|
Richard’s Selected Correspondence On Mr. Uppaluri G. Krishnamurti
RESPONDENT No. 12: Truly this is the greatest time in all of history to be alive. It will take time to bear collective fruit, but I think your discovery will gradually wash over humanity in due time, if humanity doesn’t destroy itself first (which is a very real possibility). RICHARD: Ha ... as what you are saying, in effect, is that every single man, woman and child on the
planet – all 6.5 billion – are going to be destroyed, as a very real possibility, by every single man, woman and child on the
planet (aka species extinction) then here is a ‘word of the day’ for future reference: hyperbole: a figure of speech
consisting in exaggerated or extravagant statement, used to express strong feeling or produce a strong impression and not meant to
be taken literally; [synonyms] exaggeration, over- statement, excess, overkill. (Oxford
Dictionary). RESPONDENT: Hi Richard, I would wish read your pragmatics comments about this topic (human race extinction), because maybe this subject can be much more than one hyperbolic speculation to us. UGK also made some predictions: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/actualfreedom/message/7498 (quoted from http://www.well.com/user/jct/reddi.htm) RICHARD: G’day No. 14, Reading down from the top: 1. Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is self-contradictory about it being [quote] ‘the sheer terror of extinction’ [endquote] which will save humankind as he also says [quote] ‘no power on this earth’ [endquote] can halt extinction. Besides which, extinction of identity in toto/the entire affective faculty will do whatever saving is necessary (not that any such altruistic action ever occurred to him though). 2. He was wrong about the US being only [quote] ‘one of the superpowers’ [endquote] as the collapse of the USSR left it the only superpower (which says a lot about a market economy versus a command economy/ privatisation versus nationalisation/ democracy versus autocracy and so on). Besides which, having also lived through the ‘Cold War’ era myself it was obvious to me at the time how individual capitalism was streets ahead of state capitalism in terms of generating wealth (and thus economic, military and social might). 3. He was dissembling where he said [quote] ‘I am not a god man’ [endquote] as he unambiguously categorised his state of being elsewhere as ‘sahaja samadhi’ (the sanskrit term for ‘natural state’) which is generally held by more than a few to be superior to ‘nirvikalpa samadhi’. Besides which, it is obvious to anyone with the eyes to read how he still had the entire affective faculty intact and, thus, ‘being’ itself (usually capitalised as ‘Being’). 4. He was wrong about it being [quote] ‘the separative structure of thought’ [endquote], which has [quote] ‘created the violent world’ [endquote], that will probably push [quote] ‘life on this planet to the brink of extinction’ [endquote]. Besides which, the non-cognitive consciousness of many and various animals has not precluded them from creating their own violent worlds (so to speak) which has pushed other species to extinction. 5. He was wrong about [quote] ‘the first and the last freedom and all the freedoms that come in between’ [endquote] pushing humans into [quote] ‘a manic-depressive state’ [endquote]. Besides which, political freedom, economic freedom, social freedom, and so on, has resulted in health, wealth, leisure, pleasure and safety for the average citizen on a scale which is unprecedented in human history. 6. He was wrong about how human self-consciousness, in contra-distinction to the way consciousness functions in other species, is [quote] ‘threatening the extinction of all that nature has created with such tremendous care’ [endquote]. Besides which, only the human animal (with its unique capacity for self awareness and intelligence) can adapt blind nature in ways beneficial to a continuance of life. 7. He was wrong where he said [quote] ‘no power on this earth’ [endquote] can halt that above extinction and how [quote] ‘Man is doomed. He has no freedom of action’ [endquote]. Besides which, so what were the human race to die out sooner than later as the planet itself – indeed the entire solar system – is not going to last forever anyway. 8. And he was wrong in saying [quote] ‘all we can do is to wait for the end of the world’ [endquote]. 9. But he was right when he said that all the above may sound like [quote] ‘an apocalyptic warning of a prophet of doom’ [endquote]. As anyone would be well-advised to take everything he said with a pinch of salt then a large salt-shaker is a
worthwhile investment prior to reading his books. RESPONDENT No. 27: U.G. Krishnamurti (I am aware there is only superficial similarity between you and he) says the eyes are interested in seeing, but not as beauty – and the ears are interested in hearing, but not as music. (snip). RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is in a rather odd position – I read all that is on offer by him and by others associated with him when I first came on the internet in 1997 – as he is still basically spiritual whilst denying/decrying much of what spirituality has to offer ... nevertheless he comes the closest to what I have to report (of all the peoples I have read or spoken with). RESPONDENT: How is U.G. still basically spiritual? RICHARD: Here are some examples: he says that time and space and matter do not exist outside of the mind. Vis.:
And this is what he means by ‘our minds’:
An omnipresent mind, in other words ... here is a similar quote about an omnipotent energy that is quite explicit:
This omnipotent energy that he is an expression of is otherwise known as ‘Truth’ or ‘God’:
If that is not convincing enough this one is a classic spiritual teaching if there ever was:
Then there is the typical spiritual stance that thought is the problem:
And:
Again:
Once more ... short and to the point:
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.:
There are many more quotes where these few came from. 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 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: 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 particulate 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 at the bottom of this post – 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 particulate 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 RESPONDENT: I’m struggling to understand your explanation of UGK. UGK says, when there’s complete effortlessness, there would be a clinical death. Why is it that one is not in this state yet? Because one is trying to understand. When one stops, there’s the clinical death. I haven’t find any reference to this: Other Guru’s who reached Enlightenment don’t report this calamity, clinical death, and hormonal change in the body, and UGK does. If it is so, how can you compare your Enlightenment with his? RICHARD: As I have no Enlightenment whatsoever there is nothing for me to compare with Mr. Uppaluri
Krishnamurti’s Sahaja Samadhi RESPONDENT: What’s the difference there? RICHARD: There is no essential difference between Enlightenment per se and Sahaja Samadhi (although Sahaja Samadhi is generally held to be superior to Nirvikalpa Samadhi). RESPONDENT: Do you think it is possible for him to be on an Actual Freedom path? RICHARD: It is not a matter of what I think ... it is patently obvious that Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti
is not on the wide and wondrous path to an actual freedom from the human condition. RICHARD: The words ‘how am I experiencing this moment of being alive’ simply refer the make-up of the attentiveness being applied ... as distinct from, say, the buddhistic ‘mindfulness’ (which is another ball-game entirely). In other words the focus is upon how identity in toto is standing in the way of the already always existing peace-on-earth being apparent just here right now. RESPONDENT: ... can you go slightly deeper into actualist attention and Buddhist mindfulness in detail please. It would be of great assistance to me. RICHARD: The focus of the buddhistic ‘sati’ – a Pali word referring to mindfulness, self-collectedness, powers of reference and retention – is upon how self is not to be found in the real-world ... as Mr. Gotama the Sakyan makes abundantly clear, for example, to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic) in SN 22.59; PTS: SN iii.66. Which is why it is another ball-game entirely. RESPONDENT: So far only you and UGK (of those I have come across in print or cyberspace) have talked about consciousness as part of body and it will cease after death, only that body’s atoms get reshuffled and live on. RICHARD: I never talk about a body’s [quote] ‘atoms’ [endquote] getting reshuffled and living on ... ‘atoms’, just like ‘molecules’, are mathematical models. And, as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is most specific that there is only one consciousness, it is somewhat difficult to comprehend how you can say he talked about consciousness ceasing after death. Vis.:
Then again, as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is also most specific that there is no such thing as consciousness at all, there is no need to even begin trying to comprehend how you can say he talked about consciousness ceasing after death. Vis.:
You do realise, do you not, that what you are (presumably) endeavouring to have a meaningful discussion about on this topic is the utterances of someone who does not know whether they are alive or dead? Vis.:
RESPONDENT: And yet of course there are differences between you two in other areas. RICHARD: Indeed ... the affective feelings:
Specifically:
And:
He may have done a lot of things ... but the extirpation of the genetically-inherited instinctual passions, such as fear and aggression and nurture and desire, is most certainly not one of them. On the contrary, he stresses their importance ... as well as the anger (aka aggression) and the empathetic suffering (aka nurture) already quoted above he has this to say (for example) about desire and fear:
And:
RESPONDENT: Is this the main departure point between what you report and what spiritualists (Ramana, Nisargadatta and others) report? Namely Consciousness. RICHARD: What I report is the absence of the entire affective faculty/ identity in toto ... whereas consciousness (the suffix ‘-ness’ forms a noun expressing a state or condition) is nothing other than a flesh and blood body being conscious. RESPONDENT: You say it’s a result of brain’s neuronal activity, something that the individual flesh and body possesses and it will extirpate upon one’s death. They say it’s primary and everything including universe arises out of that capital Consciousness. Consciousness is infinite and timeless to them and for you it’s the physical universe that is infinite and eternal. Richard, can you slightly in detail regarding this consciousness. How it operates in you, and how and why does it appear to some as infinite and timeless and primary. How does one avoid the trap of that delusion. RICHARD: I posted the following, which perhaps summarises the nub of the issues you mention most succinctly, only last month:
To say that consciousness remains forever after physical death is as blatantly ludicrous as proposing that
the warmness of the body (the state or condition of a body being warm) continues to subsist evermore even though it be as cold as
ice (as in a morgue). RESPONDENT: Can you comment on this, Richard? From Mystique (Mistake) of Enlightenment: Pt.1: UG. www.well.com/user/jct/mystiq1.htm [snip four paragraph quote about stigmata mysticus]. RICHARD: I have far better things to do with my time ... such as sitting with my feet up on the coffee-table watching comedies on television. RESPONDENT: (...) Perhaps you care to explain these swellings that UG gets with phases of the moon or his talk about glands and how physically he feels what another may feel and even get marks on his body. Are they spiritual swellings? RICHARD: What is it that you do not understand about the phrase ‘stigmata mysticus’ that you seek my explanation? RESPONDENT: [Are they] ASC swellings and marks? RICHARD: What is it that you do not understand about Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s suggestion in the
quotes you provided RESPONDENT: Is his physical sensitivity psychosomatic? RICHARD: May I suggest? Type the word <nadis> into a internet search engine and see what comes up ... then try <nadis AND stigmata> (or however the particular search-engine requires ‘find both words’ to be entered) and lastly type <mystical AND stigmata> for a western-style explanation. RESPONDENT: In all those 11 years of enlightenment, surely you experienced these things. RICHARD: Not being born and raised in the Indian culture – and thus not being steeped in their spiritual heritage – such tradition-inspired swellings and colourations played no part in my experience ... and, being agnostic if not atheistic from a very young age, neither did the corresponding culturally-conditioned mystical stigmata of the country I was born and raised in manifest itself either. Plus I was not what is known as ‘an ecstatic’ anyway. RESPONDENT: Just what qualifies Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti as ‘spiritual’? Possibly you could define exactly what you mean by the word ‘spiritual’? RICHARD: There is a simple way to ascertain whether the word means the same, or similar, to you as it does to me ... for example, would you say that Mr. Gaudapada (aka Mr. Gowdapada) qualifies as spiritual? RESPONDENT: Yes. The reason is because of his belief in a Soul, souls, or spirit in some sense. RICHARD: Oh? I will refer you to the following exchange:
Would you say that Mr. Gaudapada was in a state? Or would you say he was in what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti calls ‘the field of duality’ (immediately below)? * RICHARD: The reason why I provide that example is because of what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about him: [quote] ‘The saints are trying to tell you, so they are always in the field of duality; whereas the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in the state of undivided consciousness. He does not know that he is a free man, so for him there is no question of trying to free others. He is just there, he talks about it, and then he goes. Gaudapada had no disciples – he refused to teach anybody’. [endquote]. And: [quote] ‘You must challenge what I am saying without the help of your so-called authorities. You just don’t have the guts to do that because you are relying upon the Gita, not upon yourself. That is why you will never be able to do it. If you have that courage, you are the only person who can falsify what I am saying. A great sage like Gowdapada can do it, but he is not here. You are merely repeating what Gowdapada and others have said. It is a worthless statement as far as you are concerned. If there were a living Gowdapada sitting here, he would be able to blast what I am saying, but not you’. RESPONDENT: OK, so you are saying that since UG says that Gowdapada can falsify his [UG’s] words, and that he was a ‘great’ sage means that UG is spiritual? RICHARD: In the first passage (further above) he clearly says [quote] ‘the sage or seer, or whatever you want to call him, is in *the state of undivided consciousness*’. [emphasis added] ... would you say that Mr. Gowdapada, whom Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti says is ‘a great sage’, was in such a state? If so it is pertinent to see how Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti describes his own state:
To not put too fine a point on it: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has defined Mr. Gowdapada with the label ‘great sage’ (and others like him with the labels ‘sage’ or ‘seer’) because he – and they – are not in what he calls ‘the field of duality’ but are in what he calls ‘the state of undivided consciousness’ ... has he not? Is his report of himself (with ‘the divided state of consciousness’ no longer functioning and thus always being in ‘the undivided state of consciousness’) all that markedly different that he would not apply the same labels to himself had he not painted himself into a corner with some weird thou-shalt-not-label-thyself/ thou-shalt-not-define-thyself rule? Here is another one:
The Encyclopaedia Britannica article I part-quoted from (now snipped) reports Mr. Gaudapada as saying words to the effect that [quote] ‘... there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through maya (‘illusion’); and only nonduality (advaita) is the final truth’ [endquote] and that [quote] ‘there is ultimately no individual self or soul (jiva), only the atman (all-soul), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space’ [endquote]. Here is what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has to say about Atman (aka Jivatman) being Brahman (aka Paramatman) when time is not there (aka the timeless state):
Maybe it does take one (albeit an ex-one) to know one ... but is this really all that difficult to comprehend that you cannot see it for yourself? RESPONDENT: This last quote prompted me to go back and read part of ‘The Mystique of Enlightenment’. There are places where he discounts any talk of Atman or Brahman, but I think you have aided me in understanding better what he is getting at. He is like J Krishnamurti in many, many ways (though there are marked differences as well). He is like him in the sense that he discounts religious belief held by anybody with an ‘I’ still outstanding, but then gives them a new meaning or attempts to go back to the ‘original’ meaning as born in his experience – rather than belief. RICHARD: Yes – with all due allowance for using the word ‘experience’ – that hits the nail right on the head. RESPONDENT: My point being that Atman and Brahman are ‘laughable’ (for UG) when considered as beliefs or thoughts or pursuits or concepts from a ‘divided consciousness’ – but they are exactly spot on when experienced as UG says. RICHARD: Again with all due allowance for using the word ‘experienced’ ... yes, that is indeed the point. * RESPONDENT: It strikes me (and I have wondered about this before) – that there is a kind of solipsism of experience going on here – as in much of the spiritual literature on enlightenment and non-duality. Douglas Harding expresses it quite well in his idea of ‘having no head’. I heard Bernadette Roberts put it exactly that way – and I also see it in UG’s statements about not being aware of his body. The ‘experience’ might be characterized by a consciousness being unable to reflect upon itself as to have ‘self’-consciousness – which is why they make so much of it being a non-experience. Ludwig Wittgenstein made this a dominant theme in his life and writing as well. It is an extreme scepticism about thought and knowledge that J Krishnamurti shares to some extent with UG, Wittgenstein, Bernadette Roberts, Douglas Harding, and probably most spiritualists – which is why the limits of knowledge is so important to them. JK talked about intelligence awakening when it discovers it’s limits – UG has similar themes, BR identifies greatly with the ‘Cloud of Unknowing’ and makes much of unknowing, and Wittgenstein was instrumental in giving birth to the current spirit of postmodernism where doubt and scepticism are trusted more highly than common sense knowledge. I’m going on here, but I’m just writing as it occurs to me. The common theme is that reflective consciousness no longer comes into play in this state. The world doesn’t really have a past or future (only timelessness), there is no ‘self’, objects appear flat (no-3D), no ‘attachment’ to the past or future since they don’t exist, all that exists is what is given to present experience – everything else is ‘unknown’. Take that formula and turn in into a life and you get UG’s undivided consciousness. RICHARD: Yes ... an ‘undivided consciousness’ means there is, literally, no observer and the observed (aka subject and object) – the observer is the observed (aka ‘Tat Tvam Asi’/ ‘Thou Art That’) – wherein there is only observation (aka witnessing). In a word: solipsism RESPONDENT: Could it be this easy? Undivided Consciousness = Solipsism of Present (non-reflexive) Consciousness? RICHARD: It is indeed that easy (although even the word ‘Present’ becomes nonsensical as it is a timeless state). RESPONDENT: I don’t know if you understand what I’m getting at, but I’m beginning to wonder whether you have a big smile of recognition on your face indicating that you understand it all too well – as in what you lived through? RICHARD: Indeed so ... and it is why I am responding to this e-mail ahead of the others awaiting my attention. RESPONDENT: Is this also be the reason why you sniff out solipsism wherever it rears it’s ugly head, because of the relationship between solipsism and spiritual realization? RICHARD: Yes, phrases such as ‘we are all one’ (as in an oceanic And if the mystic is really coy (which I was) they say ‘There is only That’ – hence the ‘Anatta’ (‘No-Self’) doctrine of Buddhism – and either decline to comment on after-death states or declare there is no such thing as death (such as I did). To awaken in the dream is to be but dreaming lucidly ... and is not to be taken as being awake. RESPONDENT: Richard I’ve started reading U. G. Krishnamurti and am immediately struck by the similarities between the way you report experiencing the world and the way he does. RICHARD: Oh? Then obviously you have not come across something like this yet:
As contrasted to this:
RESPONDENT: [U.G.].: ‘When this thing happened to me, I realized that all my search was in the wrong direction, and that this is not something religious, not something psychological, but a purely physiological functioning of the senses at their peak capacities. That was the answer to my question’. [endquote]. RICHARD: As saying that there is ‘no such thing as direct sense-experience’ effectively wipes out the ‘purely physiological’ appraisal of the statement that the senses are functioning at their ‘peak capacities’ all you are left to be struck by is the phrase ‘wrong direction’ ... and a search of the data-base of all his published words for any other instances of that phrase produced the following:
There he is saying that to search is to be going in the wrong direction (whereas I report that the very state of being itself, which he does not like to call ‘enlightenment’, ‘freedom’, ‘moksha’ or ‘liberation’ as they are all loaded words with their own connotation, is what is the wrong direction) ... here is another instance:
Lastly he says that ‘thought-induced states of being’ are all trips in the wrong direction as they are
all within the field of time ... and that the timeless can never be experienced, grasped, contained, or given expression
RESPONDENT: How extensively have you read him ... RICHARD: I read all of the 521,697 words at the following URL, with rapidly diminishing interest, when I first accessed the internet in February 1997: www.well.com/user/jct/ Plus I watched three videos of him around the same time ... and stopped watching the third one halfway through when he answered ‘the body does’ when asked the question ‘do you experience fear’ (always a hot topic) in an televised interview in South America. As I did not transcribe that video-tape this is the nearest print-published quote to that answer I have been able to locate:
RESPONDENT: ... and can you see parallels between his experience of living and your ‘actual freedom’? RICHARD: No ... for just one example Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has made it abundantly clear on many an
occasion that the instinctual passions are still extant. Vis.: RESPONDENT: 1) I am thinking of the Sanskrit proverb ‘Yad bhavam tad bhavati,’ which means ‘You are what you believe,’ or ‘You become what you believe.’ (snip remainder of Mr. Narayana Moorty’s article about ‘the unity of Being’). RICHARD: Mr. Narayana Moorty also wrote the following:
SELECTED CORRESPONDENCE ON U.G. KRISHNAMURTI (Part Two) RETURN TO RICHARD’S SELECTED 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 |
