I could not put it in a better way!
May I express a supposition? I’d like to find out if what I’m going to say may have some basis.
Could this mutation be a biological evolution? After all K. spoke of mutation in the brain cells… eh?
K. and all the other real enlightened people, could be just the first specimen of a new species…
So religion could be only a biological phenomenon…
Whoa! The mind is a figure of speech and doesn’t exist. As Krishnamurti said, consciousness is its contents. And the contents are the self and everything that makes up its psychological and physical world .
The mind is the cognitive faculty. Use another word for it if you like. Krishnamurti described thought as mechanical, so you could call the mind the mechanism of thinking, or the thought generator
Oh no, this is how we fall into the rabbit hole of confusion. Krishnamurti said: "The word (door) is not the thing (actual door). And I am telling you that the thing (mechanical thought generator) is not the word (mind) pointing to an idea, a metaphor. How thought materializes is a magical mystery. There is neither a process or a processor of thought which, in and of itself, is also an idea. I wonder if you get the perfume of this.
How thought materializes is a magical mystery.
If the word “mind” is a metaphor for you, fine. If the idea of a cognitive faculty, a mental capacity, doesn’t sit well with you, so be it. If you believe thought is not a process, a system, we can still talk about thought and the difference between practical and psychological thought.
Yes, we can! Let’s be open to ideas from left field.
Practical and psychological thought are two different modes: one is healthy and serves the body while the other is poisonous and feeds evil. Krishnamurti did say that thought is evil. He must have meant psychological thought that sustains the self.
This is a very good example. Is it possible to be sensitive and yet being able to perform a brain surgery in a friend? In other words, being sensitive and still think clearly?
That’s a good question to ask physicians.
No, I do not know him. I knew his father.
Yes, it disturbes me. I need to look at it. It disturbes me because I live in a peaceful bubble and I discover, I ignored the fact that there are things happening which are wrong. Those wrong things weigh on us. - 2 weeks ago I was walking in the evening on a beautiful place. One agitated young boy passing by attacked another boy with great violance and broke his arm within minutes. I never was so close to so much violence. The moment I saw that a third boy was attacking a helpless boy with a broken arm on the flow with his foot over his head, I ran and screamed and did what I could. Fourtunately there was a police report and the violent boys got caught. - There is violance and what do we do with it ? Are we are part of the game. We are part of society. We are playing our role. Do we?
Yes Wolfgang, we are part of society and our bubbles are very temporary sanctuaries. And into that sanctuary we take ourselves. And in taking ourselves we are taking in the very same society the sanctuary is supposed to wall us off against. So really, there are no bubbles available, not in the way we think of them.
The other thing you mention is roles. You say, “we are playing our roles.” I get the sense of that but think you have not put it quite rightly. I would rather say that we are playing to our roles. I wonder if you see the difference. There are actually no roles. What we conform to are images of roles, usually roles rather accepted by society. Most families assign roles to their various children and the children grow up conforming to them. This is very sad to recognise.
In the teenage years we often rebel against the assigned roles and seek to invent our own to conform to. I am rewatching the TV drama series Breaking Bad at present and it is fascinating to see the interplay between roles and the almost total lack of authenticity. It is a fairly accurate portrayal of the societal game we play, for the purposes of entertainment of course.
Excellent ! See the fragmentation, corruption, living in contradiction, … there is no equality, … compassionate … justice - skin colol different, fragmentation, lack of compassion, no cooperation … for now more than 20 years in the case mentioned at the beginning
What do you mean by “young boy”? Boys don’t break arms. You must mean a scuffle among teenage thugs. You were lucky you didn’t get hurt inserting yourself into the fray. Judging from your response (ran and screamed?) to the incident, you sound like an old guy who could have been seriously hurt or even killed in a tumble to the ground from a shove. And that would have been a serious injustice to your body over a psychological need to deal with violence in society.
In a dialogue session, someone said that we need to help and Krishnamurti snapped: “Who are you to help? Don’t help.” (I know this sound confusing and even controversial. I swear this was in a Krishnamurti video tape or audio recording. I cannot provide the source and am willing to withdraw and delete my post if there is objection from others in the forum.)
Yes, roles can be a dangerous thing. Yet, the judge and jury has to do what they supposed to do. They lacked compassion. As a father I do also have a certain role.
Isn’t a father a psychological entity? Trees don’t have uncles.
The boy’s age: 15 and 13 years. I saw myself hesitating to run but when he threatened to stamp on his head I reacted. Fourtunately I was not the only one. Someone more physically apt came also and was able to to stop them by seperating them and showing readiness to confront them. I could only help to stop the blood and leave my address in case they needed a witness and I was able to take several pictures of the sceen. The father of the victim contacted me later and I sent him the pictures I took. - The good thing here is, that we were several to act and there was a police report and the agressors were caught.
No I have a child and I noticed certain differences with the relation with your own child.
Love, care, educate, let go.
You here make an assertion you have no means to judge the verity of. One could ask about your “psychological need” to do so, but it would be impertinent 
And that’s the problem. A father is a psychological entity created by conditioning to induce learned responses. Without being a father, your responses to all children will be instinctive and guided by intelligence rather than by thought. Let me illustrate what I mean.
Imagine you taking your child on a boat ride along with nine other fathers, each with his own child. Ten dads and ten kids in a row boat on a river. The boat capsizes and all hell breaks loose: every father desperately looking for his own child in the frenzy. Would it be intelligent for every man to reach for the nearest child struggling in the water? If you relate differently, you would seek your own child oblivious to any others thrashing in the water within your reach.