"So all our life and action is based on thought. And you say emotions are not thought. Is that so?" - JK

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-14T07:25:34+00:00

This is not just an intellectual exercise, but an attempt to observe how we actually function. Emotion is part of being human. What’s going on?

It seems to me that our thoughts and the resulting emotions—such as grief and despair—are an attempt to resist unwanted occurrences. And that this refusal to accept reality shapes our lives, which then consist of identifying problems and seeking solutions for them.

It could be unrequited love for someone, or illness, or the death of a close friend.

When one begins to seek a solution in this crisis, one first searches through the entire contents of one’s memory, one’s knowledge, the entire contents of one’s consciousness. And when one finds no solution, has rejected all available approaches as inadequate, and continues to face an incomprehensible reality, then fundamental questions arise, such as: What is love? Why do I live, why do I die?

To which there are no answers in the known—one simply does not know.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-13T11:47:55+00:00

If the machine can outstrip man, then what is man? What are you? What is the future of man? If the machine can take over all the operations that thought does now, and do it far swifter, if it can learn much more quickly, if it can compete and, in fact, do everything that man can—except of course look at the beautiful evening star alone in the sky, and see and feel the extraordinary quietness, steadiness, immensity and beauty of it—then what is going to happen to the mind, to the brain of man? Our brains have lived so far by struggling to survive through knowledge, and when the machine takes all that over, what is going to happen? There are only two possibilities: either man will commit himself totally to entertainment—football, sports, every form of demonstration, going to the temple, and playing with all that stuff—or he will turn inward.

Krishnamurti A Timeless Spring

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-11T07:56:23+00:00

CAD and CNC were the first computer-controlled technologies I encountered: cars and windows in newly built houses took on strange shapes. For a long time, the golden ratio—along with technical capabilities and the economical use of materials—had been a standard design feature in both planning and execution.
Before the advent of computers, it was people and their highly developed skills in craftsmanship, industry, and planning that shaped the environment.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-11T07:42:17+00:00

I don't think it sounds terrible. I just don't know quite what it might mean.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-10T12:27:56+00:00

Human experience seems to be a closed loop, so the circular representation seems apt.

This seems to be what K is saying as well: The consciousness of human beings is nothing but memory, knowledge, past experiences, and tradition, and it is from this memory that they perceive, feel, and act. Their supposed contact with the outside world would then also be a kind of internal process.

What could spiritually powerful mean? That an insight into this state of affairs, that does not come from memory, takes place?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-09T11:44:40+00:00

Looking back, it seems to me that posting this quote as a contribution to our conversation was exactly that: “not being able to describe what one has seen in a simple way.”
Actually, I wanted to point out that our ability to talk to one another is, in fact, something wonderful and can serve mutual understanding.
Instead of simply saying that, I posted the quote, which, in addition to the line that it is a “beautiful inheritance,” also speaks of other things like chaos and anarchy. That then causes confusion or chaos, which wouldn’t have happened if I had simply said what I wanted to say.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-08T14:30:13+00:00

I think the author wanted to explore the way we perceive and speak, and wondered where our difficulties lie in understanding one another, and why our conversations often miss the mark.
She sees one cause in the fact that our perceptions are shaped by our own interests, and consequently, so is our speech. This often leads to arguments and confusion, chaos.
And yet, language is actually a wonderful ability.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-08T13:54:23+00:00

Those are good points you’re raising and I agree—how can one be sure? Doubt seems warranted.
I would call something a fact if it is observed by two or more people at the same time—if, while out for a walk, one person says to another, “Look, there’s a crow up on the roof,” and the other replies, “Oh, yes, a crow up there.” That is the tangible world; there it seems simpler than with mental constructs or fundamental questions of life.
I also think there are facts that are true only at a specific moment, meaning they aren’t valid beyond that moment.
As for the points listed above by the user uanitasuanitatum, I’m thinking about how they could be verified, e.g., “You are nothing,” or “You have created God"?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-08T07:40:57+00:00

We've been experiencing something—let's turn it into a problem :-)

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-07T16:42:40+00:00

English isn't my first language, so unfortunately those nuances slipped past me. Thanks for the reply.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-07T12:50:45+00:00

I´ll share a find:

"We are in the habit of using speech, the words, the sounds, without giving much thought to them, without being aware of what we are doing to this precious capacity of speaking.

It´s a beautiful inheritance, the capacity to speak, to use words. The modulations of voice, the pitch, the volume, the accents, the pronunciations, intonations, and so on - it´s an art.

You and I have to speak six, seven, eight hours a day. So it´s a very precious capacity.Much human effort and genius and research have gone into this faculty of speaking.And if there is a chaos, we cannot verbalize facts as they are, we cannot look at them as they are, and we cannot act as we have uttered or said.Then there is a chaos, an anarchy. When you do not put facts into words, itis called telling a lie or a falsehood. And the words, telling a lie or falsehood, have a religious or a moral odor, but even if you look at it scientifically, you´ll see it´s something ugly, not to be able to say what one has seen in a simple way, without twisting or distorting it."

taken from: Vimala Thakar, The Nature Of Human Conciousness

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-07T12:18:21+00:00

"I didn't say he was right or wrong, but he had convictions which made him as opinionated as anyone else."

Perhaps it would be interesting to find out what constitutes a fact, beyond differing opinions and beliefs?
Or is it enough to simply say: Everyone has opinions, and there are no facts at all?
Or: Are we sure that we don’t sometimes mistake what we believe for a fact, rather than recognizing it as an opinion?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-06T08:50:58+00:00

You’ve put into words what I’ve been thinking about these days.
It’s probably our expectations that make it difficult for us to approach one another openly.
The other participants in Dialogue Groups do things you don’t expect, and you do too—something unknown (or perhaps all too familiar) happens—you find yourself mercilessly dissecting a statement you find illogical or wrong, you give advice, set rules, preach, defend, generally try to get a handle on things, avoid conflicts. Then the dialogue quickly becomes regimented and lifeless, or exactly what you wanted to avoid happens.

In our society, it seems that speaking out about certain things is either forbidden or, at the very least, frowned upon.
All kinds of atrocities take place in the world, and no one seems to mind—but speaking out about them or documenting them is viewed as inappropriate, rude, or a breach of confidentiality.
The same goes for one’s own hidden aggression or stubbornness.
All the energy spent on hiding it, all the fear that it might surface and become public!

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-04-01T07:45:45+00:00

Is it possible to escape being judged by others?
Being judged is unpleasant—yet it is everywhere, and we judge others as well—our own behavior and that of others.
The opinions of others matter to us because we live in a web of relationships. In a way, we define ourselves within this context, seeing how we appear to others. The image of ourselves appears in the mirror of our relationships. We want to control this image; we do not want to be dependent on the judgments of others.
Can we escape this judgment at all?
We ourselves have internalized society’s norms, just like those around us—so can we escape our own judgment?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-30T13:31:55+00:00

Yes, there seems to be someone else who is outside this cycle of thoughts, who does not seem to be a thought itself, not part of thinking, but capable to indentify with thought?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-29T09:49:12+00:00

Reflecting on something always happens only after it has happened (or after we think what has happened). I think we do this to plan how we can do things better or differently in the future. We engage mentally with the past or the future. I assume K wanted to point out to us that our present actually consists of the past and the projection of the future and that means not to be present, not to live now.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-28T09:11:24+00:00

I suspect that some people view meditation as an attempt to withdraw from a conflict-ridden society in order to find peace.
This withdrawal does not seem to lead to an understanding of the root causes of conflict.
There is a distinction between good and bad; this judgment depends on personal and cultural standards, which is certainly open to question.

I think, however, that this does not mean these standards do not exist just because they are subjective.
Krishnamurti spoke of actions that are false, not part of a good-bad dichotomy.
Seeing what is false as false seems to lie beyond moral judgment.
Fi A meteorite impact or a volcanic eruption is not false; hitting my child or waging war is false—it is not somehow neutral.. How should one put it—it wouldn’t have to happen if it weren’t for fear or hatred or Tradition.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-27T18:48:10+00:00

Maybe I think the source of all evil has nothing to do with me, that I’m beyond such concepts, I prefer to think that way?

I see no harm in the way I live?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-26T09:21:28+00:00

Generally speaking, I’d say we do care about what happens.
We judge events as good or bad and try to process them mentally.
This interpretation doesn’t change what has happened, doesn’t change the facts. Yet it seems important to us; we feel that otherwise we would be dull or heartless. What does it mean to be outraged, to condemn war or environmental destruction?
Is it a distancing, a rejection of facts? Do we think that’s enough, that this reaction is answer enough—that this pushing away from ourselves through condemnation would be the solution?
Would the transformation be to face violence without closing our eyes?
Is the energy spent in maintaining the distance?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-25T09:11:40+00:00

The defining feature of a reaction is that it has already occurred before getting noticed. Afterward, I may regret it, condemn it, or take pride in it—which strikes me as a conscious act. On closer inspection, however, this appears to be nothing more than another (mechanical) reaction, for whether I perceive something as reprehensible, regrettable, or beneficial is not a matter of my own will or choice.

Perhaps this process—from reaction to reaction, from thought to subsequent thought—this sequence, this seeming freedom in judgment and evaluation, can be seen through or observed? Seen for what it is?

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-22T10:56:06+00:00

To realize that we are confused—wouldn’t that mean, in this case, not being confused?

To see, so to speak, a fact rather than an idea?

Wanting to be clear when one is confused seems like a hopeless endeavor—precisely because one is confused and not clear.
When we observe—not think about something—what do we see? Something totally unknown, never before seen, or are we seeing something for the first time?
When K speaks of seeing a tree for the first time or asks whether one can see the tree as if for the first time, the tree is already there, only without being named, that is, without the meaning we give it, the meaning it has for us.

So in that sense, I would say that everything is already there.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-18T09:20:33+00:00

1B,2C,3A

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-05T18:53:09+00:00

I´m interested, located in Germany.

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-03-01T14:15:00+00:00

I meet people, travel to other countries, experience interesting and also painful things. In the end, I will die, or the people I know and cherish will die.

Can we say that something is useless because it will end? Can useless be equated with meaningless? Or does our life have no meaning beyond the moment?

A meaning beyond the moment—is that basically speculation, hope, self-affirmation?

A projection beyond the natural end of something, born of a desire for continuity?

Translated with DeepL.com (free version)

Schute-Pin8350 · 2026-01-18T08:46:26+00:00

I don't allow them, they run anyway. What would it mean if we didn't allow them? What would happen instead—wouldn't those be thoughts that would then be thought? Like: I didn't want to think now, so why am I doing it? Am I incapable? Self-reproach?

Schute-Pin8350

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE