I think you’re too hung up on terminology. ... The only differentiating barrier you have between yourself and other people who have found what you have found, is a very thin one crafted from language. This is why you get very picky with your terminology.

You know, one of the things which disturbs me about you, Richard, is a lack of flexibility in the way you handle concepts. One only has to mention the word ‘God’, for example, and you go all into a flutter as if some great crime has been committed. This is very strange to see in a person who claims to be perfect.

Big deal ... you are nitpicking. You have invented your own language (PCE, ASC, actual freedom, etc.). No different than the Krishnamurtian lingo he developed to suit his needs.

I think the thread has degenerated into nit-picking now, with doubts as to whether it is an intelligent conversation at this stage. ... My dialogue with Richard started with questioning about sex, but it degenerated into nit-picking over a thought experiment I proposed ...

We have slightly different semantic interpretations ...

The ‘universe seeing or experiencing itself in perfect purity of being’ seems to be another way of expressing the same realisation. Krishnamurti spoke sometimes in dualistic terms, e.g. – ‘the other’, and sometimes in non-dualistic terms, e.g. – a state of mind that knows no separation. Words are merely pointers. Everyone reading these posts can see what you have said. It is like Krishnamurti’s tendency to dismiss all prior teachings and expressions, only to ultimately bring the same terms back in, with a new direct understanding of them. The words alone mean nothing. They are just symbols.

So there is an ultimately precious infinitude of the universe that is when ‘I’ cease to exist. (...) What is ultimately precious is sacred. You are simply changing the words. Is there a need to be viewed as unique?

Very beautiful. I mean it. I can sense it ... ‘vast stillness lies all around, a perfection that is abounding with purity’; ‘Beneficence, an active kindness, overflows in all directions’. Yet, again ... this to me is how I understand enlightenment to be. I (unlike you), do not understand enlightenment to be an altered state of consciousness. Richard, are we just having linguistic issues here. Or are you just wanting so very much to be the only one who has entered the ‘adventure’.

Statements like ‘Matter/energy is not only primary but it is all there is’ make me questioning the Actualist’s ‘Weltanschauung’. How do you know that this is not just another belief as bad [maybe worse] as believing in ‘disembodied spirits’ or a creation of the universe ‘according to humanly conceived mathematical formulas and models’? I am asking because these terms ‘matter’ and ‘energy’ themselves have no meaning whatsoever outside of the physical theories that are used to describe them ... With regard to sensate empirical observations – all you have are your sense perceptions and you can invent words to describe them but you won’t never ever know what it is that you describe with these words except that it is your sense perceptions. And that is called a circular reference. It is a very bad style of communication to confuse the proper use of words [mass and energy] and mix them with unrelated topics [Eastern spiritualism] in order to suggest something. That is actually harmful. You simply don’t get that the words ‘mass’ and ‘energy’ don’t stand for [symbolise] any sense data.

And by the way correcting peoples spelling mistakes when you make them yourself (...) is just tawdry and impolite.

I think the word irregardless should be changed to regardless.

The above is a typical example of needless pedantry ... of failing to understand the other person’s point of view ... and trying to act like a computer.