deserves a valid answer. RESPONDENT: I wonder if they have ‘proto-selves’ along with it? RICHARD: We can always discuss that later ... I would prefer to stick to the subject at hand (whether thought does indeed create time and space and matter or not). * RICHARD: Howsoever, we are still left with his statements about thought creating time and space and matter (aka the universe). RESPONDENT: He doesn’t mean that in a physical sense, but a conceptual sense. So he means that thought creates our concepts of time and space. RICHARD: It would be handy if he said that rather than baldly saying that thought creates time and space and matter. Vis.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘When thought creates time, a space is created there; so thought is also space as well. Thought also creates matter; no thought, no matter’. (from Chapter Five, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: http://www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html). I took him literally where he says ‘no thought, no matter’ ... you are saying that he actually means ‘no thought, no conceptual matter’. RESPONDENT: Pretty much. I think he is saying we cannot experience ‘matter’ without thought and knowledge. RICHARD: Yet he is obviously in error there ... as the example (further above) of the fingertips touching easily demonstrates. RESPONDENT: ‘Matter’ is nothing but the experience of ‘matter’. ‘Space’ is nothing but the experience of ‘space’. Same goes for ‘time’. This may also be why he says there is no pure experience – for ‘experience’ presupposes concept – thus, thought. RICHARD: Yet experience does not necessarily presuppose concept ... touch is direct and immediate (to give but one obvious example). And in a pure consciousness experience (PCE) it is startlingly obvious that all experience is direct and immediate (and not just touch). * RESPONDENT: I remember seeing where he explained ‘Maya’. He interprets ‘maya’ literally as ‘measure’. It is the distance or separation between ‘me’ and ‘you’. So when U.G. is talking about ‘space’ he means ‘separation’ which disappears when the self disappears. RICHARD: Yes, I have no issue with this either – separation from the world of people, things and events does indeed disappear when the ‘self’ within disappears – then there is a direct perception of the actuality of every body and every thing and every event ... yet he says such direct experience (apperception) is not possible. Vis.: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti: ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. (from Chapter 11,’U.G. Krishnamurti: A Life’, copyright Mahesh Bhatt, published as a Viking book by Penguin Books India (P) Ltd., 1992: http://www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm). A trifle curious, non? RESPONDENT: Yes, but I think this reinforces the fact that U.G. sees ‘experience’ as inherently conceptual. RICHARD: Aye, he does indeed ... and therein lies his problem as I would hazard a guess, from what he says, that he lives in a conceptual world (and is thus disassociated from the physical). RESPONDENT: He stipulates that an ‘experience’ must have an ‘experiencer,’ which I know you disagree with. RICHARD: Good ... I am glad that you see this. * RESPONDENT: You many want to reread the quotes you provide about time and space – replace ‘thought’ with ‘conceptual thinking happening in the brain only’ (received from culture of course) – rather than ‘thought’ in some omnipresent Mind sense. RICHARD: I did and I see that it would have been far better, as I have already commented, if he had said that thought creates conceptual time and conceptual space and conceptual matter ... can you point me towards some quotes where he makes it unambiguously clear that he is speaking of thought creating a conceptual universe? RESPONDENT: ‘Conceptual universe’ was my term ... RICHARD: So he does not unambiguously say that thought creates conceptual time and conceptual space and conceptual matter after all ... that was your interpolation. I will stay with taking his words literally then. RESPONDENT: ... and probably a clumsy one. He does not speak in that manner, but I think my previous quote lends credibility to just that regarding matter, space, and time. RICHARD: I will repeat here an observation I made in a previous post (which you may have overlooked): palaeontology evidences that time and space and matter existed long before human beings and the human mind and human thought appeared on the scene. Thus we do not even have to get into a discussion about whether dogs can think or not to ascertain that time and space and matter exist in their own right (independent of thought) ... and long before Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti was born. * RICHARD: You see, it is that bit about ‘direct sense experience’ being impossible that makes me wonder if that is what he means. RESPONDENT: It seems clear to me why he says that ‘direct sense experience’ is impossible. His idea is that ALL experience is mediated by thought. Thus, there is no such thing as ‘direct sense experience’. That is a contradiction in terms for him. RICHARD: Yes, and he makes this explicit in the first of the initial quotes I provided in order to demonstrate that he was basically spiritual ... I will re-post it here as you may be inclined to take notice of it this time around:
It is quite clear that for him the physical world – the world of this body and that body and every body; the world of the mountains and the streams; the world of the trees and the flowers; the world of the clouds in the sky by day and the stars in the firmament by night and so on and so on ad infinitum – does not exist outside of his mind. In a word: solipsism
CORRESPONDENT No. 27 (Part Two) RETURN TO THE ACTUAL FREEDOM MAILING LIST INDEX RETURN TO RICHARD’S CORRESPONDENCE INDEX The Third Alternative (Peace On Earth In This Life Time As This Flesh And Blood Body) Here is an actual freedom from the Human Condition, surpassing Spiritual Enlightenment and any other Altered State Of Consciousness, and challenging all philosophy, psychiatry, metaphysics (including quantum physics with its mystic cosmogony), anthropology, sociology ... and any religion along with its paranormal theology. Discarding all of the beliefs that have held humankind in thralldom for aeons, the way has now been discovered that cuts through the ‘Tried and True’ and enables anyone to be, for the first time, a fully free and autonomous individual living in utter peace and tranquillity, beholden to no-one.
Richard's Text ©The Actual Freedom Trust:
1997-. All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer |
