Have you been to a shrink before, Robert?

Robert Michael wrote: Yes. Several. I once punched one in the nose. And came close to giving another one an attitude adjustment on another occasion.

Did you punch him during a therapy session? I can understand your resentment for shrinks because of the authority society gives them and they know that they have power over you. So, you have been in a mental asylum.

Yes, on six occasions as a patient, last time in '94, and many times as a visitor. Although I haven't visited one lately. Though I feel quite at home in such places. Actually I feel quite at home wherever I happen to be. On one trip to a state looney bin where I was court committed for 30 days, I fled the place, and was arrested at gunpoint and returned again in handcuffs.

Six times are plenty for a guy to be sent in for treatment. Were you diagnosed for the same disorder every time? How did you get sent in? Did a family member had you committed?

So, you have been to a shrink and in a mental asylum.

Yes, and like so many others herein you failed to answer those questions. Which is understandable, and why so many people seem to live in the prison of 'self'. Seems they're afraid to tell on or about themselves and as a result their closets are full of skeletons, so to speak. Which doesn't permit liberation of the human spirit.

I didn?t mean to dodge your questions. No, I have never been to the madhouse as a patient but I did go to a shrink as part of a course and requirement in med school. I was studying to be a psychiatrist.

And you think Disneyland sums up America?

Pretty well I suppose. Glitz, fantasy, and fine-sounding music, words, and all sorts of hype covering up the underlying dog-eat-dog m. o. that exists virtually everywhere.

America is more than just the ?American Dream? that makes the country great. What about its value with regard to freedom in every sense of that word? Dog-eat-dog isn?t as bad as it sounds. Survival of the fittest is a better way to look at it and Mother Nature swears by it. You don?t want a sick dog leading the pack, do you? If you are not good enough, you ought to step aside for the better man without having to be shoved aside and your butt kicked. If that happened, then you asked for it. No?

You maintain that you don?t see New York City the way I see it.

On my visit there I carefully observed a young man sitting on the sidewalk at a subway entrance with a pair of drum sticks and 4 empty drywall compound buckets. One he sat on, another one was for people to put donations in, and the remaining two he used as drums. He played them very well and I was quite impressed and really enjoyed his performance. I put a dollar in his collection bucket. Yet it seemed all of the many passing people were oblivious to his performance and his talent and I don't think anyone else gave him any money. After about 20 minutes or so, he packed up his goods and headed down the stairs to the subway. I suppose he was off to another performance somewhere. What really struck me was how lacking in both joy and life he was. As were the many people walking to and fro, as I alluded to before.

Good observation. Chances are that young man was black. I didn?t know they were drywall compound buckets. Were you in construction? Anyway, that?s life, Robert. Tough. You think wildebeests on their migratory routes through crocodile-infested river crossings are having it better under care of mother nature? Animals are not brooding about their lot half as much you. I am not suggesting that we jump for joy regardless. We need to take that sorrow in without getting twisted out of shape.

Perhaps life is cutting you more slack than it does me, Yiming. Anyway, there's no despair nor disaffection here. But rather an abundance of love and joy that yearns to overflow, and very often does, but with virtually no one anywhere to fully share these things with.

What about your second wife and your son who must be 25 years old now. They don?t share your interest in Krishnamurti? Did you drag your wife to Ojai or was she a party in your search for Truth?

I have never been in Woodstock. Nor a part of any counter-cultures. And least not any of the traditional ones. I'm still too much the rebel to be a part of any crowd. Be it the in-crowd or any of the many out-crowds.

And you don?t consider the K circle a counter-culture? It is both an in-crowd because it fancies itself as esoteric, upper-class spiritualism; as well as one of the new-fangled, new-age religious out-crowds.

Why did you go to Ojai?

In order to see and hear Krishnamurti speak, and the second time to more fully investigate him, his school, and his Foundation.

From 1973 to 1985 you were wrapped up in Krishnamurti and, after that, ended up six times in a mental asylum. Was it because of your study of Krishnamurti or inspite of it?

I assume you are not writing your posts from a mental institution. If my assumption is correct, you must have been discharged or ran away. So which is it, Robert? Please don?t tell me that the other posters and I have been conversing with a madman.

Robert Michael wrote: Hmmm, you keep trying to put words in my mouth, Yiming.

The word is not the thing. The words that came out of your mouth phrased the things that emerged from your right-wired brain. I am the shrink decoding the hidden things behind your words. Have you been to a shrink before, Robert? Have you ever been inside a mental asylum? You asked me those questions before.

RM:Anyway, about four years ago my wife and I spent a week in Manhatten, NY. We stayed with a friend on the 30th floor of the Trump Tower Hotel. It was a good experience in seeing first hand and on a large scale just how aleinated, isolated, and machinelike man has become. One might say he's 'fallen' into a condition of near-total soullessness. Though I continue to remain hopeful for the species. And carry on accordingly.

Tasteless Trump is not inner circle of New York but glitz. Glitz is empty, superficial and hollow. You had to pick the worst side of everything to badmouth it. Disneyland was created in America. Does Disneyland sums up America?

Trump has nothing of real New York which is creativity, productivity, energy, moving fast and exciting. New York is about students at Julliard playing violins at 42nd street, Time Square; street performers spinning magic at subway stops. New York is not just about making money, it is also about people, music and art. It is about smart people being smart.

When a man has Love in his heart, he has it all, Yiming. And he really has no need whatsoever for ownership of anything. His daily needs are somehow always met, along with receiving many, many 'bonuses' along the way. At least this continues to be my experience. Though with the gift comes a great responsibility. That is to give oneself completely to helping other like-minded souls to also rediscover this greatest of gifts.

It would be helpful if you would stop calling for Apocalpyse. Looking down on others is not a gift. And calling for a deluge to drown those poor bastards with the wrong brain is not love.

RM: Enjoy your days Yiming,

For me, personally, life is a blast and I am having a ball even when I am raising the dead and trying to stem your mood of despair and disaffection for the human race.

P. S. About 18 years ago my wife and I headed West some 3000 miles to Ojai, CA (where we lived for a year) with 750 bucks and everything we owned in a 20 year old Chev. van. Real men and women still do exist, Yiming. Though they're becoming quite rare, and especially in these last days.

People have been driving in beat up cars across the country and living in them since the fifties and the sixties. Even Wall Street types were doing it. The American road trip. It has become a cliché and there are tons of people still doing it like kids going on a Disneyland ride. And you said you did it too. And that is the high point of your life? What is the point to that? Did it change the world? How did that change you? What is so special about living in a van with no money? I don?t get it. At best, you come across like a tired old hippie romanticizing his youth. Riding a van to Ojai, indeed. You should have stayed in Woodstock. Woodstock is cheap and New York?s counter-culture that you extol. Ojai is one of the most expensive places in the country. You had no money. Why go there?

Robert Michael wrote: Yes indeed Yiming. Most people go to the grave still wearing the rose-colored glasses that fallen societies have placed on them. As a result they never come to experience love, joy, and real happiness in their lives. Rather they live in their heads and their pocket-books instead of their hearts. Such is the nature of the human condition presently.

Head, heart and pocket-book. Why must all these be mutually exclusive? Why does a man have to be dirt poor to have heart? Robert, you need money to live your destitute life as much as a rich man, like me, needs money to live his opulent one. You, the poor, and I, the rich, live in the same damn building. While you occupy the cold, damp basement unit where rats crawl beneath the floorboards of your tiny bed-sit, I live on the top floor penthouse with a magnificent view of New York?s Central Park. You think by making do with little ? living off your kids, social security, pension or welfare - frees you from being ambitious and cutthroat; you have no idea that a rich man like me has absolutely no dreams of having more not because I am content with little but because I have enough! The only difference between you and I is that I am truly content with my state of abundance while you have to constantly convince yourself ? by looking at people worse off than you ? that you are lucky you are not living in a cardboard box. I don?t have rose-tinted glasses, Robert. I just feel that you are wearing a pair of very dark ones.

Enjoy your days Yiming. I'm certainly enjoying mine. While presently thinking of how they must have laughed and scoffed at Noah (if one can believe the story). Until it began to rain and rain and rain and rain and rain.......

And how do you enjoy your life, Robert? By constantly calling for Armageddon like a chosen prophet and praying to God to strike down the rest of men because you see them as heinous beasts with damaged brains? Is that how you have heart? That?s simply sick. And when the rains come, who do you think is going to drown? You in your basement or me in my slick, finely crafted yacht that takes to the water better than Noah?s ark?

Robert Michael wrote: I too see many, many people whose pets have far more life in them than they do. And even inspite of the fact that rarely are they being allowed to be true to their own innate animal self nature. I too see a certain sadness in the Muhammad Ali story.

Do you realize how repugnant it is for people, like you and I, to sit on a high horse and feel sorry for one of the greatest athlete ever? Isn?t it rather arrogant of you to habitually look down upon others and take covert delight in their suffering? Are you sure that the compassion you believe you have is not really secret schadenfreude? You seem to have that overpowering need to dwell and take delight on imagined ?other people?s pain?, and to feel that somewhere, someplace that there are people more miserable than you are.

Really I see sadness nearly everywhere I happen to look for too long. As I see clearly that virtually everywhere human self-centeredness, due to the huge amount of faulty conditioned and irreparably damaged human brains and sensory systems, is the root of the problem.

Has it occurred to you, Robert, that your economically disadvantaged situation, a life of poverty that you embrace, could be the reason why you see so much sadness around you? You are like a man who chooses to walk behind a horse, instead of riding it, and then lament about the horseshit you keep trampling on and the horrible pong from the farting equine. Unlike you, I prefer a life of abundance; I am the man who prefers to sit astride on the horse for sport and perceive wondrous excitement and beauty all the time. While you see lost souls and damaged brains wherever you go, I feel blessed to find myself constantly in the company of some of the smartest, most vibrant, creative people alive.

But it's all simply the human condition, a natural evolutionary developmental stuck point, one might say, which will soon work itself out via the self-destruction of a great portion of the species and its present scheme of things.

There you go again calling for a calamity to wipe other people out. If you keep this up, there is the danger that you may act on this. Where do you live, Robert? We need to keep an eye on you.

So there's really no use in being sad, but instead one should get on with the glad, since everything's perfectly the way it's supposed to be.

It doesn?t hurt to stay positive. Be a winner, like me. Look on the bright side of life and focus on the better part of man. A huge slice from the pie of life is always more satisfying than a crumb.

The fight is never over with until you are set free by truth, Robert. I will take off your handcuffs and leg irons when you see the light.

Robert Michael wrote: Krishnamurti made many moral pronouncements regarding life and his fellows (including rich people). Did he do this with a sense of authority or merely as an observer, albeit it one with a keenly alert and humanly insightful mind?

Let?s leave Krishnamurti out of this.

R. M.: Why do that? Why not examine, go into, deepy investigate his views on the rich. As he might say. They're very much the same as mine. Perhaps even harsher. Aren't we here primarily to focus on investigating him, his views, the teachings?

We are here to investigate you, not Krishnamurti. It is you who have made a rash statement. And you shouldn?t cite what K said to lend weight to what you said. This conversation is between me and you who said I, the flithy rich guy, have taken more than my share of the pie of life leaving poor kids in your home state to suffer under-nourishment.

I started this fight? Hmmm. That's interesting. I express my feelings on things and you get up in arms over the matter? Perhaps we should consider calling in a referee?

Why shouldn?t I get up in arms when you make superficial accusations that you are unwilling to backup with a rational explanation? You expressed feelings about the rich and identified their selfish greed as the cause of human deprivation. I am questioning this perception of your right-wired brain.

Let's make you the referee and call the fight as you see it when I knock your right-wired brain out. I feel as confident as Muhammad Ali fighting Chris Rock, the clown. You are going down.

I never said 'namely you', Yiming. I never said you at all. Though maybe I struck a nerve here? Perhaps you may have a bit of a guilty conscience? Which could be a good thing if you would act on it and begin to purify it and grow on it.

No, you didn?t say ??namely me?, Yiming?. You were ostracizing the rich. I am the rich and the rich is me, as in I am the world and the world is me. Yiming, the particular person, is an illusion in case your right-wired brain hasn?t been informed of that discovery by the Buddha 2500 years ago. I am the filthy rich human condition that you have condemned as the cause of emaciation in kids. You struck a nerve for sure and it?s not a guilty conscience that you have pricked. You are spinning bigotry, populist hogwash that incites blind hatred. And I am acting from the love of truth to purify you.

I asked you to give me the basis of your observation that I am taking more than my fair share. I wanted to know how your right-wired brain join the dots to arrive at the observation that my high-on-the-hog lifestyle is robbing some poor kid of a fair slice of the pie of life.

I never said these things either. Nor would sharing the wealth feed the poor and hungary for long or ever bring peace and sanity to the planet. Since in no time most people, including many of those who were previously poor and hungary, would begin plotting on how to get their neighbor's share of the booty. And we'd quickly be back to the same conditions.

Now you are talking. Now that I have laid out clearly the implications of your careless statement about rich people are you able to see the truth that the poor have themselves to blame for their own misery. Just as it is wrong of you calling out the rich to vent some hidden pain, it is not right for people dying of starvation in Ethiopia to blame overfed Americans for their plight. It is downright irresponsible to claim that their under-nourishment is due to Americans taking more than their share from the pie of life.

What needs to happen is that 90% or so of the population perishes. Only then will there be a chance for peace and sanity to prevail among men. And for the earth to begin to heal itself again.

Whoa there, Robert. Be careful. You are calling for the final solution to rid the planet of poor people. Even if we can build the gas chambers to exterminate the poor, it is not a nice thing to do.

Anyway, I am glad that you have seen the light. You are free to go. Stay out of trouble.

Robert Michael wrote: Does this mean that only a professional or an expert can tell whether someone has all his marbles or not? What makes you think they got all their marbles? My view is that the majority of them don't. Do you have all of yours?

Of course not. No neurologist can tell you if you have all your marbles. As a professional, his field of expertise is your brain, that grey stuff within your skull.

How you behave out there beyond the web, as well as what you say here in this forum, determines whether or not you have all your marbles; and the professional whom society have licensed to make this call is the psychiatrist or the psychoanalyst who has the authority to send you to the madhouse.

But K said that you can be a light to yourself and figure out your marble set for completeness and you don't need a shrink to tell you that you are crazy. I would say that this is possible but the likelihood of a fruitful enterprise in something else. After all, you can peer into your mind all day long, an examination that the shrink can do only for an hour once a week at three hundred bucks a pop. On top of that he has to dig out stuff that you are hiding from him including truths you are hiding from yourself.

K has no basis, expert or otherwise, for linking your marbles to your brain. Your brain is a material fact while your mind is pure metaphor.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: My conduct? Please explain what I have done apart from question. Does Phil own and control the questioning on 'his' forum?

Yes, Phil is the moderator. This is his forum to manage as he deems fit.

I have stated that opinion does not change fact. For this I should be banned? Nothing I have said is personal.

He didn't ban you. I thought he made a private request that you leave. It was you who brought it out into the open.

Phil should come out publicly and explain what my perceived 'transgressions' are if he wishes to ban me.

He doesn't have to come out or explain anything. His word is final. That's how Kinfonet is set up.

Does someone who starts a forum then become the dictator of that forum?

Pretty much. Come on, Patricia. Just go. I will play with you in other forums. If this was a bar, they will be calling for the bouncers or security.

Robert Michael wrote: My question here would be: if there is real physical and chemical damage to the brain as Bohm observes and Krishnamurti seems to agree with; is it possible that the damage may be permanent or irreversable?

You are asking a question conditioned by speculation: if there is damage, would that damage be permanent.

No one knows if there is damage, neither K nor Bohm. They were both reflecting on the scenario. They were not two neuro-scientists looking at clinical evidence of a piece of grey matter fallen from the skull onto the floor. If that was the case, then, yeah, the damage is permanent provided that diagnosis is made by the professionals and not you or me nor Bohm nor Krishnamurti.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: So as a response to this posting of mine, Phil has privately requested that I leave this forum. I have no intention of doing so - sorry Phil.

But this is Phil's forum. He could not only request you to leave but shut the topic down and throw us all out if he wished.

How would you explain your conduct even by everyday social standards?

Robert Michael wrote: Krishnamurti made many moral pronouncements regarding life and his fellows (including rich people). Did he do this with a sense of authority or merely as an observer, albeit it one with a keenly alert and humanly insightful mind?

Let?s leave Krishnamurti out of this. You started this fight about my share of the pie. I hope you take what you say as seriously as I do.

It's up to us individually to know, or rather feel (how about intuitively know?), whether we're taking more than our fair share out of the pie of life. And since many people, due to them unfortunately having a wrongly-wired brain - one that's irreparably absorbed in self (self-protectiveness), have no feelings (conscience?) about much of anything or anyone.

But your brain is wired up right and you said that the filthy rich, namely me, takes more than my share of the pie of life. I am merely asking you to give me the basis of your observation that I am taking more than my fair share. Let me make it easy for you. Here I am about to buy a million-dollar power boat and there in your home state is an under-nourished kid. I want to know how your right-wired brain join the dots to arrive at the observation that my high-on-the-hog lifestyle is robbing your poor kid of a fair slice of the pie of life.

Many of them will never get enough of the pie for themselves if they live to be 120 years old.

Why is that? Why is it that only 1 percent of mankind gets 90 percent of the wealth, while half of mankind live in poverty?

Look at this poor guy who recently received a 150 year, I think, jail sentence for fleecing his fellows out of their money. Yet many of those he fleeced were greedy, security-seeking individuals themselves who were looking to get all of the pie themselves, or as much as they could possibly get of it anyway. And life goes on as will these kinds of shenanigans, and surely not only in the upper echelons. Until soon the whole fallen and crooked mess finally collapses under its own weight, or perhaps maybe with some outside help. Since our collective reed, immoral, and power-mongering nature seems to have earned us a lot of enemies.

Are you saying that all rich people are greedy crooks?

And what about the poor guy who got thrown in jail for 150 years? No one caught him. He confessed, was contrite, saw the light, became right-wired and gave himself up. For coming to his senses, you would condemn him? There is no winning, is there?

Bernie, if I got his name right, got none of my money, nor would he ever have gotten any of it. First, I have little, and second I am very happy and content with the little that I do have, and look for no more than my daily needs, which are few. And somehow they have always been met, even in times that I feared they wouldn't be. Today I thoroughly enjoy the small and very often free things in life which are everywhere I happen to be.

That is good to know, Robert. If all the poor people are also content with their bit of the pie, the world will be a better place. Is it possible for a poor guy like you, who have hardly anything but happy with your lot, have a good relationship with a rich guy like me, who has an enormous slice of the pie of life and is comfortable with it? Why can?t a contented poor man live happily side by side with a filthy rich man without throwing snide remarks about greedy crooks hogging more of the pie of life?

The many little, yet wonderous, things that I missed seeing and experiencing for so many years of my life when I was caught up in the bondage of self-centeredness and greed. Ego if you prefer. The "me, me, me" as K might have said. Today my greatest joy of them all is seeing others experiencing joy in their own hearts and lives. Yet I see this so very, very seldom, save for in a few, and mostly younger people, but then only in a fleeting and fragmentary manner. Which really doesn't count for much. And besides, they're fast and choicelessly going down the path of destruction, just as I did. Though I shant stop trying to be a light unto those who have eyes to see, ears to hear, and minds and hearts that can deeply feel.

What about you and the blessed few with your right-wired brains and the billions of us with the wrong-wired ones? How come you are not guilt-ridden with your abundant access to that pie of life while we have nothing? Looks to me that you have the whole pie to yourselves. And when you come on and tell me that you have got it and I don?t, isn?t that also flaunting your good fortune and showing off? Some show off their wealth while others show off their right-wired brains as though it is a flaming Ferrari. It is the same thing, isn?t it?

Robert, don't run out on me now. I am still waiting for that fair slice of the pie of life from you.

Patricia Hemingway wrote: But do you really think K needed you as his script-writer?

K was probably a high school dropout. No matter how much they groomed him, he couldn't make it to university. He wasn't much of a student. Now, I am not saying that it was a bad thing. But the fact is, if you cannot apply yourself to acquire academic skills beyond high school, you are not going to be very articulate in written and verbal communication even if you are Jesus Christ. K conducted many discussions with various people from academia and those professors could talk rings around him in clarifying concepts. In that regard, Dr. Anderson really took the cake.

I am not asserting that all those learned men were better off than Krishnamurti. The sad thing for us all was that we had a situation where professors, who were adept at clarifying but could not see, tried to figure out things that was seen by Krishnamurti who could not speak. If we had been more fortunate and had a Krishnamurti who had no problem graduating MIT, he would have been able to turn Professor Bohm on his head and debunked Einstein's theories in a way that even you could understand.

If you think I am interpretating K's teaching, you are wrong. I am just figuring out what the teacher said. This is expected in people working for their Phd's. K was a good teacher, the best. He would have been pleased that I could take apart his thesis and put it back together in a better form. This is how mankind, working together, acquired such awesome capability. If we work this way on the K teaching too, we will certainly be capable of setting ourselves absolutely and unconditionally free.

Robert Michael wrote: It remains my steadfast view that regardless of what's going on outside of us, those who take more than their fair share out of the pie of life and especially without giving back anything of real value in return will never experience love, joy, or genuine peace of mind.

Robert, who are you to say what is the fair share? You show a sense of authority to make judgment. Does that attitude come from ego or you feel you have the best brain in the house to make the call? Let's suppose you do have the say because you have a right-wired brain and I don't, how would you divide out the pie of life so that each man get his fair share?

Patricia Hemingway wrote: When K spoke of psychological time, he made it quite clear that he was referring to 'becoming' - "I am this - I will be that".

In the physical realm, the movement of an object through space can be measured by the clock. And that measurement (minutes or hours) is called time.

In the psychological realm, the movement of the self in becoming something else can also be measured by the clock? In other words, I am a monk now and in 12 months time, I shall become the Buddha. If this is so, then it is still taking chronological time for the self to become: I am this - I will be that.

Instead of using the term "psycological time", K should have said: becoming is an imaginary movement of the self from "being this" to "being that" and that movement will take forever unless you put a deadline to it, take no time, and do it instantly!

Now, this is what I consider logical sense and consistent with the principles of deductive reasoning.

Robert Michael wrote: I heard on the news recently that in my home state one in seven children are undernourished. I think the national figure is even higher. Then I think of all the many filthy (souled) rich who regularly eat high-off-the-hog while boasting of it to their like-minded and living friends. How on earth can a country claim to be good, great, or Godly with such goings-on?

You hit a sore spot there, Robert. I am rich, and never get a break from people who insist on heaping guilt on me all the time. Some guy makes a kid, can't feed it, and that is my problem to fix before I go out and buy myself a million-dollar power boat? I came a long way from Chicago to look over this 50 foot beauty sitting in Singapore's Sentosa Cove. On the flight here, I watched those wretched kids in "Slumdog Millionaire". There are hundreds of millions more of those kids on that sub-continental area of darkness as V.S. Naipul called it. How am I going to fix that problem before laying back to live my own life high-on-the-hog, as you call it? Spread the wealth? The kind of money that can feed them all would make Bill Gates' fortune look like small change. And my pocket is not as deep as his. Talk about human injustice. You have got to point that accusatory finger somewhere else, Robert.

averil harrison wrote: David Bohm did not seem to reject Krishnamurti's psychological time and I maybe deluded but it appears a reality to me as i observe the process that thought undertakes when it moves from anger or some other emotion that 'I' call real in the psyche.

There are many realities in life and each serve a purpose to those who find use for it. In my case, things are only real when they have a PRACTICAL use for me. I cannot accept psychological time anymore than I can accept the Virgin Mary because I don't have a practical use for either.

Anger and other emotional responses that reveal the avoidance of 'my' hidden fears is also observed without an observer and is seen as an illusion of time and the inability to see this I suspect is the ego's wish to continue.

Neuroses can be problematic. Freedom from sickness is better than a good cure.

All thought is time as i dont think chronological time could exist without the brains ability to observe it but the conflict is really within the belief that the entity exists seperate from thinking. Averil

"Thought is time" is the mother of all confusion that Krishnamurti created for me. There I was holding "thought" in one hand and "time" in another and forcibly trying to equate the two. It was like holding an apple in one hand and an orange in another and then keep telling myself than apple is orange. Couldn't do it. So, I chucked it.

farha naaz wrote: Sure sir, i'm very interested in the topic. I pondered over it for long, and the more i did more confused i became

Why did you ponder about time? You wake up in the morning and look at the watch or clock to make sure you are not late for school or class. You check the time to see if you can rush to buy stuff before meeting up with friends for an appointment. You look at the calendar to count how many more days to go before you get out of prison. That's all quite practical and straightforward.

So, what is it about time that made you ponder? I ask you this question so I know where you are coming from and can deal with your question appropriately. If you are served a lovely masala dosa, you don't ponder and just eat it. But if it tasted funny and strange and not like a masala dosa, then you ponder and shout to the waiter, "what the hell is this?"

So, what is it about time that made you ponder?

Robert Michael wrote: Do you feel you are a sensitive person, Yiming? Let's say, do you suffer or feel uncomfortable in certain situations or upon seeing human injustices and cruelty around you that most others seem to be totally oblivious to or are quite 'happy' in?

Sorry for not responding sooner.

I am certain that everyone - including me - to whom you pose this question would tell you that they are able to see cruelty that others around them are insensitive to. But that, to me, doesn't prove that I am more sensitive and therefore have a brain that's not damaged or as damaged as others.

Imagine this. You ask a thousand people all assembled before you if any of them feel that he is more sensitive than other people and they all answer in perfect unision: "Yes, I am more sensitive than the others around me."

What does that prove?

farha naaz wrote: Is there anything like psychological time? Does it really exist in our minds? Can't it be another delusion we are trying to deceive ourselves with?

Hi farha, I don't know why K introduced this idea of psychological time which, I don't think exists at all the way we perceive chronological time to exist. By creating this idea of psychological time, I feel, K has confused me for a while until I decided to reject it entirely.

Yesterday, today, tomorrow or past present, future is the way we refer to chronological time as "measured" by the clock. Even this aspect of time is an illusion. Naturally, no technical professional, sailor or airline pilot would accept this.

However, if you don't think I am crazy and want me to show you why I see chronological time as illusory, I would be more than happy to explain.

Cheers.

Robert Michael wrote: I never said that your brain was damaged, Yiming.

But is my brain damaged?

You said: "I feel it takes a finely-formed and sensitive brain in order to first realize that it is indeed sound."

Are you able to realize that your brain is sound? If you are able to, then can you say whether or not my brain is damaged?

Robert Michael wrote: Lastly, I would pose another question here. Can an irreparably damaged brain know or be fully aware that it is in such a state?

But you did not answer my question. What makes you think that the human brain is damaged? Since you are referring to specific individual human brains, how about mine? What makes you say that my brain is damaged?

phil K wrote: Bring it on!

I read your private message to me. I don't mean to disrupt your classroom. It's just my style. When the self is hurt, communication ends. And since you cannot bring yourself to ban me, I will leave.

Robert Michael wrote: My question here would be: if there is real physical and chemical damage to the brain as Bohm observes and Krishnamurti seems to agree with; is it possible that the damage may be permanent or irreversable?

Whose brain are you referring to? Are you talking about the human brain in general? If you are, what makes you think that it is damaged?

phil K wrote: If, however, in the meantinme, you can find a statement by K where he explained it clear enough for you to understand it, I would appreciate your posting it.

How about a statement by me where I explain it clear enough for you to understand? Will that cut it?

phil K wrote: In doing what I just did, I understood psychological time, but I dare say a few moments from now I wont understand it. In keeping with the goal of this forum, I cant figure out what is going on in the brain that causes this to happen either i.e. what causes the brain to have the illusion of movement which is not there? Maybe the very fact that I cant understand the term psychological time has to do with it? Great topic!

What is the difference between psychological time, as you explained it (past=memory; future=imagination), and chronological or physical time as measured by the clock?