Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

edward morrison's Forum Activity | 63 posts in 5 forums


Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 21 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

."Forum Description: I am interested in discussing an extension of K teachings into a more modern realm of brain structure, neurology and a discussion of thought, self image, conditioning, the "I" as center as they may be related to the scientific studies of the brain...."

Hi phil, Your forum description drew my interest. I have long thought it valid to discuss how K's teachings sit with modern science, particularly brain science. In fact I have discussed this aspect of the teachings (on and off) on another forum for some time.

I think it important because his teachings do have an implicit 'model' of the brain and its workings, though not explicitly presented as such. I think his association with David Bohm helped to clarify some of K's insights and bring them into the domain of science. Their inquiry in The Ending of Time is an example. Bohm sharpens K's sometimes personalized use of words and terms. I also have read Bohm's book Wholeness and the Implicate Order which provides a broad theoretical background which does actually lend scientific support to much of what K said, though other scientists may not agree. Of course Bohm was not a brain scientist as such, but his qualifications in the quantum field do, to me, give his theories weight.

Also, in an attempt to familiarize myself with the current science, I have several books on brain science, some of which I have managed to read, some of which I struggled with and failed to finish but find them useful as reference works . These include: The Crucible of Consciousness by Zoltan Torey The Private Life of the Brain by Susan Greenfield Shadows of the Mind by Walter Penrose Kinds of Minds by Daniel C Dennet The Undiscovered Mind by John Horgan Conversation on Consciousnes by Susan Blackmore The Feeling that it Happens & Descartes Error both by Antonio Damasio

Nothing I have said above makes me qualified as a brain expert. I mentioned the books and other references to underline my stated interest. Perhaps more relevant is I have a brain of my own (such as it is) which provides a sort of testing ground for the teachings and some of the theories of the scientific experts.

At the moment, on the other forum, two of us are discussing 'intelligence' and its relation to thought. If that subject is of interest to you or others, I could share some of the areas we are exploring. We have no conclusions to offer, only 'thought on', etc. Peter

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

Hi phil, This new kinfonet multiple-forum initiate seems a good idea, though a bit complicated to negotiate. I suppose it is bound to have teething problems, I know I did when I began my life!. Anyway, I wish its organizers well in their endeavour.

Having introduced myself by citing some of my reading which relate to the title and your forum description, I'm not sure where to go from here.

Would you care to put forward a post on something in the teachings that you feel doesn't sit well with current brain science and thus prompt replies from those who would find this an interesting line of inquiry?

If this is not something you want to do, that's OK with me. I'll still be interested if posts come in with a less restricted interpretion of the forum's intended direction. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

phil King wrote: Brain scientists finds a need for dreaming and the only people who have been tested that dont dream had brain damage or after their corpus collosum was cut, they would report no longer having dreams but they may have still been dreaming but the left brain was not aware of it.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

I'm aware that K repprted that he didn't dream, but I haven't previously researched the topic dreaming with this in mind.

What you say about the corpus collosum is interesting. This is the bundle of nerves that connect the left and right hemipheres. Zoltan Torey suggests that the self awareness ("Knowing that we know") is brought about by the neural activity across the corpus collosum. He refers to this as 'proprioception'. Apparently, when the left brain is active this activity is felt and associated with causing the thinking/speaking rather than the reverse. I may have mis-interpreted Torey on this. I would need to read the relevant sections again. It is easy to misunderstand Torey because his style is, as I said before, difficult to grasp. His sentences are often jammed with technical words which mean a lot of technical information is packed in which the layperson may not be aware of. Of course K had not had his corpus collosum severed! I suppose if one was prepared to theorize in favour of K it would be possible to speculate about his main claim to be self-less. Myself I would prefer less speculation and more scientific evidence to either support the K claim or to show that it would not be possible under any circumstances.

The options seem to be that he was lying. That he didn't remember any his dreams. Apparently we don't remember some of our dreams. The ones we do remember are those we either make an effort to remember as soon as we awake, or something happens during the following awakened period that trips a memory of a dream. But there are some that are not accessible even in these circumstances.

I've looked though Susan Greenfield's The Private Life of the Brain but, though there is a lot on the topic of dreaming, there is nothing directly related to the K claim. I will continue to look up the b ooks I have to see if I can find anything that might have bearing on this.

Do you want to continue immediately on this topic or should we look at other aspects of the teachings that allow inquiry a little more leash? edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 23 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

phil King Tue, 23 Jun 2009, 11:32pm

phil King wrote:

Here I am quoting myself, but if the latest theroy and I think it is the latest were correct it would mean that a mind free of conditioned fear would not dream so what we have is a system that is set up for dreaming and for fear but K may have ended fear which would have ended his need to dream. As a human he certainly had both systems and if he made the statement that he didnt dream, he didnt say that he used to dream but that he didnt at the time of making the statement.

Now one could look at my other statements about brain damage and say that maybe the Kundalini process that K went through and the headaches were an actual situation that may have caused brain damage that might have kept him from being able to dream or to perceive he dreamed. We can wait and see if anyone wants to respond to these two ideas. Boy I bet we get some responses and I bet I could already predict the responses.

Edward: Sorry I can't get the quote facility to operate properly so I've cut and pasted part of your reply.

What you seem to be saying in the first paragraph is an amplfication of what I was hinting in my post. Is that right? What I was suggesting is that if the corpus collosum needs to be active during sleep in order for dreams to take place, perhaps in K's case it wasn't active. Not because it had been severed surgically, but because the conditioned centre was not active. Is that it? If so we are both speculating that this might have been the reason for his dreamlessness. I agree with you that it would have been interesting if someone had asked if he had dreamed before his transformation.

Another question that might have been put to him is why was he reporting that he didn't dream? I mean he could have reported all kinds of things, such as his left toe ached when he cleaned his car! What I'm getting at is that his stating this about his dreamlessness must have been intended to connect with his teachings in some way for it to be at all a relevant thing to say. Unfortunately we don't seem to have a lot on this except the bare statement that he didn't dream. So we are in the realm of speculation. Interesting speculation nonetheless!

Your second point about brain damage actually entered my thoughts but I didn't allow it to flower into a hypothesis. I'm glad you did.

edward.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: Is Inteliigence indivdual or common for all ?

Hello Krishnan:

I have been engaged in an inquiry into 'intelligence' on another forum and I wonder if you would be interested in an extract from that inquiry?

Anyway, I will paste the relevant sections here and you can tell me if it is of interest or not:

e*dward: I see it in a similar way to you (ie the person with whom I'm inquiring on the other forum whom I shall call 'X') We have a model of 'intelligence' . which goes beyond the usual notion that it is simply 'intelligence quotient' which is a 'given',varying from brain to brain. Rather, we're talking about the way the brain operates rather than it's muscle power, aren't we? If this is so, a question that strikes me is why do some people seem to have brains that are able to access this intelligence to a greater degree than the brains of others? Einstein, Bohm, Krishnamurti, Newton, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jesus, there is quite a list isn't there? That is if we're talking about people who seemed to be able to access this "newness" of perception that you speak of. Yet, if you go into it a little more, according to K and Bohm the key to accessing this intelligence is an understanding the obstacle of the self and its creation of psych. time, becoming, etc. Now, if we consider this as a prerequisite to accessing intelligence, the above list becomes problematical. Newton, for example, was a rather egotistical person capable of vicious behaviour in order to gain his own ends. Nevertheless he seems to have had access to insight in abundance. With a little probing we could no doubt find many people who had tremendous access to 'intelligence' yet were not what we'd call spiritual or selfless or abounding with love. So maybe I'm not asking the right question. Do you have a different take on the above? edward

X: Yes it is interesting. Perhaps it is the type of question being asked. What k calls 'partial insight' may account for the scientific, artistic etc insights. The focus there is on discovering something within a particular field. Einstein seems a little more 'spiritual' than Newton according to some of his writings in questioning the 'ground' of his discoveries. He did not regard himself as particularly intelligent but open to the 'mystery' of the universe. Seeing conceptualization as a limiting factor seems essential to seeing through the psychological self as a thought construct, doesn't it? edward: We seem to be touching something here. To recap a little: We're talking about 'intelligence', aren't we? Not in the usual sense of the word, meaning the human capacity to manipulate concepts, but the creative energy that is the ground of everything. And 'everything', in the sense that I'm using the word, must include the self and psychological suffering. But if intelligence includes the potential for suffering it seems to follow that it must include the potential for ending suffering. Perhaps this ending might be regarded as wholistic insight into the ground which we are calling ' intelligence'. And for such an insight perhaps great brain power in terms of the ability to manipulate concepts is not only unnecessary for wholistic insight, but maybe an obstacle to it. This is not to scorn the insights of intellect, but to draw attention to the limitations of thought no matter how elevated. The following extract from Robert Powell's 'Zen and Reality' is perhaps apt for what I'm saying in that it recognizes that limitation without denying the human capacity for the achievements of human intelligence: "...what Krishnamurti has done in the psychological sphere may well be compared with the revolution of physics affected by Einstein. The latter's theory took as its point of departure the simple fact that the speed of light is observed to be constant under all circumstances, independent of movement from or toward the source of light. Krishnamurti's point of departure was the equally simple observation that all psychological suffering begins and ends through the mind: 'the mind is it's own prison'. Therefore transformation, liberation from suffering can only be achieved by the ending of the ceaseless activity of the mind." edward

I see it in a similar way to you. We have a model of 'intelligence' . which goes beyond the usual notion that it is simply 'intelligence quotient' which is a 'given',varying from brain to brain. Rather, we're talking about the way the brain operates rather than it's muscle power, aren't we? If this is so, a question that strikes me is why do some people seem to have brains that are able to access this intelligence to a greater degree than the brains of others? Einstein, Bohm, Krishnamurti, Newton, Shakespeare, Beethoven, Jesus, there is quite a list isn't there? That is if we're talking about people who seemed to be able to access this "newness" of perception that you speak of. Yet, if you go into it a little more, according to K and Bohm the key to accessing this intelligence is an understanding the obstacle of the self and its creation of psych. time, b ecoming, etc. Now, if we consider this as a prerequisite to accessing intellgence, the above list becomes problematical. Newton, for example, was a rather egotistical person capable of viscious behaviour in order to gain his own ends. Nevertheless he seems to have had access to insight in abundance. With a little probing we could no doubt find many people who had tremendous access to 'intelligence' yet were not what we'd call spiritual or selfless or abounding with love. So maybe I'm not asking the right question. Do you have a different take on the above?

X: Yes it is interesting. Perhaps it is the type of question being asked. What k calls 'partial insight' may account for the scientific, artistic etc insights. The focus there is on discovering something within a particular field. Einstein seems a little more 'spiritual' than Newton according to some of his writings in questioning the 'ground' of his discoveries. He did not regard himself as particularly intelligent but open to the 'mystery' of the universe. Seeing conceptualization as a limiting factor seems essential to seeing through the psychological self as a thought construct, doesn't it?

edward: We seem to be touching something here. To recap a little: We're talking about 'intelligence', aren't we? Not in the usual sense of the word, meaning the human capacity to manipulate concepts, but the creative energy that is the ground of everything. And 'everything', in the sense that I'm using the word, must include the self and psychological suffering. But if intelligence includes the potential for suffering it seems to follow that it must include the potential for ending suffering. Perhaps this ending might be regarded as wholistic insight into the ground which we are calling ' intelligence'. And for such an insight perhaps great brain power in terms of the ability to manipulate concepts is not only unnecessary for wholistic insight, but maybe an obstacle to it. This is not to scorn the insights of intellect, but to draw attention to the limitations of thought no matter how elevated. The following extract from Robert Powell's 'Zen and Reality' is perhaps apt for what I'm saying in that it recognizes that limitation without denying the human capacity for the achievements of human intelligence: "...what Krishnamurti has done in the psychological sphere may well be compared with the revolution of physics affected by Einstein. The latter's theory took as its point of departure the simple fact that the speed of light is observed to be constant under all circumstances, independent of movement from or toward the source of light. Krishnamurti's point of departure was the equally simple observation that all psychological suffering begins and ends through the mind: 'the mind is it's own prison'. Therefore transformation, liberation from suffering can only be achieved by the ending of the ceaseless activity of the mind."

Krishnan: Sorry if that extract is a long one. It is part of a much longer inquiry and I thought the extract was the most relevant to your post.

I promise, if you reply, my response will be direct and shorter:-). The main purpose of sending you the longish extract was to show how we conduct an 'inquiry' and to give you a flavour of where the question 'what is intelligence?' has taken us. We try not to begin from a fixed point of view and so our understanding tends to change as the inquiry goes on and the question unfolds itself. In line with both K and Bohm we try not to 'conclude' about anything.

All the best, edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: Is Inteliigence indivdual or common for all ?

Sorry Krishnan, my post seems to have a life of it's own! It has repeated itself and also shifted the names (edward and X) around so that it will no doubt be confusing to you. Anyway, not to worry. If you get the gist of it we can ignore or go into anything you didn't understand. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 24 Jun 2009
Topic: A few introductory words

phil King wrote: I am not sure we can contribute the corpus collosum as more than just a pathway so it cannot in itself been active.

Yes, the corpus collosum is a pathway or trunking of nerves which connect the two hemispheres, left and right. Torey's words are: " The corpus collosum is a dense bundle of nerve fibres that connects the hemispheres. Through it new interhemispheric transactions are created and maintained."

I'm not sure what you mean,phil, by the corpus collosum "cannot in itself" be active. As far as I can gather, the 'transactions' that occur across the corpus collosum cause proprioception. What is 'proprioception'? In Torey's glossary it says " one of the three sources of sensory imputs into the brain. It conveys information about muscle activity and the state of dynamics of the active body"

This means (as I interpret him) that as language manipulates words and concepts two things happen: one, trains of thought are generated, two, accompanying these trains of thought proprioception occurs, ie the feeling that we are doing it. The brain in the process of thinking has to attend to two inputs at the same time, says Torey: the handled content and the handling of content. It is in this oscillation between representations of the thought trains and the feeling brought about by proprioception that self awareness comes about. It would seem that a false sense that there is a separate entity (the self) which is actually doing the thinking whereas this is merely a side effect of the twin process and when thinking/speaking ceases the self also ceases because it is a dependent of the process rather than the active cause of it.

Phil, this is my attempt to put into words Torey's jargon. I may have missed something or misunderstood something, but there it is:-). edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 25 Jun 2009
Topic: Is Inteliigence indivdual or common for all ?
phil K wrote:

Edward, I am so pleased you posted this under this topic. I think it is right on and it has so much good stuff in it. I would like to summarize what I got out of it along with how I view things.

The intelluctual process of the so called great thinkers has nothing to do with change. Change has to do with the ending of conceptualizations! (this is by far the most significant thing). Within the process of intellecutalization, a person needs certain conceptualizations and abstractions. Change is just the observation of the incorrect conceptualization of the I as center and the self image as the "me." Any scientist may come up with understanding of the brain or physics or medicine while still having the illusions just mentioned. In fact, biological intelligence may be a distraction because if one does not see the illusions of self, then the self is increased as the person thinks he is "becoming" more intelligent. Becoming is an illusion of a mind that has the center or the self image.

Maybe, Einstein was more humble because he was looking at time and perhaps he had seen the element of becoming. I mean how can a stagnant process like thought "become" anything over chronological time. It remains stagnant. Accumualtion of knowledge does nothing to the human until his neurons fire and information comes forth for observation. The intelligence that K talks about is the individual is intellegent who uses the information logically and sanely. Thought works linearly or through pictures. If one has a concept of himself which is protected by the self preservative processes, then he will always filter decisions through that concept and the thing that comes out the other side will be destorted even if it is brilliant as when an intellectual may think, i.e. that intellectual will always think he thought it up. Now if that intellectual also has a self image, it will be doubly distorted because he is protecting the pictures he has of himself which we know have much more impact on the mind.

Yes Khrisnan, I'm in accord with what you say. I think it is easy to get confused with word meanings because everyone uses words differently, including Krishnamurti. 'Intelligence' is one of those words. It can set going different and sometimes conflicting trains of thought into an 'inquiry' which can lead to ego- inflation rather than diminishment. Would you agree with that?

The common use for the word 'intelligence' is the ability to acquire and manipulate the accumulations of knowledge that are stored in books. Krishnamurti on the other hand regarded knowledge and learning as an "impediment to the understanding of the new, the timeless, the eternal". (The First and Last Freedom).

Lest we misunderstand him, he usually qualified his meaning of 'intelligence' by excluding technical knowledge, such as driving a car, running machinery from being impediments to 'understanding'. Such areas of knowledge are part of the modern human way of life. And he never recommended living in isolation from civilization as we know it.

So what did h e mean by 'intelligence'? He meant a mind that is "capable of receiving something new, sudden, spontaneous ,creative'....To be free of the past from moment to moment because it is the past that is continually shadowing the present."

So knowledge and learning -which most of us regard as intelligence -are useless, in fact impediments, to touching the truth which has no path. Intelligence for Krishnamurti has a religious connotation rather than a reference to erudition. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: Is Inteliigence indivdual or common for all ?

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: "Knowledge, belief, conviction, conclusion and experience are hindrances to truth

Hi Krishnan, They certainly can be hindrances to the truth about yourself,depending on how they are held in the mind, would you agree? If you are using knowledge and experience to bolster the self you are screening awareness from self-truth, and this will surely seep into your insight into truth in general.

You also ask how does the "completely awakened brain connect with the Universal Intelligence?"

Of course you are not really asking for a conclusive answer. You are raising the question for inquiry, which will always be partial and inconclusive. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 26 Jun 2009
Topic: Is Inteliigence indivdual or common for all ?

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Krishnan Srinivasan Fri, 26 Jun 2009, 11:30am

Hi Edward, I agree it is an inquiry because i do not know. But to connect these two things, are we assuming, there are two entities i.e. "an awakened alert brain/intelligence of the individual" and the other" Universal Intelligence(which Jk often talked about)"?

Hi Krishnan. A good question, if I understand it correctly. You seem to be asking a question with dualist implications. I would think there is a connection between the 'intelligence' of the individual, whether awakened or otherwise, in the sense that universal intelligence is the ground of everything. So from this universal viewpoint there cannot be two entirely separate and autonomous 'entities'.

Having said that, there are qualifications to be made, or put another way, further questions that arise from this. One might be: Why is one manifestation of the universal intelligence 'asleep' and one in an awakened state? What has awakened one yet allowed the other to continue in sleep? To continue with our premise that universal intelligence is the ground of everything, it would seem to follow that universal intelligence is ultimately responsible for both the sleeper and the awakened one. Why? Perhaps we can never know. Perhaps, to resort to an old philosophical arguments, the universal intelligence is not omnipotent. Or, is omnipotent but has allowed the human brain choice.

Of course this seems to go against Krishnamurti's teachings which suggest choice-less awareness is the key to transformation. But maybe this is an instance where words can be tripped over. Does one make a choice to b e choiceless? Etc. edward

Forum: Question authority Sun, 28 Jun 2009
Topic: observation

Randal, I've just joined. Tell me: the words "Enlightened being" appear in your profile: is this what you claim to be or is it simply part of your address description? edward

Forum: Insights Mon, 29 Jun 2009
Topic: K... and his influence on our everyday lives
Max Tax wrote:

I was in depression and had severe social phobia when I found K at the age of 30 .

I was in my own thoughts more often than in life ...

I am absolutely positive that if I had not found K I would still be very sick ...

I'm not 100% "well" even now at the age of 43, but I'm getting closer every day ...

K made me understand how thought operates ...

I think one of the the quotes that struck me the most was when K described a beautiful nature scenery and then how thought rushes in and destroys that feeling with it's chattering quality ...

Listening to K gave me my life back ...

Right now I am at the point where I am mostly conscious of my thoughts as they arise instead of being driven by them ...

HI Max, I was turned sixty when I discovered K. My depression had been around for thirty years. I'm not sure a depression of this duration will ever disappear altogether, but the reduction in intensity and duration have been gradual but definite. Your last sentence "I am mostly conscious of my thoughts instead of being driven by them" is the key to a healthier existence. When you really are conscious of the illusory nature of thought, you have made the "first step", as K called it.It is a major realization that thought is not truth. You can step outside its clutches. I don't think the importance of this can be over-emphasized. edward Morrison

Forum: Insights Tue, 30 Jun 2009
Topic: K... and his influence on our everyday lives
Deepak Gir wrote:

Linda Thorlakson wrote: the idea that the observer and the observed are one

Having understood/recorded/absorbed K's writings quite often I found myself measuring the situation I was in. Comparing myself with a notion of what I should be. I used to enjoy the practice of putting down thoughts on paper many many years ago and discovered soon that it was more a game I was playing. Trying to bridge a gap between my understanding of K's words and my reality. The mind could analyse just about anything. And yet there were contradictions. In time I figured much of what K said was creating a problem. His words were assuming a position of unquestioned relevance and in light of those my reality seemed a contradiction. As a matter of fact I was happy to discover that K's words, as he would put it himself, were the hurdle. I needed to unlearn/undo this new elaborate reference point created within.

Without questioning the truth of what he uttered I then started discounting all the words that resided in my head. As I demolished the reference mechanism, seeing it for what it is, pure notion, I found myself freer and not as much in contradiction.

Now, whenever I encounter something that deeply affects me in the negative I look out for those notional reference points within that are the real culprits.

Oddly in attempting to relate to the observer being the observed I ended up questioning the questioner !! I had to demolish the K within (setup elaborately over the years in the form of crystal clear notions)

Soon when a new question surfaced I found myself asking "who is asking?, the one who knows or the one who doesn't know" In the honesty of seeing that I really had no clue about the subject, the initial question invariably loses its relevance. What remains is only our reality, more comfortably so.

Deepak, I wonder if you would mind my quoting this post in another forum? You have said something which is so difficult to describe. edward

Forum: Insights Wed, 01 Jul 2009
Topic: K... and his influence on our everyday lives

edward morrison wrote: n time I figured much of what K said was creating a problem. His words were assuming a position of unquestioned relevance and in light of those my reality seemed a contradiction. As a matter of fact I was happy to discover that K's words, as he would put it himself, were the hurdle. I needed to unlearn/undo this new elaborate reference point created within.

<pre><code> (the quote continues below) </code></pre>

"Without questioning the truth of what he uttered I then started discounting all the words that resided in my head. As I demolished the reference mechanism, seeing it for what it is, pure notion, I found myself freer and not as much in contradiction.

Now, whenever I encounter something that deeply affects me in the negative I look out for those notional reference points within that are the real culprits.

Oddly in attempting to relate to the observer being the observed I ended up questioning the questioner !! I had to demolish the K within (setup elaborately over the years in the form of crystal clear notions)"

Yes, it requires a double-think doesn't it, to realize that "comparing myself with what I should be", as set out in the teachings, is not excepted from the 'becoming' principle. So the paradox: the teachings become the obstacle; what was learned has to be re-learned in a new way; the words "kill the Buddha" are no longer an amusing paradox. edward

Forum: Insights Wed, 01 Jul 2009
Topic: K... and his influence on our everyday lives

Sorry, an error has the above selected quote as mine when it should be Deepak's. Using the quote system is almost as tricky as 'using' the teachings:-) edward

Forum: Insights Thu, 02 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it

Doesn't it depend on what we mean by "insight"?

Forum: Insights Fri, 03 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?
Linda Thorlakson wrote:

rajaratnam retnajothy wrote: Does everyone has insight and only many do not understand it or only a few who see the truth have it?

When I first read this question, I heard K's voice, from somewhere beyond my consciousness, asking:

"What do you mean by insight and why do you want to know?"

(It would seem that I've been hopelessly conditioned into imitating K's responses through reading too many transcripts of his talks)

Not "hopelessly", Linda, or you wouldn't have seen through your conditioning.

Incidentally, earlier in this thread I asked "Doesn't it depend on what we mean by insight?" Nobody yet has responded to that question. I suppose it may seem bland and uninteresting. But I think the word has been used by K and Bohm in various places in such a way as to open up quite wide-ranging inquiry into the meaning of the word. Is it wise to simply take such words as having only one meaning? I am not being pedantic. I notice that kinfonet are going to publish something on K's special vocabulary. I look forward to that research and may even have something to contribute .

Forum: Insights Sun, 05 Jul 2009
Topic: Is insight only for selected few?

Matt K wrote: Again I return to Linda's question, Why do we ask : Is insight only for the few or for all? Perhaps our stumbling block in this thread has been a communication flaw.

Hi Matt, I think you're right about flaws in communication being a stumbling block. We all make them. But to address the question which you have highlighted:"is insight only for the few or for all".

Maybe we could begin with Krishnamurti's statement that thought is "mechanical". What he seemed to mean by this is that thought operates from memory which is conditioned by the past. As has been pointed out by David Bohm -who was not trying to contradict K, but to follow the implications of what K said - in this mechanical process there is no inherent reason why the thoughts that arise should be relevant or fitting to the actual situation that evokes them. In short we would be complete robots, incapable even of addressing this question of insight. His point was that the perception of whether or not any particular thoughts are relevant or fitting requires the operation of an energy that is not mechanical, an energy which he and K called 'intelligence'.

At this point I should mention that K and Bohm had discussed this question of 'insight' in 'The Ending of Time' and the word 'intelligence' was also used to refer to 'insight'. Intelligence, as K and Bohm used the word didn't mean IQ but was a short-hand referent to a universal energy which is expressed in the form of insight. Insight, K insisted (and Bohm also wrote about this in a scientific way in his book Wholeness and the Implicate Order) insight is independent of thought but thought is not independent of insight. If thought operates without first being touched b y insight it tends to be mechanical. Or in certain exceptional cases such as Einstein and other great thinkers, with"partial" insight rather than acting with "total insight". This is not my conclusion, it is taken from the phraseology of Krishnamurti.

So this energy, which was variously called 'insight' and 'intelligence' occurred both totally and partially in human beings. It seems clear that what K meant by 'total insight' was a state of seeing into the self, an illumination of a different order to that of the scientist, technician or ordinary person.

It would seem - and I put this for inquiry rather than a theory or even an opinion - that for K 'insight' had a special meaning which relates to transformation, enlightenment or illumination, call it what you may. But he also seemed to agree, when investigating with Bohm - that without some degree of insight- which is an "unconditioned energy" - we would not be able to function very well in the practical everyday world.That there exists insight of of a less elevated kind than K was concerned with may be true. But my point is, and has been as stated earlier in this post, that it the word 'insight' depends just as most words do, on the meaning and significance that is given to them. They are not simply codfish on a slab, they have a penumbra of meanings. Which is why kinfonet are launching a project that looks at the special meanings that K gave to the words he used.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 09 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

A recent Horizon programme went deeply into the subject of 'Time'. The guiding questions were 1. What time is it? and, 2. What is time?

Professor Brian Cox, a particle physicist, suggests that the first question is a simple question that sounds like it has a simple answer. But, he adds, do we really know what we are asking? I will,at the end of this article , pose some further questions which seem relevant to students of Krishnamurti. Those are, would a better understanding of what K refers to as 'psychological time' help us to change? Does this study of time in general cast any light on the nature of psychological time? Before talking about these questions, however,. its necessary first to try understand what the current theories of physics have to say about time generally before venturing into the topic of psychological time. And as these theories are rather difficult to understand from a lay point of view, I would ask for a little patience if I don't quite answer all the questions raised in the programme.

As mentioned above, Professor Cox employed two questions to steer his examination of time. The first, 'what time is it?' ,goes briefly into the history of time.

Since time immemorial we have always looked up at the sun to tell us the time. From a scientific viewpoint this way of telling the time involves, in one way or another, measuring the speed of light reaching earth from the sun. I'm going to skip that part of the programme that deals with early civilizations fascination with time. Particularly the Mayan people who virtually worshiped time and invented complex measuring systems, such as cunningly contrived pyramids with 365 steps to measure a twelvemonth period. We of course now have complicated time pieces that are much more convenient to make and accessible to everyone. However, how accurate are these? Over a period of 600 million years it would appear that time has been getting shorter, or longer, depending on how you look at it. 600 million years ago a day, as measured by light from the sun, lasted only 22 hours to our 24 hours. This discrepancy apparently is due to several things, one being an increase in the speed at which our planet spins and another the changing influence of the moon's gravity,

Today, as most people know, we now have atomic clocks which use cesium atoms to measure time. With these immensely sophisticated clocks you have to look at the world of the atom to measure time. How can atoms tell us the time? At the atomic level rates of 9 billion ticks per second make this atomic time accurate to a billionth of a second. This is time now.

Past time. Time experienced as past takes account of the following: light from the sun has to travel 93 million miles to reach earth. This means light from the sun takes 8 minutes to reach earth. So if the sun exploded it would be 8 minutes before we became aware of it. So past time depends upon light reaching earth at delayed rates.

When did time begin? According to Einstein the big bang created space, time, everything. Measuring the expanding universe backwards by use of recently developed photographic techniques puts the universe at 13.7billion years. So if Einstein is correct, time began 13.7 billion years ago.

Slowing down time. Slowing down time at the atomic level makes things look and sound totally different. A small insight into this can be obtained by listening to a fast moving car or a train or an airplane passing us by. The sound changes as it approaches and as it passes. Especially when the sound barrier is broken. But atomic time can be slowed down to incredible levels. Milliseconds, microseconds, nanoseconds and a unit called 'Plank time' which takes account of many millions of micro seconds, These time measures are measured inside the atom. So there is a material basis to this time, even if at a human psychological level we can be deceived regarding the rate of time passing.

What is time? Why does time tick along as it does? Why does it move more slowly or appear to do? It would seem there is no big clock in the sky that ticks away at the same rate for everybody. If we stay with Einstein for a moment (there are other theories to look at. But I will only deal with one, quantum theory.) Einstein's theory of time is that it is a dimension you go through. He says we all move at the speed of light.His theory of 'spacetime' is a mixing of time and space. This causes us to experience time passing. Or, to put it another way, creates the illusion of time passing at a certain rate. To fully understand this would involve a thorough study of gravity, velocity and individual 'observers'. If I fly past you at the speed of light, taking account of not just the speed or velocity but where we are in relation to each other or any other object in the universe, this movement causes us to experience time passing. And this sense of time differs from observer to observer. It would appear, if Einstein is correct, that we each contain within ourselves an individual time clock. So time is relative to and different for each of us.

If time can slow down is there somewhere in the universe where time stands still? Yes. Black holes! The gravity in a black hole is so great that even light is unable to escape. And as time is relative to light, time inside a black hole just doesn't exist.

So the answer to the question 'what time is it?' is there is no simple one-answer. It depends where you are and and your relative speed to others, and the distortive effects of gravity on spacetime.. So Einstein's time is relative to these factors.

Intuitively we feel that the past h as happened and the future is yet to come. But Einstein's time states that all time already exists. Time in this view would be similar to passing along a road -the road unrolls and so also time unrolls as we move at the speed of light through spacetime. So time doesn't pass; there is just a line, a timeline. All life events till exists -and more, the future already exists!

At this point professor Cox introduces another theory, quantum theory. Actually Einstein's theory doesn't "feel right". It would appear that some adjustments have to be made to take account of the 'uncertainty' principle'.

Nothing is certain according to this principle; so the future doesn't exist. At the quantum level that is Spacetime is "bitty" "granular" So if time is granular time could grow, grain by grain. That growth would be our reality. The future is not set in stone. It grows. Merging Einstein with quantum physics gives us a better picture of how time flows..But it would seem that the picture is not yet complete. The quest in science for for a unified theory, a GUT (grand unified theory) which will reconcile Einstein's theory of relativity with the quantum theory. And this has not yet been achieved.

Psychological time.What about my questions about psychological time? Well, I have always gone along with the notion that there are two quite distinctly different kinds of time, chronological time and psychological time. This is how Krishnamurti divides time. However it would seem, from the angle of relativity and quantum theory, that neither chronological time nor psychological time are unproblematic. From a certain perspective, indeed, the differences between them may not be so great.To begin with, chronological time also has a subjective or psychological aspect to it. It would be tempting to regard chronological time as entirely a mechanical thing. Arbitrary. Something we could make adjustments to, putting the clock back or forward etc, and having no connection with the feeling of time passing. Any feeling we do have been entirely illusory. But is it? Einstein's view of time suggests there may be a physical basis to such subjective feelings of time passing. This is what he means by relativity.This relativity would be connected to the velocity at which we are traveling through spacetime. And perhaps the drag of gravity and distortions in spacetime which we're hardly aware of at a conscious level. The paradox of Einstein's time is that we each have an individual 'clock' which ticks away at an entirely individual rate. Although, for us earthlings, because we share the same gravitational pull, the same space, that is to say we are usually not separated by great distances by earth's gravity, these time discrepancies are minor. In other words, although we do have personal body clocks the time differences are slight. Not noticeable in normal circumstances. Nevertheless they are measurable and have been measured, the results bearing out this part of Einstein's theory. Yet, if we were to travel away from earth at speeds approaching the speed of light these time differences would become much greater. In some instances measuring years rather than seconds. The point is what bearing if any does this theory of time have on psychological time?

Psychological time is considered to be imaginary time, an aspect of thought, a psychological tool which enables us to 'look before and aft',to draw lessons from the past and make plans about the future. The key point seems to be that, unlike chronological time,psychological time is not 'real'. It has no relation to the present moment, to 'what is'. And therefore, its 'down side' is that it can lead to delusion and unnecessary suffering. Nevertheless, psychological time , like the arena of thought in which it takes place, is a material process. That is to say it has a material basis and as such perhaps it is as real as any other material phenomenon.This 'reality' however, may be an illusion which is qualitatively different from the illusion that we all share the same time. Its difference seems to lie in certain aspects of thought such as inappropriate thoughts; or persistently re-living a painful set of thoughts,. Morbid or pessimistic thoughts, thought which damage the organism via psycho-somatic channels. So in this sense psychological time is real enough, though it may be labeled an 'illusion' . Perhaps one question might be, if psychological time has a material (atomic) basis perhaps its negative effects might be approached from a practical materialist angle? Of course this is already happening in the fields of psychiatry and psychology This might raise questions which lead us to revise our objections as to the validity of the current psychological therapies, including drugs and other physical intervention techniques. I'm not saying that this is desirable. I am just asking what would be the objections to such an approach? Would they be 'religious' 'mystical' 'spiritual'? What do these words really mean?

edward morrison

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 19 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Krishnan Srinivasan Fri, 10 Jul 2009, 9:36am

Well done Edward- for a concise description.thanks. What about the "time" in our dream-state -of consciousness& deep-sleep-state of conscioiusness(being non-cognisant of it) ?

Krishnan, Sorry for the delayed response: I've been away for a week.

Yes, your question about dream state time is very interesting. I've never come across anything on it or thought about it myself before you mentioned it. In dreams time seems very arbitrary. There are shifts between locations and times that seem not to affect the dreaming state. The dreamer doesn't seem cognizant of such anomalies.

I would guess that, as far as the dreaming state is concerned, one could regard this kind of time 'psychological'. It occurs, like day-dreaming, when the brain is in an unconscious or semi-conscious mode. This would distinguish it from 'clock time' or 'subjective time'. Not that such time couldn't be measured, it could. But only under special circumstances such as by a psychologist who was measuring the REM periods. But I suppose that you are meaning the question of what sort of time is it that occurs, to the dreamer, during the dreaming state.

It would be interesting to pursue this topic in inquiry. Do you want to do so? edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Sun, 19 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Krishnan Srinivasan Fri, 10 Jul 2009, 9:36am

Well done Edward- for a concise description.thanks. What about the "time" in our dream-state -of consciousness& deep-sleep-state of conscioiusness(being non-cognisant of it) ?

Krishnan, Sorry for the delayed response: I've been away for a week.

Yes, your question about dream state time is very interesting. I've never come across anything on it or thought about it myself before you mentioned it. In dreams time seems very arbitrary. There are shifts between locations and times that seem not to affect the dreaming state. The dreamer doesn't seem cognizant of such anomalies.

I would guess that, as far as the dreaming state is concerned, one could regard this kind of time 'psychological'. It occurs, like day-dreaming, when the brain is in an unconscious or semi-conscious mode. This would distinguish it from 'clock time' or 'subjective time'. Not that such time couldn't be measured, it could. But only under special circumstances such as by a psychologist who was measuring the REM periods. But I suppose that you are meaning the question of what sort of time is it that occurs, to the dreamer, during the dreaming state.

It would be interesting to pursue this topic in inquiry. Do you want to do so? edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

I'm not sure that posting the long article on Time was appropriate for the format of the forum. The theme may have been OK but maybe a shorter version which didn't attempt to cover so wide and so specialist an area would have been better. In short, I may have bit-off more than could be chewed in a friendly, informal way given the nature of dialogue in forums.

Whilst it is true the subject of the forum is about science and the brain and the perception of time does to a large extent depend on the human brain, perhaps the article was overbalanced towards the quantum elements involved in time rather than to the brain itself. Oh well, what's done's done and cannot be undone! What can be done perhaps is for me to try to provide some shorter posts on what the article was essentially saying about time, not so much summaries as examples of the insights I gained from taking the copious notes from the television programme and attempting a sort of summary review.The mechanical aspects of this labour did, for me, lead to a few creative flashes of insight into time and the way it is measured and perceived by thought and feelings, as well as a recognition that time is both finite and relative. In short, there is no big clock in the sky.

Anyway, if the article has bored anybody or gone over their head (I only just managed to keep my head above water) or due to my personal communication failures, I apologize and hope that some jump-off topics might be derived for discussion. I note already that ....,has connected dreaming states and time and this might prove more relevant to the forum. After all K did claim not to dream at all! Which seems to support his notion of the ending of time being inseprable from the ending of mechanical thought. In short, of Jiddu transformation of the brain cells.

I will post the "shorter version" shortly. Edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Mon, 20 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

A shorter version of the article 'About Time'

One of the things I gathered from writing the article is that, not only is there no big clock in the sky, but that the word 'time' seems to cover a mix of approaches to understanding it. In my article four approaches were considered. To simplify, I''ll review these briefly

First, there is the common understanding of time which have been termed 'chronological time' or clock time. Everybody understands this, though it may not be generally appreciated that this kind of time may not exist outside the instruments we use to measure it. Time is not a constant. It came into being along with space, energy and matter at the moment of the Big Bang. From sundials to atomic clocks the idea behind clock time is simply a practical aid to mankind. A way of dividing things up for the purpose of his organization of work, leisure and other activities.

A second approach to time is Einstein's time which arises from his theory of relativity. We are all moving along with the expanding universe. That means we are moving at the speed of light! If, within that movement that is the velocity of the universal expansion at which we are all travelling, I move in a different direction to you, or simply move at a different speed to you, time changes for each of us. It is relative to our individual body clocks which ar in some way I can't quite grasp are connected to the speed of light and gravity. The faster we move within that given speed of light the greater will be the time differences between us. Einstein called this "spacetime". Another baffling feature of Einstein's spacetime is that there is no past or future time. All time actually exists on a sort of continuum. Don't ask me to explain that!

The third approach to time is quantum time. This approach depends on the "uncertainty principle". Nothing is certain according to this principle; so the future doesn't exist. Nor does the past. It's gone. At the quantum level that is Spacetime is "bitty" "granular" So if time is granular time could grow, grain by grain. That growth would be our reality. The future is not set in stone. It grows. The two theories, relativity and quantum theory both have aspects which seem valid. However on this question of time (as with several other matters) they don't agree. So the current mainstream science is looking to discover a theory which unites the two theories. This is often referred to a GUT or Grand Unified Theory or TOE, Theory of Everything. I must point out here that David Bohm in the much talked about book Wholeness and the Implicate Order, completely disagrees with the idea that a once-for-all theory can ever be arrived at. His main point being that this misguided hope is based on a fundamental error of thought that divides things up into parts, whilst in reality they are not divided but are interconnected and whole.

The last approach to time that I want to look at is that which Krishnamurti referred to as psychological time. The simplest way I can describe this time is to say it is imaginary time. That is it doesn't take place in the world of material 'things' nor does it depend on physical events. From a purely practical viewpoint psychological time seems to have a good use value in that it enables us to plan ahead or remember things that are needed to be remembered without actually having them there in front of us. We do it all within the brain in a sort of second system of thought which allows us to model reality in our imagination. The problem with psychological time is when it is used, not to aid our activities in the real world, but to confuse them. When we think mechanically from our conditioning we produce images of 'ourselves' which conflict and this causes stress and 'suffering'. There is much more to say about this important approach to time but that will have to do for now if I'm not simply going to produce yet another long article.

Hope this is a bit clearer. Edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

Khrisnan, I haven't read most of the books you list. I have read a lot of Paul Davies. You probably guessed that my title 'About Time' was cribbed from Davies' book of that name. I have the book but it is several years since I read it. I must do so again. I didn't like the title of the documentary 'What Time is it?' so I plumped for the Davies' title. I hope he doesn't mind:-)

As you have noticed, there's a lot written on the subject. Including of course Stephen Hawkin's 'A Brief History of Time' which I have read and which prompted a lot of interest when it was first published. But the article was based entirely on a summary review of the documentary I watched, so doesn't look at these other sources.

Since I posted the article, I've been thinking about how these theories of time might 'fit' with David Bohm's theory of Wholeness. It might be interesting to go into this, but it would mean a lot of reading by the inquirers. So I don't think this is a practical proposition. Yet I do not know if it has been done, even by Bohm. I mean I don't know of any book by him that deals with time in relation to wholeness.

Anyway, thanks for your attention to the article. I guess an intensive look at the theories of time is not at the top of most people's agendas. I understand that and, hopefully, will learn from it. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

phil K wrote: Obviously, if you dont have conditioned fears, you would have no need for dreaming to solve them. You would only dream if you lived maybe in dangerous neighborhoods. I guess if this theory by these scientists were true that studying your dreams would be essential in gaining self knowledge.

Yes, you and I have discussed this in earlier posts. K's claim not to dream, we speculated, was, if true, related to his ending his conditioning.

Regarding your point about studying dreams to gain self-knowledge, I suppose it depends on what is meant by 'self knowledge'. In our society the self is regarded as something to cultivate rather than to end. So there is the often heard desire " I want to know who I am". The idea seems to be that people want to discover their "true self". Of course, in K circles, we hold the opposite view that the self is a bothersome illusion which causes psychological suffering. So the ending of the self is the goal. When we say we want self knowledge it is with this in mind rather than the common goal of bolstering or changing the self image for a more suitable one.

'Self knowledge', for us, really means an understanding of the the process whereby the self or centre throws up these conflicting images and brings about destructive psychological time. Edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Tue, 21 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

Krishnan Srinivasan wrote: Edward, maybe, we are going astray from the original topic"about Time" Await your comments.

Krishnan, I take your point. I have posted a short version of the article which I think captures the main points without confusing people with too much detail. Let me know if you think it is helpful. edward

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Wed, 22 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

Well, I'm glad my smaller version helped, phil. Perhaps you understand more than you protest otherwise:-)

Actually the ego only exist in time! Well according to K this is so. It exists in psychological time. Which is why the long dialogue between Bohm and K was titled 'The Ending of Time'. This time has to be brought to an end before the brain's "intelligence" can bring about a rational functioning. So he may be saying that the organism then, when time has ended, exists in the 'now' . The right brain and the left brain working together in harmony, to put it another way.

As far as my own research goes, I understand 'psychological time' in the K sense, is limited to that mental space in which the ego operates. When memory is operating in practical matters and the ego is in obeyance, psychological time is a valid operation of the mind. Of course K might not have called that kind of memory psychological time. But it needs to be understood and accounted for it we are to be clear about the meaning of 'self-knowledge'

And as you say, self knowledge is a sort of observing of the functioning of the self rather than the usual psychologists approach of delving into the background of one's life and conditioning. Though, K -perhaps somewhat contradictorily - did seem at times to refer to the need to be aware of everything in the 'content' of thought!

I was speaking to my in-law in Ireland, who, like yourself, has met both K and Bohm and his memories seem to be similar to yours. K came across, when of stage, as a simple person, not very talkative and without an obvious sense of humour. Bohm was, considering his massive erudition and status in the scientific world, very modest and approachable. Whether or not he understood K I don't know. He did seem to agree with him on fundamental issues. But I have spotted differences of views which I wouldn't yet be able to go into. They would take more study and research and I'm not sure I have the time these days.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Thu, 23 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

phil K phil K Wed, 22 Jul 2009, 7:02pm

Edward, I am interested more in your observation of psychological time and how the ego is involved with that. The ego to me is an illusion created by conditioning based on the self protective instinct and is poofed away once one sees the conditioning as would Pavlov's dog realize how stupid he was for salivating at a bell but of course dogs dont have much awareness and are hard to untrain, I would imagine.

<pre><code> --------------------------- </code></pre>

I think it is necessary to pin-point what Krishanmurti meant by psychological time before talking about my own comments. So, with your patience, I'll quote from The Ending of Time:

K: "We are saying that psychological time is conflict, that time is the enemy of man........Psychological time is not time of (time of day). Time is the 'me', the ego..."

I take it from this statement, and from others like it, that K is limiting his notion of psych. time to that movement of thought in which the self is active. His usual word for this is "becoming". Does that accord with your own understanding?

What I was trying to do was to distinguish from K's very specific description of the operating of thought which include memories of the past or future. For example, one can use memory to plan a future fishing expedition. Later, after the fishing has taken place, recollections of that fishing expedition (the size of the catch, the weather, etc) can b e spoken of without necessarily bringing in psychological time. If the descriptions are purely factual no psychological time in the K sense of the word will take place. But if pride enters the picture (Look at this photograph of this huge fish I caught) then psychological time is activated. I don't think this is rocket science. But I think it necessary to point out that simple recollections and projections in mental time might be confused by K students for the psych time K was meaning. That's all.

Regarding the instant "poofing away" you speak of. I suppose there are people for whom this instant ending of psychological thought happens. Eckhart Tolle, for example, claims it did for him. But, I don't think this happens for the majority of people. For them it is a gradual erosion or "withering away" to use a K phrase.

Forum: K, psychology and the physical brain Fri, 24 Jul 2009
Topic: About Time.

phil K wrote: Edward, I guess the problem I am having is that I will have to say that in me the ego did poof away.

Edward, I guess the problem I am having is that I will have to say that in me the ego did poof away.

Wow! That is an enormous statement in so short a sentence! It sort of takes the breath away. I guess I would like to talk to you about that in another separate post. Meanwhile, I'm not sure why you say you're having a problem with this. Maybe I've been conditioned by K's notions of transformation to think all problems end with the demise of the problem-maker, the self? I'd appreciate a short explanation about the nature of your problem. I suppose, once again, this is a word problem...

phil: "I just don't get K's approach in this. I wonder if when he was talking to Bohm near the end he started to go in to areas of the brain I just cant comprehend. "

edward: You're right. The language in The Ending of Time is difficult. I know very intelligent people for whom it has led to them leaving this dialogue alone in disgust. Whether at themselves or at K I'm not sure:-). And I'm not sure I can go much further in clearing up your lack of comprehension. Given your first sentence, I would guess this stands somewhat in the way of comprehension rather than making it clear. What I mean is, that it would seem, from where I'm at (saddled with a self) that different 'enlightened' people seem to have different notions about what has happened. One such person spoke of "Jiddu Transformation" as if to distinguish it from other forms of enlightenment. The very word 'enlightenment' I would think gets in the way of any kind of clarity about this topic. Certainly the Buddha speaks of 'paths' (ie the eightfold path, for example) and different approaches for Bodhisattva's to approach different groups of people in their teachings. All this goes against K's notion of the "pathless land" and "no gurus", doesn't it? Or am I mistaken?

phil: "I just don't see how time has anything to do with the ego. If the ego is an illusion, then what does all this talk about time which is also not what the mind thinks it is have to do with it."

edward: I think the question of the ego being an illusion is a tricky one. I'd like to go into it in another post, if you're keen to do so. Regarding 'real time' 'and imaginary time' I would just pose a question: Is there any such thing as 'time' in general? Doesn't thought invent all forms of time? I mean there is no big clock in the sky. This suggests all perceptions of time depend on the perceiver ie the perceiver is the perceived, as K would say. This is not a conclusion. I simply pose it as a question for investigation.