Why did Krishnamurti say that?
He said psychological time is the enemy of change. Psychological time is recognizing something you want to become and then the time interval it takes that you spend to try become that, which he argues is a fallacy. When there is a âwillâ to become, do, or change, what is and what should be come into play which implies division.
Tbh this sounds like a real âwhy try?â situation. I donât know if I see his point. He agreed that chronological time exists, so whatâs the difference between that and psychological? Is the difference distinctly objective, or does it become separated upon observation?
Trying, or hoping that tomorrow, you will be as you should be, is the problem. Basing our experience on this imagined future self, is the psychological delusion, because actually, whenever we find ourselves, we are dealing with ourselves as we are, right now.
And isnât it that what I am in this moment is the only thing I could be? Or else I would be something different. So the desire to be different than I am, or you to be different than you are or the world to be different than it is, is just that, desire that takes me away from âwhat isâ into a psychological imaginary âtimeâ that doesnât exist. This is what is behind his comment, as I see it, that âchange is the denial of change.â
1 Like
What cannot change, if we are unaware of the delusion, is that the self is the constant effort to become what should be. (aka Psychological time)
Of course, the delusion changes instantly, when seen.
Death is the word we use for actual change. Reincarnation is a word pointing to the constant arising of the old me.
Or âfreedom from the knownâ?
1 Like
Freedom from the known - can be described as realising that I am merely the process of suffering based on experience and desire - which means that being dependant on this non-entity is necessarily the continuation of suffering.
1 Like
And if Iâm not that, what am I?
Freed from the dictat of fear, we are :
Like eddies in a stream, the patterns arising from all that is.
Like a swinging door, or breath coming and going, mind embracing its own movement.
So no âIâ in all this?..
Maybe the best conclusion is the old non-conclusion of neti neti (and all that jazz)
No âIâ, no âcenterâ anywhere, seems fine.
1 Like
Yes, but âright nowâ is a conceptual-perceptual construct. Itâs a feeling, not an objective reality. (See: specious present.) Objectively there is no now, itâs like the infinitesimal duration from calculus. I am a process, a swarm of micro/macro interconnected causes and results. I am not a stream, I am streaming. To see, feel, and behave from a gut-level understanding of this is imo intelligence. I only catch glimpses.
It might be more correct (and more easily accessible to certain twisted souls/complex intellects 
) to say : we are always in a relation with our current experiential projections.
To be free from the need to act from this center at all, is the permission for the universal to flow freely.
So there is no psychological evolution or growth. We are what we are, envious, frightened, anxious, emotional , compulsive. And to learn about what we are is an art. The first thing is not to condemn or avoid the emotion. And that might be the last thing to do. Condemnation is our conditioning or habit. And habits are difficult to break.
1 Like
Yes - maybe we can make a distinction between the practical present, and the true Now⌠?
The practical present is just whatever one is thinking, feeling, sensing insofar as one is aware of this thinking, feeling, sensing.
The âspecious presentâ is a theory about the nature of chronological time, which requires a theoretical unpicking*. So to employ a theory like the âspecious presentâ to avoid the practical present may be itself rather specious!
The true Now as such would only have meaning or actuality for a mind completely free from the psychological movement of time - i.e. a mind that is totally empty. As such a Now is likely to be an idea for us, and not an actuality, one can also question whether it is relevant to the awareness of the practical present.
So the practical present is all one needs to be aware of oneâs conditioning.
*[As Iâve mentioned to Rick elsewhere, I think this can be done at the level of physical theory - in particular that of David Bohmâs implicate order. But to explore this takes one out of the practical present.]
By saying that there is no becoming something else tomorrow, isnât that negating there being a difference between âdealing with what we are right nowâ and not dealing with what we are? Isnât it kind of a paradox? Because its 2 different mind states, separated by what then, if not time? Someone please help me answer this
âTwisted soul,â mais oui, merci. âComplex intellect,â hmm, Iâd say: colorful?
What center?
Me. The all important agent at the center of its environment. Acting from what I know, for what I want.
I am a smoker. âI will stop smoking tomorrowâ is just a lie, that I tell in order to feel better about my life. Because I am a smoker.
No point believing in lies if you are interested in truth.
Philosophical hypotheticals, confusing paradoxes etc are usually just stories being confronted.