So you spoke to your psychiatrist and they want to change your medication. In this video I'm going to give my advice on what to expect when changing your psychiatric medication. Hey what's up you guys, welcome back to my channel. If you're new, hi, hello I'm Lydia. Please consider hitting the subscribe button to join our growing family. We're aiming to reach 10k by the end of the year. I know we can do it if we work together. Share my account. Let's raise awareness. So changing medication is stressful. There's side effects to taking into consideration and if you're in America there's the question of will it cost more? Can I afford it? I mean I'm not American so please take that with a pinch of salt because I've known them to America. Please feel free to correct me in the comments if I'm wrong. The first experience I had was with antidepressants. Now the first antidepressant I was on was fluoxity and also known as Prozac and my god it sent me manic which led to my first hospital admission where obviously I was taking off it. I was started on lithium at a thousand milligrams. No builds up just straight on to a thousand milligrams. The hospital I was in was really bad and it got shut down but because the lithium reacted badly to me I stopped taking it and I went on to another antidepressant called Cetallopram. Now Cetallopram wasn't a good choice for me. It decreased my appetite and I was diagnosed with anorexia so it wasn't the best decision it got very serious with that. I let them increase the dose because I was happy because I was using weight and then eating disorder services got involved and they stopped the medication. The next antidepressant I was on was sertraline. I was sertraline I can't really remember it that well. If you're interested in my experience with medication I'll link a video up on the icard where I go about the medications I've been on. The transition between different antidepressants was always the thing in my mind was is it going to send me manic? Then we start with anti-psychotics. The first anti-psychotic I was put onto was Cretiopein. Autonomous Sericwell. Now me and sericwell because we had seen that I was like Cretiopein. Me and Cretiopein was a love-hate relationship. I loved it because it let me. It got me to sleep. I've always had problems with sleep. Even when I was a kid I had issues so when I was going on to medication to help me sleep I was very happy. Getting back to the subject of the video changing medication was difficult. The sericwell I had a love-hate relationship with and eventually I got stopped because I was putting on so much weight I was really unhappy and it didn't help my psychotic symptoms. So I was put onto Clopixel. I was on a very low dose of 10 milligrams and honestly I reacted really badly to it. Then there were other anti-psychotics I got put on to try and the only one that's weird is Halopherodone which is what I'm on now. When I was changing medications it was always what the new side effects going to be. The truth about changing medications is you never know what you but say the transition for me from quick therapy into Halopherodone. That transition took time because I was on 600 milligrams of quick therapy and I was starting out on 0.5 milligrams of Halopherodone so they kind of switched place because my psychiatrist at the time didn't want to just take me off the quick therapy and she wanted to lower it slowly. I think that's the thing medication is it's so difficult when you're trying to find the right medication for you because there are so many medications out there and they all have their side effects and now if you react to it good then congratulations it's when the side effects make you worse. So I take Halopherodone twice a day at five milligrams. Things to remember when you're changing medication. One, don't expect the worst. Two, I know for me with Halopherodone I was put into psychos. I think I'm saying that right. I hope I'm saying it right because I was really stiff. I'm stiff anyway because I have arthritis in most of my joints and I have had since I was 17. Oh my god that's 10 years in December.  You have to go into it with an open mind because you never know when you're going to find your miracle drug. I remember I was on Lomontrogene for two weeks I think it was and I got a rash so I spoke to my GP and my GP told me not to take it. If you're interested in my Lomontrogene journey I'll link it up on the icard because I did make videos when I was on it and it did work with my mood but I had to stuff it because of like another rash so danger zone. So yeah that's all I've got for this video. If you're new subscribe. I actually check out some of my other videos. I talk about all different things. There's plenty of playlists. Thank you for watching and I'll see you in my next video. Peace.


In the dojo, we are the masters of our own training. Whether you are an instructor or student, classes are usually held within a safe, secure, and fully controlled environment. But there's a lot we can take for granted. It's hard enough to focus on learning the proper techniques and application that it's very easy to forget, a very big impact on any self-defense situation, the environment. Learning what obstacles you might face or what possible tools might be at your disposal might just make a difference in you being able to defend yourself or not. Today we're going to talk about situational awareness and self-defense. Let's start with the basic, the dojo itself. The dojo setting is very easy to take for granted. You come in, you're in an air-conditioned room, usually. You've got pads to work with. You've got partners that practice safety. Sometimes you've got padded floors. Safety is a concern. Now, some dojos have wood floors, but they're still very different than working out in the concrete or the gravel. Taking the situation outside adds a lot of concerns. You've got to worry about terrain, people that are around you, the weather, objects that could be obstacles or tools. Are you in a parking lot? There's cars, both parked and moving, something to be aware of. So when you go outside, it's not just your technique and what you know, you have to adapt to your environment. So let's go back to terrain. If you are on gravel or concrete or grass or sand or snow, all have different considerations. Also, we're talking flat terrain there.   The terrain is a very, very important experience. One, what kind of traction do you have? Grass is going to give you a different traction than concrete. Are you going to be able to rotate, stand your ground if you need to? If it goes down to the ground, grass is going to be very different than sand, which will be very different than gravel if you have to ground fight. Granted, you'll do what you have to do, but you still have to take that into consideration. Weather, is it been raining? Is the grass wet? It makes it easy to slip on. You've got rain, you've got heat, you've got snow. Is it autumn? Are there leaves on the ground? Could you possibly slip on them? They take away some of the traction. Let's take things down to a finer level. What kind of objects are around? Everything and anything can be a potential weapon for you to use or to be used against you. Are there sticks and rocks, chairs? Are you in a restaurant where there could be tables, plateware, silverware? What is at your disposal? There's a lot to keep in mind. So you've got your big setting and you've got your finer details. They all work together and can definitely turn a situation one way or the other. Whenever you enter a new place, it's definitely a good idea to take stock of what you're walking into. Several things to keep in mind. The first thing is mobility. What is your ability to move in this setting? Are there tight spaces? Are you in tight hallways? Is the big open room? Are there tables and chairs that you'd have to navigate around? Is this place crowded? Are there a lot of people? If there's a lot of people, you might not have room to move or try to escape. Even then, the crowd can become hostile. So that's part of the assessing the room. When you go someplace new that you've never been in before, it's always a good idea to take note of any possible escape routes. What are the exits? What's the closest to you? If you can't get to that one, what's the next closest? Always know a way out. Take stock of the obstacles and tools.  Ground can be slippery if some liquid spills.  Now you've got small aisles, you've got chairs and people to work around. A subway, a zoo, a bar, a parking lot. What do you have at your disposal? Going back to the floor and the terrain. When you walk in, this is a habit I like to develop. When I walk into a new place, I kind of make a little subconscious mental note of how does my traction work on the floor? Are my shoes slippery? Does it grab well? Do I have good footing? Will I be able to run on this? Will I be able to stand my ground on this? Just good mental note, walk into place, just kind of check the traction on the floor. Depending where you are, if you're at a bar or a concert or some large public event, is there security around? And playing on that, any security cameras? What are the camera positions if you see any? And also keep in mind, if something breaks out nowadays, everyone's got cell phones, everything's caught on camera. So if you do find yourself in a situation, just realize any action that you take or that's taken against you is likely to get caught on video. So note where those situations are. See where the cameras are placed, if there are any around. If there's a large crowd, you can bet if something breaks out, someone's going to hold up a camera. Part of avoiding a situation could be avoiding certain places if possible. So if you can, obviously avoid bad areas, bad neighborhoods, especially if you're in a tourist area. If you're in a tourist area and the surrounding areas are bad, do not venture away from the main crowd. You're putting yourself at extra risk. Also, if you are uncomfortable, so say for example, you're coming out of work late one night or you're coming out from a bar, you're going to your car, is the parking lot empty, there are a lot of people out, is it quiet? Do you feel safe?   There's something called the coupon. It's basically a keychain, but it's a miniature baton, usually made of aluminum or some type of metal. They're about five and a half inches to six inches long, and they fit well in the keychain, but they are designed for possible wrist locks, eye pokes. It's a weapon. Sometimes they're even pointed. So if we're good for pressure points or if you have to defend yourself, good for soft targets. So if anyone's interested in one of those, I've got a link below in the description.  Just take stock, look around, make sure you're safe before dropping your guard or leaving yourself wide open for a possible ambush. A lot of people do get attacked in parking lots when they're not looking, so just be aware as you're going to your car. If you do not feel safe or you feel there's a threat, try to go somewhere safe and call security or call the police if you need to. Are there any dark areas? Are you walking downtown? Are there any potential hiding spots? Alleyways, just stuff to keep in mind. I'm not saying that you're going to walk down the street and people are going to be jumping out of every corner, but it's a good practice just to kind of identify what a possible threat could be and just be mentally prepared for it. First I want to say I'm not telling you the profile. Don't base any judgment of gender, race, age, anything like that. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is when you walk into a new environment, just take stock of who's around. Just know what kind of crowd it is, what people are possibly wearing, where their positions, if something were to happen, are there people blocking your way? Just be aware of who's around you. Also, try to read the crowd. Is it a potentially hostile crowd or is it more passive? If a situation breaks out in a bar or at a club or a concert, chances are if something were to happen, people might jump in. It kind of spreads. People are usually drinking, they're amped up, hostility can spread. Versus if you're at a family restaurant, people tend to veer away from the fight. So try to read the room. Try to pay attention for any strange behavior. Again, I'm not saying profile anybody, but is there a person who's sitting in the corner of the room totally withdrawn from everyone? Or is it the dead of summer and someone comes in wearing a long coat, trench coat? Just keep that in mind, keep an eye on them. If you feel nervous, if you don't feel safe, maybe alert someone in security to say, hey, maybe kind of keep an eye on that person. If the person's drunk, probably best to stay away from them. So just notice any strange behavior that makes you feel uncomfortable, stay away from, but keep an eye on it. Sitting down. I recently did an exercise with the kids. I like this drill. I think it gets people thinking. We started class, we did our warm-ups. Then I had them partner up and practice their self-defense techniques with their partner. Then I took the kids. I took one kid. I put him down in the chair. I said, okay, now do the same technique. He looked at me like, what? I said, do the same technique. And he wanted to stand up to you. I said, no, do it in the chair. And he looked at me like, well, how? I said, well, you tell me. How would you alter it to work from sitting down? Sitting down is something we all do a lot. And a lot of situations can arise where you might find yourself prone in this chair. So how can you adapt your material to work from that position? So basically, I had them working groups. We laid a bunch of chairs out.  I had one partner just attack them. And they had to choose the technique that they would use to get out of it. It was actually really interesting to watch them work this out. Because I saw the gears turning. Some kids came up with some great concepts. I saw a few work around how to get around the chair and use it as a weapon. Other people from attack from behind were able to counter-grab and get out of it. And they pulled the opponent over the chair. So they started to use the chair as a weapon or as a tool for their disposal. Even at one point, I heard this giant thud and I turned around. And one kid flouted on his back. His partner basically came up and just sparred to kick them. But that's something that could happen. You have to be aware of it. So I told them, well, if that happens again, what would you do? I made them work on it. There's different types of seats. So one size technique doesn't fit all. Booths, benches, subways, chairs, they're all going to be different. Are you in a seat that can tip over and be pushed back? Or are you in like a park bench where it's fixed? That will greatly change the situation. For example, if you're in a fixed seat, a park bench or a subway, well, you can push back against it. You can brace against it. Launch off it if you have to. If you're in a folding chair, you're not going to be able to do that. You know, that's going to give and you can tip over. But also, with a park bench, you can still get up and move around behind it whereas a subway you can't. So you can start to see the different varieties of situations that can come up. So wherever you're seated, take note of that. What are your options if something were to happen? Big difference if it's one person attacking or multiple attackers if you're in a seat. Are you in a chair that can be tipped over? Well, now you've got 360 degrees to worry about. Are you at a restaurant? Are you in a booth?  Someone else can climb in the booth behind you and grab you. Take that into account. What is your mobility like from where you're sitting and how could you use it to your advantage if you were attacked? Okay, so what do you do if you feel threatened? You've taken the safety measures that you can. You've tried to avoid bad areas. You've taken stock of your environment. You've noticed who's around you. You notice what you're wearing and the traction. All that. That's all good. But what if you still feel threatened?  What can you do at this point? Number one, if possible, avoidance. You feel someone's a possible danger? Move away from them if you can. If you feel like other people are starting to have an argument, maybe move away from that if you don't want to be a part of that. So if you still can get out of there, still the best recommendation. You don't want to be involved in a situation if you don't have to be. People only get hurt. So if you can still avoid the threat or what you perceive as a threat, then do that. Your body language can say a lot. If someone's threatening you even trying to fight you and you go into this stance, what are you telling them? You're saying, all right, it's on. Let's fight. Maybe that's what you want to do. I don't recommend that. You want to try to de-escalate the situation that you can. But you also don't want to just stand like this. You're completely vulnerable. So what are some ideas you can do? Well, one is you want to keep your hands up. There's a few ways to do that. One is you can stand with your arms crossed. You know, I like this one. I wouldn't fold your arms under where you kind of get tangled up, but just kind of fold your arms a little bit.   Another one I see is the popular one people like to do. It's pretty far from a fighting position if you have to be. And speaking of fighting position, hey, whoa. Man, the person's really getting heated. Do you really want to start a fight? You're still trying your last-ditch effort to kind of simmer the situation down. Hey, man, I don't want any trouble.  There is very little difference between this and this. You're in your fighting stance. Your body's turned. Your centerline's faced away.  You're covered. But what it does is, one, this is passive. You're also people watching security cameras. We're in a day and age where lawsuits are common place. Everything's documented. So if you do end up in a situation in the fight, what looks better on you legally?  Especially if someone comes in with a cell phone many times, the beginning part of the fight is not captured, but the ending is. So your body language can really, really help dictate the situation as well. Are you sitting down? You feel threatened. Okay. Maybe not a good idea to lean back in the lounge position. Someone's making you nervous. Do you think it's a possible threat? Lean forward a little bit. That's why I work with the kids. I had them relax and when they felt threatened, I had them kind of sit forward, feet flat on the ground so that if they have to launch up into a standing position, they could do it quicker. What are you holding? Okay. We talked before were you shopping? You have a bag. You know, bags, you can swing around and use as a weapon. Drop something to be as a distraction. Throw something up to be a distraction.  What do you have on you that you can use? Also, if you're wearing something that can be snagged, again with that backpack, can you run with it? Can it get caught in something or are you near a fence? Do you have to go through trees? Take that in mind. If you have to escape, what will allow you to avoid bad areas? You've tried to assess the situation. You've tried to de-escalate a possible fight, but to no avail, you're attacked. A fight breaks out. What do you do? Well, basically you do what you have to do, but you want to use the environment and get out of there.  And the last thing I do is turn around and have something pointed at them. So if you do manage to wrestle a weapon away from an attacker, don't just hang around, defend yourself and leave, then call the police and call for help, whatever you need to do, but you always have to be aware of your own safety and it's not just the person you're fighting, it's also the people around you. All right, so say there are multiple attackers. It's a very dangerous situation. It is not easy to fight against two or three or more aggressive people who are trying to hurt you. So the very first thing you want to do again is get out of there if you can't avoid the situation. Do not linger, do not just try to say and say, okay, who's next? It's just not worth it and what do you have to prove with that? If you are attacked with multiple people, the worst place you want to be is between them. Try to use them against each other. If there's two guys, keep one between you and the other one. It's possible. You don't want to deal with two at the same time, but rather one than one if you're able to manage that. Also, stay on your feet as much as possible. I know a lot of people out there, Brazilian Jiu Jitsu is a very, very popular thing. But the danger with that, though, is you don't want to stay tangled up on the ground too long if there's multiple people.  Also, make noise, attract attention, be a distraction. If you're being attacked, make it a spectacle, get noticed. Maybe someone around can call the police or maybe the police are already there nearby or security. Just make a lot of noise. And once again, use your environment. If you're in a setting that you can work around objects, I talked about, if you've got two people attacking you, keep one between you and the other one. Okay, we'll start going around obstacles. Keep an obstacle, keep a table, keep a support pole between you and them. Use that to your advantage. Don't let yourself get trapped. Don't let yourself into a corner to work your way around your environment where you can escape easier and put obstacles between you and them. There's another drill. I love doing this with the kids and the kids get a real kick out of it because it gets intense. We call it the restaurant drill and basically what I do is I take out all the wave masters and the gym mats and we kind of fashion makeshift walls and we'll stack the gym mats and we'll make like a bar or a countertop and we'll take all the kicking shields and we'll make like little tables. We basically make like a mock restaurant. And then what I do is I have the whole class mingle around the restaurant and we'll choose one kid, we'll send them out of the room and while they're out of the room I'll select either one, two, or three attackers. Now this is a sparring drill and I actually have them wear the sparring gear most of the time when doing this. So I'll choose up to three attackers and I'll put them back in the group. We'll call the first kid back in and say, okay everybody just mingle and they have no idea who I chose. So they're walking around, there's people coming up to them talking to them. They get all nervous because they know someone's going to attack them but they don't know who so I try to put them on alert and try to get them to take stock of their environment. So when I say the word go, the people who I call to be attackers at their discretion can attack whenever they want. They can all attack at once or one guy can attack and then the others can jump in. It's up to them. Now here's where things get really interesting. It gets really intense very quickly and the goal is I tell them, get out of there. Me and the other instructors were the bouncers or security so we say, try to get out of there and come to one of us or try to get out of the situation and leave the restaurant all together. Don't just stay and fight because if they try to prove themselves they usually get caught in the corner and they get beaten up and it's really interesting to see how they work. They're allowed to pick up shields and throw stuff. They're allowed to use their obstacles. They're allowed to climb the walls if they have to. They're allowed to do it on their own and I like it because it mimics a real-life situation. Sometimes kids I don't choose to be attackers will jump in anyway. So sometimes we'll end up with three, four, five, six attackers because that can happen. You're in a bar. You're in a mosh pit or at a concert and a fight breaks out. This possibility other people are going to jump in and they might not have any care of who they attack. It might be you or the other person but you have to be ready that you don't know who might jump in on your behalf to protect you. And the last drill we did one kid actually jumped in to defend the girl. She ended up punching them and he's like what happened? I was just trying to help. I said yes but she doesn't know who's good and who's bad so you're in the crowd you don't know who's going to become involved who's already involved in the beginning or who's going to help you. You can't bank on that. You can't rely on that. You don't know when you're going to get involved too so when I say we're doing restaurant today they all cheer they gear up they're excited because it's fun for them but I'm trying to get them to understand how to use that environment this is not just standing the line doing your drills in the air this is application now with real people in somewhat of a simulated setting so I love this drill for them they seem to get a lot out of it so that understanding of what's going on around them, especially in an age where everyone has their faces glued to their cell phones. Only half of your training is learning the art, the other half is understanding how to apply it in the real world. And I'm not saying you have to be paranoid or everywhere you go, you've got a hawk eye, but just you walk in someplace new, you go out somewhere, just take a scan, know what's going on around you, it's only going to help you and give you a better chance of defending yourself if you have to. I also feel that it's a really good habit to occasionally rescan your environment and notice any changes while you're there. People come and go, objects get moved, the situation always changes. And speaking of changing situations, I'm just kind of curious how many of you noticed that the Bob dummy behind me wore three different shirts during this video. So thank you so much for watching, I hope you enjoyed today's topic on situational awareness. If you guys enjoyed it, let me know because I would like to do further videos on breaking down individual environments, if that's something you'd all like to see. Let me know in the comments, subscribe, share, thank you so much.


The title alludes to my infatuation with the philosophy of Husser, the European philosopher, and his phenomenology. And some decades ago I developed an interest in this theme, but I had never the time to develop it, and still I don't have the time to develop it. This is why I call it polygamina, but I think nevertheless it will be of some interest. And the question I'm going to ask, I claim, has not been addressed yet in the literature on Jainism, but I'm happy to be corrected on this point, and I would actually be delighted, because then that would save me a lot of work. Look at these things. So it can be very quick. I mean there are some sources which everyone knows here in this room which are discussing these things, time, conceptions and so on. A few studies which I will refer to in the brief time remaining are these, the latest one by Christoph Emmerich in the volume edited by Piotr, the latest one that I considered. And Emmerich there says, so far research concerning time has concentrated on a rather late phase without considering earlier developments, i.e. late phase means classical Jainism, and he focuses on earlier conceptual developments. The terminology he says in all of Jain literature on time, nevertheless acquires not the strictness of the Buddhist works. And therefore he refrains from constructing a coherent theory of time, that means reconstructing it, and rather focuses on some strategies of explanation and varying degrees of integration. Basically the impression one gets is that according to this latest research on this issue, that the Jain conception of time is not very well developed, it is the multiplicity of views which are not well integrated and therefore one has to look at each and every single view and it is in a way a side issue of the Jain philosophy. Now my paper will argue somewhat differently that first the conception of time is fundamental to Jain's sociology and philosophy both early and late. Theories of action for instance, in time we heard about the problems of causation, etc. And it would be interesting to hear Johannes' views on the implications of time for the theories on causation in Indian philosophy, but of course also for philosophical perspectivism, Adikantavada, time is of the essence. Second point to be made, without systematization of the concept of time, classical Jainism, and I focus on that, could not have been established as a recognizable philosophical school. Third point, problems in the philosophy of time inevitably affect Jaina logic. And lastly, the logical reconstruction of the constitution of Jaina concepts of time as objects of time consciousness could be the theme of a new research programme. I mean I cannot solve things here, I ask some questions. I give five examples first before I say something about the concept of time and probably run out of time by then. Example one, and I take this from Himaltrika's work which I am very impressed by and I can say that he will arrive at about lunchtime, he has caught a plane, this is the latest news so we can all inquire personally later. He points out that in the Sabta Bangi, on which we will hear many papers today, an object is looked at at a variety of perspectives. But also, by implication, the perspectives that are not mentioned are implied. So the distinction between Swarparaya and Paraparaya is very important. And I think his work is one of the few commentary works which focus on this aspect. And he mentions, as I highlighted there, that the two aspects can only be sequentially expressed. And this is of course a general point that can be made about perspectivism. Each perspective, from the conventional point of view of a mortal human being that is not omniscient, has to be taken one at a time. Of course that leads to a potentially infinite amount of time and we have no time. So how can we solve this? Is this just a heuristic, the perspectivism? And if one looks at European philosophy, who sell, etc., object, constitution, one finds similar problems and that is quite interesting to explore from a comparative point of view. But the point is, there's no, in a way, Jane philosophy, perspectivism, shifts the problem from logic. You know, I agree with Piotr, this is all more about ontology than inference and logic, but it shifts the problem to the question of time. Kicking it into the long grass, as the English say. Second example, Pramana and Naya, again from Himaltrika. Method of Naya can only be subsequent to the method of Pramana and the previous paper was addressing issues like that. Again, this was highlighted by Him. Again, the problem of time is flagged up. Example three, Vyavahara and Nishchaya Naya. The alternation of perspectives can also be only performed in time. And Bansita Bhatt and Shalini Sinha have started to investigate how the perspective, which perspective was behind a particular verse in the Samayasara, for instance, but research is going on, there are many controversies. Example four, I will linger a little bit longer on that. I've written a bit in a paper on sacred matter in the Journal of Indian Philosophy on Dwai Kriya, Ninava and Traivashika Ninava. Piotr also addressed this issue. And today I look at this problem. The Ninavas, these are heretics and they are rebutted by some implicitly proposed orthodox Jain position. And I would argue, and I have done so in Lumbini in the paper a month ago, that all the Ninavas deal with problems of part-whole relationships and also the relationship of part-whole relationships in terms of time moments, the integration of a time moment and a time whole, as it were. The Dwai Kriya doctrine is associated with the story of Arya Ganga and Arya Danagiri, his teacher and is well-known, I don't know to most of you here, while crossing the waters to meet his guru, Ganga, experienced the cold water and the hot sun at the same time. And he said, the Jain doctrine, propounded in the scriptures, must be wrong because he has this experience. The Jain doctrine is that each perception can be cognized only at a particular moment. And his teacher then replies, rebuts him and says, your perception is wrong, it creates an illusion, it's based on an illusion, because you're not able to perceive that your perception actually is based on a very fast alternation of the two perceptions. They do not occur simultaneously, but your mind is switching very, very quickly, imperceptible to the common mind between one and the other. So again, the problem is kicked into the question of time. And that is a very interesting example, which I have to skip because of the... So this is the verse cited, this is in the Visheshavashika Tikka of Malayagiri. The non-production of many cognitions at one time is the essential quality of mind. This is cited as the key Jain tenet, which the heretics, such as in this case Ganga, do not accept. So if this is the key of Jainism, then of course we need to know more about time. And the cognition of time, and this is where time consciousness and the phenomenology of time consciousness comes in. You need an observer, and you need to theorize the role of an observer in the conceptualization of time, and there are many things to be said about that. So the Jains have made a number of propositions. I'm running quickly out of time, this is why I summarized them without giving you much evidence. Basically, one argument is that there is a synthetic point of view, and you know the seven Nayas, and the Samgraha point of view. So from that point of view, you can take the whole in perspective without looking at the parts. For instance, you can look at the time sequence as a whole, as a picture as it were, you see a line with dots and an arrow or whatever, without looking at every instance. But from another perspective, from the real perspective as it were, from the empirical perspective, you have to look at each instance. But of course we have to switch in time again from one perspective to the other to get the whole picture. So we have again the usual problem, and the ultimate solution is of course to posit some omniscient. I mean this is a purely theoretical fix, I think, because you have to take a leap of faith to come from a conventional perspective, if you like, to a transcendental perspective, to the determinate real perspective Nishchaya Naya. You cannot incrementally come from one to the other. And we discussed this problem in Lumbini as well. So I think the omniscient is just posited and attributed to the mystical legendary story of Mahavira. We know that Mahavira was a historical person, but not everything that was said about him was surely historical. So he was attributed with Kevalajnana, etc., etc. And that I think does not solve the problems of time. And how much time do I have? Because according to my watch we started at 10.35 after the technical problems. So you have about 15 minutes? Oh, you're very generous. Well, I mean that means we are getting lead, but I mean it's okay. Well, let me go straight to example five. This is the most interesting, also well known. I'm not giving you new data at all. I'm just pointing out, I'm asking a question and pointing out directions which I think I was well investigating. In the mind of the omniscient, how do Kevalajnana absolute perception and Kevalajnana absolute knowledge relate to one another? It's a very famous controversy in Jain literature. And I give you just a table. There are basically three positions. One is even the omniscient, although he knows everything or it knows everything, has to look at each and every cognition in a succession. This is position A. And interestingly enough, this is a position of the Jaina Agamas, the Shwetambra Agamas. I give you a few famous references there. And Siddhasen Haganin's commentary on the Tatvarta Sutra, Otto commentary of Umaswati, is also supporting this view. And Ijina Bhattra in the Visheshavashikabhashya also. The opposite position is, I mean if these things are really relative to time, then there is of course the whole question of omniscience is put into question. And some, mainly Digambra, but not only Digambra philosophers have said, even the omniscient must have a simultaneous perception and knowledge of everything that there is. And the idea is if all karmas are removed, there is no time consideration, but you see everything at once and future and past of course. And that is an interesting issue to consider in terms of determinism. There are so many issues that I was developing and I cannot show you all my own 250 slides. So Kunda Kunda and famously Umaswati argues that point. The third position is basically only taken by Siddhasena Divakara, the most famous Ritambara philosopher who had his own mind. And he argued that in the position B, perception and knowledge are still distinguished by different cognitive functions, but they actually merge in the state of omniscience. There is no distinction anymore between perception and knowledge. The position B said, okay there are still different qualities, but that occurs simultaneously, but they remain different qualities. Siddhasena has basically merged into one, they are indistinct, and this is the Abheda Vada position in contrast to the Sahavada and Krama Vada position. So it's a real problem for Jain philosophers, particularly the Gamba philosophers. This is at the apex as it were, the whole edifice of Jain philosophy. And there is no agreement and I think quite rightly so, because if one looks at the problem of time, you see that there is no solution there. It is universally agreed that non-omniscient observers can only perceive everything in succession. So there is no disagreement there, but with regard to the omniscient, we have these three options. But the Agamas, of course, are in favor of that. I skip all that stuff here, which is quite well known and move on to a few things about time. I thought in my brief reading of the literature on concepts of time in philosophy, the brief work of Shaya, which has been republished I think last year in Warsaw, is the most useful for the purpose of this talk. He proposed a hypothetical reconstruction of the development of concepts of time in Indian philosophy in general, so not looking at just one school, but focusing on Buddhism. He says, first, the oldest layer posits substantial time called kalavada, i.e. a kind of a fluid or quasi-material substance that pervades all space. And this perception is apparently shared, according to him, by all schools. And it can only be inferred, it cannot be observed, and so on and so forth. This is a very rudimentary conception, of course. But we are familiar with this conception from the Jain philosophy still. So they must have carried some baggage from the very, very early times in India. The second and next phase is the Tricalia Vada, the doctrine, i.e. the view that there is a past, present and future. And that is an issue that is also reflected, of course, in Jain philosophy in the famous definition, for instance, of gumaswati, of existence as origination and duration and cessation. I mean, it is another level. And finally, and of course Shaya says, the Buddhist position is the most important one, the most advanced one. Only the present is real, not past, present and future.  Only the present can be experienced. And these are the basic, very broad alternatives in Indian philosophy. The Jains are usually classified under realists, i.e. those who accept a substantive notion of time. But for them, time is a substance, one of six substances, but a substance that has no mass. It is therefore not seen as belonging to the astikayas. It is a massless substance and therefore it is special and not accepted by all Shwetambara thinkers as a proper substance, but basically most agree it is a substance but a substance without mass. The Buddhists, of course, strictly, most of them, not all, so many complexities, non-realistic schools. And here are some characteristics of time as a substance, subtlety, omnipenetrability, omnipresence, eternity, unity, indivisibility, etc. And that is an interesting observation of Shaya, I think, that time and space stand in the middle of a scale between spiritual and costly material substances. And that was the conclusion of the paper in the Journal of Indian Philosophy, which I worked on recently, that the notion of space, akasha, and time is reduced in space, I can say that because of lack of time. Time is spatialized in the Jain conception, as in other conceptions, is, in a way, the third between jiva and arjiva, or the third element, which anchors the whole Jain cosmology, the whole Jain system. And Shaya's observation here, I think, fits this quite well, or my little footnote supports his perspective, and this is a very, very interesting thing. Now, what are the foundations of realist time theories? Shaya says, and this can be all substantiated with slides, which I have from Jain text. Number one, real-time color must be postulated as a necessary correlate of time terms and time relations. This is exactly what Johannes Broncos has said a minute ago, in a different context. It simply has to be, there has to be something, because what are our words otherwise referred to, you know? So it's a kind of ratification. The second argument made in favor of substantiated realist time theories is the observed changes and the impermanence of existence. And two courses are distinguished in the Jain literature as well. A specific course of change, which one can observe, and a course of change with large, with a big C, you know? Change of everything, you know, the flow of time or something like that. And these, the second course, of course, is inferred. It cannot be observed, it is inferred from the specific courses. Now I skip all this. These are nine categories of time. I'll now give you a few examples of Jain notions of time and the multiplicity which Christoph Emmerich rightly referred to. Of the nine mentioned in the Abhashika Nyugti, which may be the oldest text, four are highlighted in the Vyapanati. And basically I think there is an opposition between absolute time. This is again, you know, time with large. And number nine, the inner state is a Bava, particular changes that are experienced. And in between there's conventional time, large time measures like Iyans, Utharpini, Avassarpini, and measured time, this is civic time. So these conceptions are, in a way, objective time conceptions. And the italicized aspects could be linked to, I mean, number nine as well, to subjective time conceptions. But I think in general the Jains cannot answer the question how time is experienced very well, because they try to present an objective theory of time. And in that sense, time consciousness, this whole issue, has to be inferred by a modern observer, or this is a theme that is brought from the outside to the tradition. And there are, of course, texts which explain how one perceives change and so on. That is very interesting. It needs to be studied. Now, I'm running out of time, I suppose. Well, from the point of view of measured time, yes. Let me come finally to give you some food for thought who notes some, to this, and a final citation from Naginsha, who wrote a very good article on this. So there are different attributes of absolute time and conventional time. And the interesting thing is that Samaya, the instant observer, comes up twice. Once as a time measure, or is it not in this? It's not here. Let me see. Then the other. Ah, here. No, I'm sorry. So many slides to show. Yes, Samaya comes up there as a heading. Samaya. And here, so it's a modification of absolute time. And on the other hand, it's a unit of conventional time that is theoretically positive. And according to the text, it's the time an atom takes to move across a space point which it occupies. It's a slow movement. So that shows that there's a circular definition. Time is defined in terms of time, the time an atom takes, etc. Similarly, there's a circular definition of space. And these are problems which people like Naginsha, for instance, have addressed. But you can see absolute time, substantivized time, kala, and conventional time, etc. have been completely separated. And the question is how do both relate to one another? And that is an unsolved problem. Of course these unsolved problems lead only to one conclusion. Jane philosophy, Jane logic, is not standing on sound foundations. Basically the work has to be done to explain these, I wouldn't say contradictions, these conundrums. And this is for you to discuss. It will close with these quotations from Naginsha. Otherwise the Jane's in the audience accuse me for not representing the proper Jane point of view. He points out that according to Jane philosophy, every substance has qualities and modes. Therefore it does not need time as an additional external substance that causes the mode. The modes are already attributes of the substance. And in fact I see no logic in positing time as an independent substance, he writes. We can account for all the concerned usages with the help of the modes of the five substances. My new changes in the kala, absolute time, are eternal without beginning and end. Hence it is illogical to posit a causal condition to account for it. What is eternal, beginningless and endless, has no cause whatsoever. The description of time as atomic, these samaya atoms, seems metaphorical. Each and every material atom could be called time atom. And this very well explains the scriptural statement regarding the absence of its spatial extensions. I.e. time is not an astikaya. Why is it not conceived as one continuous whole like dharma, adharma and akasha? Time is posited to account for the minute changes in other substances. But what would account for the changes in the time substance itself? Well the answer is time and therefore the whole thing becomes circular. It would be said that the modification of time atoms is natural and hence requires no other causal condition. The logic could be applied to explain the modifications of other substances. If some other auxiliary cause is posited to explain changes in the time atom, it would involve infinite regress. Hence this view of an independent time at atomic time substance seems to be very weak and unsound. Thank you very much.


Ixia is an index. It expresses the level of socio-educational advantage of students in a school. And it's important to know that, because students' levels of socio-educational advantage generally affect their levels of educational achievement. They also influence other outcomes. Ixia has been set with a mean of a thousand and a standard deviation So a school with an index of twelve hundred has students who, on average, are two standard deviations above the national mean. These students come to school with a great level of advantage. A school with an index of eight hundred, or below, on the other hand, works with students with considerable socio-educational disadvantage. It would be very unfair to compare the performances of such schools, since the socio-educational backgrounds of their students are so different. Fair comparisons can be made, however, among schools with students from similar levels of socio-educational advantage. Ixia was developed to enable such fair comparisons. This graph shows the relationship between Ixia and the performance of schools on Napland. At the bottom end, at eight hundred on Ixia, at the left-hand end, the schools at that level tend to perform less well on Napland, whereas the ones at the right, up around twelve hundred, tend to do better. And the red line summarises that relationship. Of course, not all schools are on the line. Some do better than you'd expect, given the Ixia for their students. Some do less well than you'd expect. So school A, for example, is a school doing less well than you'd expect, even given the relatively low level of its students' index. And school B is a school that does much better than you'd expect, even given the advantage level of its students. Now, in some countries, analyses are done that suggest school B is a school from which school A could learn. And I think that's nonsense. School A would say, how could I learn from school B? Its context is so different. Its students are so much more privileged than mine. But school A could learn from schools with students of a similar background. And this is precisely what my school is for. School A could learn, for example, from school C. A school with students with exactly the same level of the index of socio-educational advantage, but performing very much better. Ixia is calculated using information on parents' education and occupation, as well as other demographic data, such as the proportion of students in the school who are Indigenous and the extent of geographic remoteness of the school. The Commonwealth Government requires all schools to collect this information, and that's what we use at Akara. Now, over time, we've improved our data collection, but we've also improved the method for computing the index. We now have good measures for the index at the individual student level, and so we can provide not only a stable estimate of a school's average index, but also a good picture of the distribution of students indices around their school's average. Having a strong and valid measure of socio-educational advantage for schools enables us to identify for each school others with which fair comparisons of students' literacy and numeracy levels can be made. These comparisons reveal marked differences among the schools in the level of their students' literacy and numeracy. The high performers in these comparisons show the others that they should raise their aspirations for their students. From those with lower levels of student achievement, it also removes the opportunity to declare that they could not be expected to do better given the students with which they work, because other schools with similar students are doing so much better. The comparisons invite all schools to work, to weaken the influence of socio-educational background on students' educational achievements, and we know that can be done. We know from comparisons provided by OECD's Programme for International Student Assessment that in high-performing countries such as Canada, Finland, Japan and South Korea, differences in students' levels of socio-educational advantage are less strongly related to differences in their educational achievements than they are in Australia. The educational systems in those countries are high quality and high equity. Ours is high quality, but lower in equity. We should aspire to match the high quality and high equity countries, and we should see ourselves moving in that direction. Before we see it happening at the national level, however, we'll see it happening at the school level, because that is where the work is done, and we'll see it in the MySchool website.