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. Buddha makes abundantly clear, for example, to compliant monks in the ‘Anatta-Lakkhana’ Sutta (The Discourse on the Not-Self Characteristic) in Samyutta Nikaya XXII. 59. 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.:

• [Q]: ‘I’m convinced that in our meeting it is not the words that are important, but that there is something beyond the words.
• [UG]: ‘I don’t know, and you can’t be sure: it may be a projection of your own. If there is anything, it acts in its own way. This consciousness which is functioning in me, in you, in the garden slug and earthworm outside, is the same. In me it has no frontiers; in you there are frontiers – you are enclosed in that. Probably this unlimited consciousness pushes you, I don’t know. (...) But it is bound to affect – there is only one mind, there is only one consciousness – whatever happens here is bound to affect, but its effect will be very microscopic’. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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.:

• [Q]: ‘The consciousness of the body ...
• [UG]: ‘The consciousness of the body does not exist. There is no such thing as consciousness at all. The one thing that helps us to become conscious of the non-existing body, for all practical purposes, is the knowledge that is given to us. Without that knowledge you have no way of creating your own body and experiencing it’. (from Chapter Seven, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

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.:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘I really don’t even know whether I am alive or dead’. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

RESPONDENT: And yet of course there are differences between you two in other areas.

RICHARD: Indeed ... the affective feelings:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘That somebody, that artificial, illusory identity is finished. Then, you see, and even now, there is nobody who is feeling the *feelings* there’. [emphasis added]. (from Part Three, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

Specifically:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘It is not that I am indifferent to the suffering man. I *suffer* with the suffering man ...’. [emphasis added]. (from Chapter 11,’U.G. Krishnamurti: A Life’, copyright Mahesh Bhatt, published as a Viking book by Penguin Books India (P) Ltd., 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm).

And:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘The personality does not change when you come into this [natural] state (...) The personality will remain the same. Don’t expect such a man to become free from *anger* ...’. [emphasis added]. (from Part Two, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘As long as there is a living body, there will be *desire*. It is natural’. [emphasis added]. (from Chapter One, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA.1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘I can assure you that when you have no *desire* you will be carried as a corpse to the burial ground’. (...) If *desire* dies, you die. The black van comes and carts you away, that’s it!’ [emphasis added]. (from Chapters Three and Four, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

And:

• [Question]: ‘If somebody hit you, would you feel afraid?’
• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘There is such a thing as physical *fear* ...’. [emphasis added]. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... *fear* is essential for the protection of the human organism – it is very important. The physical organism knows what to do in a particular situation, so you don’t have to think about it’. [emphasis added]. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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:

• [Richard]: ‘For those peoples who are unable/ incapable or unwilling/ disinclined to discern the difference between consciousness (the state or condition of a body being conscious) and identity – be it both/ either the ego/ self and/or the soul/ spirit – then it would quite possibly be of no avail to point out that, as any such identity is born of the instinctual passions (genetically endowed at conception by blind nature as a rough and ready survival package), upon the cessation of all affections when the body dies so too does any identity formed thereof cease and that, therefore, death is the end, finish ... kaput’.

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 that you seek my explanation?

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:

• [Respondent]: ‘... it’s still not clear to me exactly where U.G. ‘stands’ – if he ‘stands’ anywhere at all.
• [Richard]: ‘As he is talking from the very state he refers to it is not a stand – in the typical connotation of that word – but rather a description/ explanation of that state, as it is happening, then it is the nature, or character, of that state which is still not clear to you ... and not whether he is in a state at all.
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes, this makes sense.
• [Richard]: ‘Or is it that it is still not clear to you if he is in a state at all?
• [Respondent]: ‘Yes, it is clear that he MUST be in a ‘state’.

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:

• ‘All these visions and everything were happening for three years after the ‘calamity’. Now the whole thing is finished. The divided state of consciousness cannot function at all any more; it is always in *the undivided state of consciousness* – nothing can touch that. [emphasis added]. (from Part One, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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:

• ‘In this state [the natural state] there is *no division*. Our situation is that I cannot transmit and you cannot receive that fact. In addition to it, you have gone one step further and created a more complex problem for yourself by placing *the undivided state* outside yourself as you are; this means search. [emphases added]. (from Chapter Three, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

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):

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... there is nothing to happen. Happening is in time. When time is not there, there is no happening, nothing to happen there. Atman is Brahman – that is exactly what it means – the Brahman you want in the future is already here; there is nothing to happen here. Achieving (it doesn’t matter what you call it) is in time, so it is bound to be caught up in cause and effect. You want to produce a result, but this is not a result, not a happening, not an achievement. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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 feeling of oneness) are meant to be taken literally (as in ‘there is no other’) ... as is ‘I Am That’ (not the ego-‘I’ though) or ‘Thou Art That’ meant to be taken literally.

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:

[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: www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm).

As contrasted to this:

• [Richard]: ‘Initially it will be seen that how one is experiencing this moment of being alive is usually via a feeling or a belief (sometimes cunningly disguised as a ‘truth’) – and a belief is an emotion-backed thought anyway – thus effectively blocking the direct sense experience.

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:

• ‘You see, I maintain that – I don’t know, whatever you call this; I don’t like to use the words ‘enlightenment’, ‘freedom’, ‘Moksha’ or ‘liberation’; all these words are loaded words, they have a connotation of their own – this cannot be brought about through any effort of yours; it just happens. (...) But whatever you do in the direction of whatever you are after – the pursuit or search for truth or reality – takes you away from your own very natural state, in which you always are. It’s not something you can acquire, attain or accomplish as a result of your effort – that is why I use the word ‘acausal’. It has no cause, but somehow the search come to an end. (...) You see, the search takes you away from yourself – it is in the opposite direction – it has absolutely no relation. (...) All that you do makes it impossible for what already is there to express itself. That is why I call this ‘your natural state’. You’re always in that state. What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way is the search. The search is always in the *wrong direction*, so all that you consider very profound, all that you consider sacred, is a contamination in that consciousness. [emphasis added]. (from Part One, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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:

• ‘I am saying that it is a wonder that the state occurred in spite of my doing all those things [spiritual practices]. First of all, what is all the search and seeking for? It is your search that takes you away from the natural state you always are in. All your seeking is in the *wrong direction*. Wouldn’t you remain in your natural state forever if your search stopped? [emphasis added]. (from Part One, Book One, ‘Stopped In Our Tracks’; by K. Chandrasekhar: www.well.com/user/jct/stopped.htm).

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. Vis.:

• ‘Your natural state has no relationship whatsoever with the religious states of bliss, beatitude and ecstasy; they lie within the field of experience. Those who have led man on his search for religiousness throughout the centuries have perhaps experienced those religious states. So can you. They are thought-induced states of being, and as they come, so do they go. Krishna Consciousness, Buddha Consciousness, Christ Consciousness, or what have you, are all trips in the *wrong direction*: they are all within the field of time. The timeless can never be experienced, can never be grasped, contained, much less given expression to, by any man. That beaten track will lead you nowhere. There is no oasis situated yonder; you are stuck with the mirage. [emphasis added]. (from Part Two, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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:

• [Question]: ‘If somebody hit you, would you feel afraid?’
• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘There is such a thing as physical fear ...’. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992; www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

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: Richard cut and pasted this UG sentence out of a whole paragraph [quote] ‘There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience’. [endquote]. He conveniently omitted the entirety of the subject and took it out of context like there is no tomorrow. UG was responding to a question on artistic creativity: Richard took this so far out of context, it really is shameful.

RICHARD: If I may point out? I was responding to another commenting that they were [quote] ‘immediately struck by the similarities’ [endquote] between the way Richard reports experiencing the world and the way Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does ... and, as he is on record on many an occasion as saying that all that which is sensorially experienced – time and space and form – are created by thought, it is entirely apt to provide the quote as I did as its extraction from the context in which he made that statement does not distort, or in any other way change, the entirety of the subject then being discussed (artistic creativity vis-à-vis sensuality) given that, for him, sensuality (which he describes as ‘the field of pleasure’ further on down the page) is possible only through ‘the help of knowledge’ (aka thought).

Here are some quotes about thought creating the universe (aka time and space and matter):

• ‘Thought creates matter (...) They [physicists] also say that there is no such thing as thought, there is no such thing as matter, there is no such thing as space, and there is no such thing as time (...) Is there space? No. There is no space. (...) First, you create thought, then thought creates space, and then time is necessary to cover the distance, to experience the space, to capture it, and do something with it. So, then time comes in. But there is no time’. (from Chapter Seven, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

And:

• ‘Time and space, apart from the ideas of ‘time’ and ‘space’, do not exist at all’. (from Chapter Six, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

Again:

• ‘What tells you that there is something called space? Without thought is there space at all? There is not. Thought creates time as well as space. The moment thought is there, there is time and space’. (from Chapter Three, ‘Mind Is A Myth’; Published by: Dinesh Publications, Goa, 403 101 INDIA. 1988: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

Once more ... short and to the point:

• ‘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: www.well.com/user/jct/cover.html).

Perhaps you might explain how it ‘really is shameful’ that I (supposedly) took the quote ‘so far out of context’ so as to have ‘conveniently omitted the entirety of the subject’ ... here is the full paragraph you provided so as to, apparently, substantiate your point by doing so sans comment (with the extracted quote in question highlighted):

• [Question]: ‘Do you mean to say there is nothing to the creativity of artists, poets, musicians and sculptors?
• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘Why do you want to place art on a higher level than craft? If there is no market for an artist’s creation, he will be out of business. It is the market that is responsible for all these so-called artistic beliefs. An artist is a craftsman like any other craftsman. He uses that tool to express himself. All human creation is born out of sensuality. I have nothing against sensuality. All art is a pleasure movement. Even that (the pleasure) has to be cultivated by you. Otherwise you have no way of appreciating the beauty and art that artists are talking about. If you question their creation, they feel superior, thinking that you don’t have taste. Then they want you to go to a school to learn how to appreciate their art. If you don’t enjoy a poem written by a so-called great poet, they forcibly educate you to appreciated poetry. That is all that they are doing in the educational institutions. They teach us how to appreciate beauty, how to appreciate music, how to appreciate painting and so on. Meanwhile they make a living off you. Artists find it comforting to think that they are creative: ‘creative art’, ‘creative ideas’, ‘creative politics’. It’s nonsense. There is nothing really creative in them in the sense of their doing anything original, new or free. Artists pick something here and something there, put it together and think they have created something marvellous. They are all imitating something that is already there. Imitation and style are the only ‘creativity’ we have. Each of us has our own style according to the school we attended, the language we were taught, the books we have read, the examinations we have taken. And within that framework again we have our own style. Perfecting style and technique is all that operates there. You will be surprised that one of these days computers will paint and create music much better than all the painters and musicians that the world has produced so far. It may not happen in our lifetime but it will happen. You are no different from a computer. We are not ready to accept that because we are made to believe that we are not just machines – that there is something more to us. You have to come to terms with this and accept that we are machines. The human intellect that we have developed through education, through all kinds of techniques is no match for nature. They (creative activities) assume importance because they have been recognized as expressions of spiritual, artistic and intellectual values. The drive for self-expression is born out of neurosis. This applies to the spiritual teachers of mankind too. *There is no such thing as a direct sense-experience*. All forms of art are nothing but an expression of sensuality’. (from Chapter 11,‘U.G. Krishnamurti: A Life’, copyright Mahesh Bhatt, published as a Viking book by Penguin Books India (P) Ltd., 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/ugbio/ugbtitle.htm).

Incidentally, I do appreciate that you are providing such an on-going opportunity to discuss the topic of whether Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s natural state of being – the state of undivided consciousness called ‘sahaj samadhi’ in the Indian language – is spiritual or not ... as more than a few people have been sucked into thinking that he is non-spiritual.

RICHARD: ... I do appreciate that you are providing such an on-going opportunity to discuss the topic of whether Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti’s natural state of being – the state of undivided consciousness called ‘sahaja samadhi’ in the Indian language – is spiritual or not ... as more than a few people have been sucked into thinking that he is non-spiritual.

RESPONDENT: Undivided consciousness means no separation in awareness.

RICHARD: It means ‘no separation’ from ... what?

RESPONDENT: You bring up the Indian name ‘sahaja samadhi’ to infer religious overtones.

RICHARD: I did not provide that quote so as to ‘infer’ religious tones at all ... I am stating loud and clear that a person describing themselves as being in a state of sahaja samadhi (the Indian term for ‘natural state’) is spiritual to the hilt.

To not put too fine a point on it: sahaja samadhi is generally held to be superior to nirvikalpa samadhi.

RESPONDENT: UG may use that term as an expression, not with spiritual implications.

RICHARD: As no materialist in India would ever say they are always in a state of sahaja samadhi it is implicit in such a term that it is not just an expression as what is conveyed is deeply embedded in the spiritual heritage of India

RESPONDENT: He has clearly said on many an occasion that there is no spirit.

RICHARD: Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti has said on many an occasion there is no enlightenment, no spirituality, no god, and so on and so forth.

RESPONDENT: You say he is contradicting himself.

RICHARD: I cannot recall saying that ... this is what I pointed out only recently:

• [Richard]: ‘Perhaps this may be of some assistance:

[Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... You see, if there is no answer, the question can’t stay there. You are waiting for an answer either from outside or from inside. When both these areas prove to be of no use at all, what happens to that question? The rejection is not because I don’t agree with the statements or experiences of others, but because they are not valid as far as I am concerned. So, it may be true, but it is not valid, so I reject them all.(from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

What he is explaining, both before and after that passage, is that the questioner has to come to an end – that it is the questioner who creates the answer, and the questioner comes into being from the answer, otherwise there is no questioner – therefore he rejects all questions/ answers whether he agrees with the statements or experiences of others or not ... not because they are not true but because they are not valid, as far as he is concerned.

RESPONDENT: The only difference is that you cleverly say there is no spirits in the actual world.

RICHARD: I do not say it ‘cleverly’ ... it is a direct report of what is not present here in this actual world – the world of the senses – as contrasted to the real world (the world of the spirit) that perhaps 6.0 billion or so people are living in.

RESPONDENT: A related point – what do you make of UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination’? I haven’t read him in a while, but I remember that was one of the things I took note of when I read him a couple years ago.

RICHARD: I have been unable to find where he says that ... if you could provide the passages it would be most appreciated.

RESPONDENT: [UG] ‘There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end. I don’t know how to put it. The absence of imagination, the absence of will, the absence of effort, the absence of all movement in any direction, on any level, in any dimension – that is the thing’. (from Mystique of Enlightenment Pt 4).

RICHARD: Oh, so that is what you meant by ‘UG’s claims that he has no ‘imagination’’ ... I had, of course, done a word-search for the word ‘imagination’ when you first asked me what I make of such claims (which is why I said I had been unable to find where he says that) and had already come across that instance. Here is the other occasion where he says imagination must go:

• ‘How can you understand that silence – chaotic or otherwise? Is it possible for you to capture that silence? When that silence starts operating through you, it is something extraordinary, something vital and living. This structure which is trying to understand the nature of it, capture it, contain it or give expression to it, cannot co-exist with it. The difficulty is you seem to know a lot about this state – you have imagination. You imagine it to be what is described as ‘Silence is Brahman’ and begin to think about it. This imagination must go. That [silence] is something living and the structure which is trying to capture it is a dead structure. (from Book Two, ‘Stopped In Our Tracks’; by K. Chandrasekhar: www.well.com/user/jct/stopped.htm).

Nowhere could I find an instance of him stating he has no imagination.

Did you read what was being talked about before he said [quote] ‘There is no such thing as experience here. You seem to know. You imagine. Imagination must come to an end’ [endquote] so as to find out what it was that the other person seemed to know that occasioned him to say there is no such thing as experience?

Put briefly it was about ‘extraordinary’ experiences/ ‘profound’ experiences/ ‘sudden expansion of consciousness’ experiences ... none of which experiences, he says, means anything. Then there is this informative observation:

• ‘The realisation dawns on you that those experiences, however profound they may be, aren’t worth anything, that’s all. You may be in a blissful state – even after that ‘calamity’ you have blissful states, ecstatic states, a sudden melting away of everything that is there – it doesn’t mean anything. You experience, I experience – what is the difference? In India holy people experience some petty little thing called a ‘blissful state’ or the ‘absence of body consciousness’ and they think something marvellous is happening’. [endquote].

It would appear that imagination still operates for him (as well as the ability to experience), eh? Also, further up that page, he says that knowledge must come to an end:

• ‘All questions are variations of the same question; they are not different questions. How earnest are you? How serious are you? How badly do you want the answer to that question? A question is born out of the answers that you already know. You want to know what my state is and make it part of knowledge, your knowledge, i.e. the tradition; but knowledge must come to an end. How can you understand this simple thing? Your wanting to know only adds momentum to your knowledge. It is not possible to know what this is, because knowledge is still there and is gathering momentum. The continuity of knowledge is all you are interested in. (from Part Four, ‘The Mystique Of Enlightenment’; Second Edition; Published by: Akshaya Publications, Bangalore, INDIA. 1992: www.well.com/user/jct/moetitle.htm).

As he obviously still has knowledge (even though he also says it must come to an end) there is no reason to infer that he has no imagination just because he similarly says it too must come to an end.

It would appear that he is talking about [quote] ‘the continuity of knowledge’ [endquote] as being a product of imagination and that it is this that must come to an end (more on this below).

*

RESPONDENT: Also ... [quote] ‘I give you the example of what a friend wanted me to do when I was in a hill resort in India. He said that when he reached the top of a particular mountain then he would have a 360 degree view of the whole place. So he dragged me up to the top. Unwillingly, hesitantly, I pushed myself to the top of that hill and tried to experience what he called a 360 degree view of the whole place. I said to myself, ‘That fellow is kidding himself and imagining things. How is it possible to experience the 360 degree view of this place? I can see only 180 degrees. So what he thinks he is experiencing is born out of his own imagination’. This (pointing to himself) is singularly incapable of creating images. Translating the sensory perceptions into images is the cultural input there. When my eyes are not looking at you, there is no way that this organism (pointing to himself) can create the image of what you look like. The problem is the creation of images which is born out of our imagination and mostly out of what is put in there by our culture’. (Thought Is Your Enemy, Chapter 3).

RICHARD: Again in this instance he is talking about imagination as the continuity of knowledge (as in ‘the totality of experiences’) coming to an end because in the paragraph immediately before this one you have provided he explains that [quote] ‘What I am trying to put across to those who are interested in listening to what I have to say is that there is no such thing as the totality of experiences. Memory is in frames.’ [endquote] ... and the example he then goes on to give (of the 360 degree view incident you quoted) amply illustrates this latter point as, quite obviously, no human eyes have a 360 degree panoramic vision.

Plus he also provides, two paragraphs later, the example of a movie camera capturing whatever is happening in frames as a simile.

As for the second part of the (above) quote regarding images: he clearly states, on various other occasions, that he has no ability to create images ... for example:

• ‘Knowledge creates images. But there is no way that this physical functioning can create any image. The moment I turn to this side, the whole thing on the other side is wiped out. (...) You [the person he is talking to] disappear, because the eyes are not looking at you but at him or at that chair or at whatever they are focusing themselves on. But if he asks me, ‘Wasn’t she pretty?’ ‘pretty’ is a word, not an image. Do you understand? ‘She is very ‘sharp’’. Another word. I will talk about you in words, and it is a word-picture. But the images, the physical images are totally absent. The so-called psychological images have no place in the scheme of things. The eyes are like a camera. If you turn the camera from what it is looking at to something else, the whole thing where it was focused on earlier is wiped out. And what is there in the computer (pointing to his head) is only the word-picture, and probably the sounds. (...) The word-picture is here. That is all I give – a word-picture. If I am not looking at you, I cannot create any image, because the eye is not focused on you. The problem is very simple. I don’t know what you look like as I have no way of creating the image inside of me. (from Chapter Eleven, ‘Thought Is Your Enemy’; published by Sowmya Publishers; 31, Ahmed Sait Road, Fraser Town, Bangalore 560 005 (Second Edition 1991): www.well.com/user/jct/enemy0.htm).

And:

• ‘U.G. is drawing a detailed map of an area in London. This is to help me find the book shops I would like to visit while I’m there. I’m quite amazed by this seventy-seven year old man’s memory. It has not faded with time. Not a trace of senility here. ‘No images for me. When I draw the HMV Shop on the map, I don’t have an image of it inside of me. All I have is just a word. You can’t understand what I am saying. If you did, it would put an end to you’. Marisa, who is also listening to what U.G. is saying, turns to me and unhesitantly says, ‘We don’t have to use all that U.G. says, Mahesh. If we did, that would put an end to our art. No painting for me, buddy, and no movies for you. Can you imagine living a life without being able to recreate images? Who the hell wants this? It would be a terrible life’. And to this U.G. adds, ‘Not only would you not be able to paint. You would not be able to have any relationship with anything or anybody’. (from ‘A Taste of Death’ by Mahesh Bhatt: www.well.com/user/jct/mahesh.html)

RESPONDENT: Incidentally, as I think I stated previously ... Bernadette Roberts (BR) made the comment to me that she has no imagination as well.

RICHARD: Yes ... what you previously said was [quote] ‘On my weekend with Bernadette Roberts, I took note of the fact that she also stated her imagination was extinct’. [endquote].

As I have no text to go by I am unable to ascertain whether she did, in fact, say her imagination was extinct, or in any other way specifically state she has no imagination whatsoever, so all I am left with is that, as Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti does not say that imagination is extinct for him either, or in any other way specifically state he has no imagination whatsoever, whatever it was that she was conveying to you it may not be what you remember it to be.

RESPONDENT: There are a good deal of similarities between UG and BR that I won’t go into now.

RICHARD: Okay ... it may be helpful to bear in mind, when you consider what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti and Ms. Bernadette Roberts have to say about imagination, that what they are describing is how a timeless state functions and that it is the memory of the sequence of events which creates the impression of what normal people experience as time (as in past/ present/ future).

In other words, what Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti refers to as ‘the continuity of knowledge’/ ‘the totality of experiences’.

RESPONDENT: According to your chosen definition of oblivion below ...

RICHARD: That Oxford Dictionary definition of the word blessed – ‘enjoying supreme felicity; fortunate; happily endowed with; pleasurable; bringing happiness; blissful’ – is not this flesh and blood body’s chosen definition of oblivion .. it is a definition chosen to describe the nature of the release into oblivion (which felicitous let-go is indeed a blessed release).

RESPONDENT: ... it [the Oxford Dictionary definition of the word blessed] does say ‘blissful’, ‘bringing happiness’ and haven’t you said that bliss and happiness is nowhere to be found in what you refer to as actuality?

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body has indeed reported that the affective feelings of bliss and happiness – including experiencing same as (affective) states of being – are nowhere to be found here in this actual world, the world of the senses, where all is pure, pristine and perfect.

RESPONDENT: Is there awareness/ perception in what you are calling oblivion?

RICHARD: None whatsoever (just as in being anesthetised, knocked unconscious, falling into a faint, during deep sleep, or in any other way being rendered comatose).

RESPONDENT: But you said: – Richard: ‘There is nothing mystical – let alone of the New (Dark) Age variety – about a psychological/ psychic entity not swinging an axe and/or devising a method to achieve the desired oblivion (which extinction would enable the already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent 24/7)’. You say there is nothing after oblivion (‘... being rendered comatose’). Then you say there IS something after ‘oblivion’, the ‘already always existing peace-on-earth into being apparent 24/7’).

RICHARD: There is no way the word extinction can be inferred as even remotely indicating there is anything ‘after’ oblivion for an identity, a psychological/ psychic entity, to perceive.

RESPONDENT: You promise ...

RICHARD: This flesh and blood body made no ‘promise’ anywhere at all in the above (or elsewhere for that matter) ... and, as the pure consciousness experience (PCE) provides a practical demonstration of life sans identity in toto, no such pledge is even needed (let alone made).

RESPONDENT: ... [You promise] life/ heaven/ magical fairy tale after death/ oblivion (of the identity) ...

RICHARD: What this flesh and blood body does do is offer an unambiguous report of the direct experiencing a PCE so readily demonstrates, clear descriptions of life here in this actual world 24/7 as a confirmation of what the PCE can only provide a temporary experience of, lucid explanations of how and why what the PCE so easily shows can be implemented, and clarifications of misunderstandings due to the dearth of information regarding PCE’s ... plus a do-it-yourself method, of activating what the PCE so effortlessly evidences, which has actually delivered the goods.

RESPONDENT: ... promises of the sort are a dime a dozen.

RICHARD: It is ‘promises’ of an after-death ‘Peace That Passeth All Understanding’ (or words to that effect) that are a dime a dozen ... not the certainty a PCE offers.

RESPONDENT: Different words, same thing.

RICHARD: That, as well you must know after 15 months since first subscribing, and 719 e-mails later, is male bovine faecal matter ... a large steaming pile of it, in fact, and positively glistening with contumacity.

*

RESPONDENT: ... [the actualism method can be considered] perhaps even a sport of nature that worked but once for one person.

RICHARD: As the term ‘a sport of nature’ is synonymous with ‘a freak of nature’ the following is worth quoting (as you would be on a hiding to nowhere to pursue that theme with this flesh and blood body):

• U.G.: (...) I maintain that whatever has happened to me happened despite everything I did. But you are interested in finding out how and why that particular thing I am talking about has happened to me and not to everybody. You want to establish a cause and effect relationship and make it possible for everybody to stumble into this kind of thing. That is something which cannot be produced or reproduced on an assembly line. It is a freak of nature.
• Q: But we would be interested in knowing what the freak of nature was in U.G.
• U.G.: Even wanting to understand that has no meaning to you. You just leave it there. There are so many freakish things there in nature. If you try to copy them, you are lost. You are in the same situation as before. Even nature has no use for this body (pointing to his body). It has discarded it because it cannot reproduce something like this either physically or otherwise.
• Q: So you have been discarded by nature?
• U.G.: Yes, discarded by nature. How can you turn this into a model? That is what we have done to all those discarded people whom we should have discarded for good.

RESPONDENT: And this little excerpt illustrates that I am on a hiding to nowhere because he uses the same term ‘freak of nature’?

RICHARD: No ... it is because of this:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... whatever has happened to me happened *despite everything I did*’. [emphasis added].

And this:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘That [a cause and effect relationship] is something which *cannot be produced* ...’. [emphasis added].

And this:

• [Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti]: ‘... it [nature] *cannot reproduce* something like this [that happened to me] either physically or otherwise’. [emphasis added].

Whereas what happened for this flesh and blood body happened *because of everything the identity did* and, as a cause and effect relationship *can and has been produced*, there is every reason why more identities *can indeed reproduce this* that happened for this flesh and blood body.

RESPONDENT: You are blowing a smoke screen to deflect from the fact that your assembly line has stopped at one and is broken.

RICHARD: No, what this flesh and blood body is doing is showing what that ‘little excerpt’ does illustrate ... to wit: it is it is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti who is [quote] ‘the ONE, the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST and LAST’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘Mr First, Last and the ONLY’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘the ONE , the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST, the LAST’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘the one and only, and only one and the first and last one’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘the first and last’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘the first, the only and the last’ [endquote] and [quote] ‘THE FIRST, LAST, AND EVERY HUMAN IN BETWEEN, FREE’ [endquote] and not this flesh and blood body. Vis.:

• [Respondent]: ‘Why do I need to go see a movie about the human condition? There is an endless movie going on all the time. It is called ‘LIFE’ , and you should possibly check it out when you are done posing useless questions to the useless mass of protoplasm posing as, the ONE, the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST and LAST. (Thursday 15/01/2004 11:19 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent]: ‘... perhaps your pure intent makes some impression on Mr First, Last and the ONLY. (Sunday 8/02/2004 11:26 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent]: ‘So you have arrived here, thinking perhaps there is something to be gotten either from participating on this list or reading that god-forsaken AF website or communicating with Richard the ONE , the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST, the LAST free human ever to walk our fine planet earth’. (Friday 20/02/2004 10:46 AM).
• [Respondent]: ‘So it is the glorious, yet common place ASC which gives rise to Richards claims of being the one and only, and only one and the first and last one’ (Tuesday 9/03/2004 1:23 PM AEDST).
• [Respondent]: ‘... the egomaniacal nitpicking pedantic, otherwise known to himself as the first or Richard the first and last.’. (Wednesday 3/03/2004 9:59 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent]: ‘... there is likely no sane person who has claimed to be the first, the only and the last to be free of the human condition, prior to 1992 or thereafter. (Tuesday 30/03/2004 9:44 AM AEDST).
• [Respondent]: ‘... that man who shouts from the rooftops: ‘I AM THE FIRST, LAST, AND EVERY HUMAN IN BETWEEN, FREE OF THE HUMAN CONDITION !!’) IOW Richard’. (Saturday 17/04/2004 9:12 PM AEST).

RESPONDENT: Of course UGK is the One and the Only One ... the one and only UGK that is ...

RICHARD: That response is about as inane as this one is:

• [Richard]: ‘In all my years of travelling, talking with people, reading, watching media and now the internet I am yet to come across someone who experiences life as I do.
• [Co-Respondent]: ‘Of course; I also have never met anyone who experiences life as I do.

RESPONDENT: ... [the one and only UGK that is] and that is all he is saying ...

RICHARD: Ha ... Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is on record as saying that his affective state of being happened [quote] ‘despite everything I did’ [endquote] and that a cause and effect relationship, between being a person with a normal consciousness and being in a state of undivided consciousness [quote] ‘cannot be produced’ [endquote] and that nature [quote] ‘cannot reproduce’ [endquote] that state.

RESPONDENT: ... [and that is all he is saying] ... unlike you.

RICHARD: What this flesh and blood body is saying is that an actual happiness and harmlessness happened [quote] ‘because of everything the identity did’ [endquote] and, as a cause and effect relationship [quote] ‘can and has been produced’ [endquote], there is every reason why more identities [quote] ‘can indeed reproduce this’ [endquote] truly marvellous freedom from sorrowfulness and maliciousness.

*

RICHARD: In short: you are confusing this flesh and blood body with the man you like.

RESPONDENT: With that conclusion; Are you as of now withdrawing your previous assertions that you are the first and only human to be free of the human condition as far as you are able to ascertain that unascertainable ascertainment?

RICHARD: The following is what you are on record as proclaiming this flesh and blood body has asserted:

1. ‘the ONE, the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST and LAST.
2. ‘Mr First, Last and the ONLY.
3. ‘the ONE, the ONLY, the ONLY ONE, the FIRST, the LAST.
4. ‘the one and only, and only one and the first and last one.
5. ‘the first and last.
6. ‘the first, the only and the last.
7. ‘THE FIRST, LAST, AND EVERY HUMAN IN BETWEEN, FREE’.

As this flesh and blood body has never ever said, written, or even implied, anything of the sort there is nothing to be withdrawn.

*

RESPONDENT: You have said that of all the peoples on this planet, UG comes the closest to what you report.

RICHARD: Aye, his state of being, Sahaja Samadhi (aka ‘natural state’), is the furthest one can go, in spiritual enlightenment/ mystical awakenment, without becoming actually free of the human condition ... to not put too fine a point on it: Sahaja Samadhi is generally held to be superior to Nirvikalpa Samadhi.

RESPONDENT: This would mean closer than (...) Peter & Vineeto ...

RICHARD: No it does not mean that (neither Peter nor Vineeto are aiming to become actually free from the human condition by following another’s footsteps).

RESPONDENT: If this is so ... (snip).

RICHARD: As ‘this’ is not so there is nothing to respond to.

RESPONDENT: And if you are what you claim at every opportunity to be, that would leave you a lonesome freak.

RICHARD: Again, it is not this flesh and blood body that makes those claims ... it is Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti, a ‘lonesome freak’ if there ever was, who does.

RESPONDENT: No disagreement there. He may very well be a lonesome freak.

RICHARD: Aye, yet just because Mr. Uppaluri Krishnamurti is ‘a lonesome freak’ that does not mean that this flesh and blood body is.