Krishnamurti & the Art of Awakening
Discussion Forums

Wim Opdam's Forum Activity | 2228 posts in 4 forums


Forum: General Discussion Wed, 11 Mar 2015
Topic: Mindblowing

on the back of the pocked:

THIS IS A KIND OF LOGBOOK FROM 1 1/2 MONTHS SURFING ON THE INTERNETSITE: “ WWW.KINFONET.ORG ” WITH THE INNER TRANSFORMATION FROM THE SURFER.

STUDYING JIDDU KRISHNAMURTI FOR OVER 40 YEARS SUDDENLY CHANGING HIS LIVE BY REACTING ON A SITUATION WHEN POINTED TO THIS SITE AND ACTING ON THE INFORMATION FOUND THERE.

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 14 Mar 2015
Topic: Mindblowing

‘ I ‘ go.

Losing its dominance The ego tries to get it back in the most devious ways like a chameleon in the clots of pride, guilt, civilization etc. etc. slippery as an eel in a bucket of snot

The ego is like a black hole It consumes all the attention It’s a form of self-abuse Until seeing real life Needing the attention to survive

There’s no ego there, no thinking, thought, google or whatever, just living, being alert, staying alive.

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 27 Mar 2015
Topic: What is one's motive for change?

Jean wrote: " WHAT will solve the problem finally ?"

Not making any conclusion about whatever so intelligence can act in a proper way using the improper tools we have at that given moment. ( see o.a. the Awakinging of Intelligence )

Forum: General Discussion Fri, 27 Mar 2015
Topic: What is one's motive for change?

Jean wrote: “Does intelligence really 'act' and use 'tools' ? ... as I see only thought can act and use tools ... intelligence can only 'see' ...”

Wim: from the awakenings of intelligence “on intelligence” Brockwood park 7 october 1972

Bohm: Then would you say that we could do entirely without thought?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses Thought.

Because you seems to like throwing back citates from others and my formulating is not always so accurate.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 30 Mar 2015
Topic: What is one's motive for change?

jean wrote: Really ? ... not in this forum obviously ... you are so reactive, so defensive ... I see no stillness in you Paul ... only self defense emotional reactions ... such noisy mind ...

It's your mirror jean (:

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 31 Mar 2015
Topic: Efforts and hard work ?

Dear readers,

We are material matter ! Even before our birth there is the race of sperms in our semen and it’s not known if mother Mary or whoever opened the gate to the egg and let the horse of Troyes in. That’s what and who we are. It doesn’t even matter if the birth was the outcome of real Love or some poor bastard who thought he was mightier than the poor woman he raped. Even in the laboratory they can’t select the right sperm to fertilize the egg. So let us accept what we are and accept that change, coincidence has a great part in it.

Changing society has nothing to do with hard work, although hard work is necessary to clean up the barriers and create the conditions to come to insight. The “honest” rule is claimed by capitalism as well as socialism. ‘Capitalism’ by: “ honestly we'll steal everything, but I am a bit more than you. ‘Socialism’ by: honestly, we will distribute all, but I am a bit more than you.

King Salomé investigated in a lie to discover the Truth. Einstein was spilling his time, waiting in the train to realize relativity.

And a lot of examples can be found that Truth comes to us instead of we working towards Truth. So let’s work together to clean up the mess.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Apr 2015
Topic: Efforts and hard work ?

Jean Gatti wrote: The 'patriarcal model' is part of our deep-rooted conditioning Jack. From an early age we learned that the ideal life was to find a wife (or a husband), then to have children, find a job, buy a house and a car and a fridge etc ... most of us don't even question that ... I call this the 'Bridget Jones syndrome' :-)

From the same source your question came from !! The answer is formulated with the help of thought, but came from the impulse that all this blaming the society, our parents, our teachers will not help us at all. Knowing we are conditioned it is the NEGATION/NULLIFICATION of this past is of importance and not the question where it came from.

So are we, you and I and all the people of the world able to get an insight to drive away from all our conditioning ?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 01 Apr 2015
Topic: Efforts and hard work ?

Jean Gatti wrote: I think that the root of this is to be found in the patriarcal model of society we live in ... men wanted to dominate over women and they pay the price for that ... as I said earlier there is an action-reaction effect here: because you want to imprison others you become yourself a prisoner ...

Is this what you call seeing ?? Let me redefine my earlyer answer:

Seeing we are conditioned and NEGATION/NULLIFICATION of the past is of importance and not the question where it came from.

Forum: General Discussion Thu, 02 Apr 2015
Topic: Efforts and hard work ?

Jean Gatti wrote: There is nothing BUT consciousness. Consciousness is more fundamental than space, time and matter. Now the Buddhist statement is better understood:

"Matter derives from mind ... not mind from matter"

And Peter Russell's 'conclusion': "You are consciousness. Period."

Wim Opdam Wrote in : The teaching of K died with him........ post 2:

“ Nothing has changed, insight NOW is changing EVERYTHING forever ”.

Thanks for this information Jean. Now I understand more profoundly the words which appeared on paper in post 2.

I was not happy with this statement because of my feeling it did not completely made "IT" clear.

So now I can redefine it to:

NO THINGs are changing, Insight NOW is changing EVERYTHING forever.**

Forum: General Discussion Sat, 04 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

Hello fellow human beings Let's try to go back or rather further with the serious question Patricia posted.

It took me a while to work me trough all the posts. Then I took up some work in my library and found quotes which did not appear in the thread.

" So the negative way of thinking is the maintenance, the sustenance of the quality that is discontent - discontent in itself, not with something. " Talks by Krishnamurti in India 1958, Poona, Madras, Bombay

" Now, can the mind be aware of itself in action, in movement, without a centre? I think it can. It is possible when there is only an awareness of thinking, and not the thinker who is thinking. You know, it is quite an experience to realize that there is only thinking. And it is very difficult to experience that because the thinker is habitually there, evaluating, judging, condemning, comparing, identifying. If the thinker ceases to identify, evaluate, judge, then there is only thinking, without the centre." –J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. X, p. 15, Choiceless Awareness

Will this help us somewhat to pick up the inquiry?? ;)

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 05 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

Pavil Davidov wrote: . . . but I don't know. Maybe we should look a little further before concluding.

But why make a conclusion at all ?? This should make thought out of it. Is it not clear that this has more to do with the attitude ??

"When there is inward awareness of every activity of your mind and your body, when you are aware of your thoughts, of your feelings, both secret and open, conscious and unconscious, then out of this awareness there comes a clarity that is not induced, not put together by the mind. And without that clarity you may do what you will, you may search the heavens and the earth and the deeps, but you will never find out what is true." –J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. XV, p. 243, Choiceless Awareness

an also again:

" So the negative way of thinking is the maintenance, the sustenance of the quality that is discontent - discontent in itself, not with something." Talks by Krishnamurti in India 1958, Poona, Madras, Bombay

Forum: General Discussion Sun, 05 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

max greene wrote: "Negative thinking" is better put aside, along with "negation." There is the brain activity of thinking, and there is awareness. I can't see much else. Do you?

So there can't be an awareness of the brain thinking, so you/we can ignore this?? That's another word for negate, which id in my view the real meaning of this word in this context.

it's not the word that is important but what's it's pointing to. Another quote which say something about listening/inquiring:

Brockwood Park 7 October 1972 Bohm: To reach the unconscious you have to have an action which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious. Krishnamurti: Yes. That is affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it is hard, clever, subtle, brittle. And you penetrate that, penetrate it with your look, with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates, not anything else.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

max greene wrote: I wonder whether discontent is the right way to go, or whether it is simply that we are not content. Seems to me that there is a difference, the difference being that discontent is a position, a stance, whereas not content is neutral.

For me, the pointing to is important and I sense we meant the same.

J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. X, p. 15, Choiceless Awareness"If the thinker ceases to identify, evaluate, judge, then there is only thinking, without the centre."

Here I sense A difference with the common use on this forum of thought, thinker and awareness.

I sense differences between awareness on its own, awareness while thinking and thinking driven by thought/thinkers.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 06 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

max greene wrote: If thinking is not evaluating, judging, identifying, what else is it?

J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. X, p. 15, Choiceless Awareness "If the thinker ceases to identify, evaluate, judge, then there is only thinking, without the centre."

IF Thinking, there is the difference between your words and those of K. So if the "I" is absence in the process of thinking something else take place.

For example, if K. make notes about his awareness, as he does in his 'Notebook' or when he's giving a talk, I sense a different energy than when he is in dialogue with someone else.

In conversation, there is thinking going on between two "I" 's but without the "I" interfering.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 07 Apr 2015
Topic: Discussion anyone?

max greene wrote: But what is thinking, other than comparing, evaluating, judging, identifying, choosing? All of these activities require that there be a thinker who stands to gain from the activities, otherwise, what reason would there be for thinking at all?

Max, Although your approximation is very attractive, it doesn’t hold for me.

J. Krishnamurti, The Collected Works, Vol. X, p. 15, Choiceless Awareness "If the thinker ceases to identify, evaluate, judge, then there is only thinking, without the centre."

In this quote from Krishnamurti the word thinking for me is a pointer to something from a different order. By accepting your statement/formulation it seems to me I have to make a choice, which is not so in the context from the quote. There it stays open and if you find it easier to call that something else, so what !! Truth will not touched by what we call it.

All “ What IS ” is movement of energy in different levels, scales and densities. Accepting your conclusion would stop that movement and make it ‘thought/knowledge’.

Truth as a pathless land has no borders and the quote seems to have no border but a gliding scale from one order into the other, which is unknown.

Forum: General Discussion Mon, 13 Apr 2015
Topic: The wrong turn

Natarajan S wrote: Choiceless awareness is not something natural to happen, but it occurs with the understanding of the limits of thought which effortlessly ends the perpetuation of it. Hence, choice as a balance to thought, is not the choice for 'choiceless awareness' but the freedom to effortlessly end the operation of thought.

So, why can't " Choiceless Awareness " have its natural way by understanding the limits of Thought. Isn't the seeing at the end a natural state ?

Hence, it was not a choice but a slipping in by the habit of what's good working outside also was good working insite. According to the same chapter in " The Ending of Time ".

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Apr 2015
Topic: Was K fallible or infallible?

And so we come back to the question: Was K fallible or infallible?

Do we question the question at all? It is irrelevant whether or not K. was fallible. Are we to interpret his or any other texts fallible or not?

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 14 Apr 2015
Topic: Was K fallible or infallible?

Jean Gatti wrote: Yes totally irrelevant ... either we SEE what K pointed to or we don't ... nothing to be 'believed' ... no 'authority' to be 'trusted' ...

My Dear Jean, It’s almost painful to SEE how you still reply with almost Mantra-like Quotes from K.

Walk your talk I suggest. It seems you take his words more serious than mine. We are HUMANITY so is there somewhere authority going on by reacting with words from a man long dead ( thought by the way ) instead of taking the words of a man still living seriously?

Wim Opdam wrote: Do we question the question at all? It is irrelevant whether or not K. was fallible. Are we to interpret his or any other texts fallible or not?

My words were pointing to the question in how far WE, you and me and the members on this forum, Questioning or NOW SEE our own looking, interpretations, knowledge or whatever, as infallible or not ?

The recognition of the fact that we all are fallible, would show a completely different approach to each other, as we can observe NOW.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Topic: Do We Walk our Talk ?

Do we Walk our talk ?

><CITE>IN THE THREAD Was K fallible or infallible? :</CITE> > I came upon this question: >It seems we take his words more serious than ours. >We are HUMANITY so is there somewhere authority going on by reacting with words from a man long dead ( thought by the way ) instead of taking the words of those still living seriously?

>Wim Opdam wrote: >Do we question the question at all? >It is irrelevant whether or not K. was fallible. >Are we to interpret his or any other texts fallible or not?

My words were pointing to the question in how far WE, you and me and the members on this forum, Questioning or NOW SEE our own looking, interpretations, knowledge or whatever, as infallible or not ?

The recognition of the fact that we all are fallible, would show a completely different approach to each other, as we can observe NOW.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Topic: Do We Walk our Talk ?

Natarajan S wrote: We don't do what we say and we don't say what we mean;

Unless what we 'mean' is the understanding of our wholeness (which is self knowledge), i.e.understanding of our fallibility as opposed to perfection; we will never bridge the gap between understanding and action.

Best Narayan, Is it my bad wording or your misinterpretation of my question? MY QUESTION REMAINS AS TO JEAN IN # 317 OF “Was K fallible or infallible? “

I have no need of a more or less mantra-like repetition of words of K. That knowledge I have already and I try to use it intelligently by what I see on this Forum. No dialogues but discussions, with an attitude of I am right and you are wrong, rather than 'what do you think what I asked, or what did you see ?

That seeing caused the question: “ To what extent are we questioning our own interpretation of the words of anyone, even those of K., as fallible or not?

By what I see 99,99 % not. Please show me I’m wrong.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Topic: Do We Walk our Talk ?

Jean Gatti wrote: Of course this is ego's preferred game ... looking for self inflation at the expense of others ... am I wrong ?

Wil An answer give you energy to play your game ?

Still afraid to give a straight answer ?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 15 Apr 2015
Topic: Do We Walk our Talk ?

Wim Opdam redefined the question: I have no need of a more or less mantra-like repetition of words of K. That knowledge I have already and I try to use it intelligently by what I see on this Forum.

That seeing caused the question: “ To what extent are we questioning our own interpretation of the words of anyone, even those of K., as fallible or not? "

By what I see 99,99 % not. Please show me I’m wrong.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

steve sds wrote: I was wondering if anyone else sees this similarly or if I am just missing the essential Krishnamurti in here? Did his language change over the years and become more polished and precise?

Hi Steve, In the years that I was actively engaged with other people with Krishnamurti "Association learning project, Holland" I could distinguish two groups. People who liked the previous work better and who found later work better. The line was around the seventies. In my humble opinion, I think through his contact with David Bohm, he has learned to better formulate what was going on inside him.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

steve sds wrote: I am thinking one might have to work a little harder reading and understanding Krishnamurti in this early classic of his, Commentaries on Living volume one.

At first I preferred his more scientific approach but lately it became clear to me that by being not that precise in formulating has also it advances. It leaves a bit of the idea that it is something you can work towards, but at the same time you should keep alert it should not become a future dream. It is neither the one nor the other.

Bohm's major contribution has been in my opinion that he Krishnamurti pointed to sometimes not logically to follow steps, the drawback has been that thereby he was embraced by the scientific community and lost the direct contact with the man from the street.

Forum: General Discussion Tue, 21 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Natarajan S wrote: As I see, we should never forsake the rule of logic in dialogue, as Buber says, it is the 'true regard for the depth of life'.

Natarajan As I see it K. never forsake the rule of logic but sometimes made to large steps through it and there Bohm called him back and inquired him to discover together the steps between.

I don't know Buber, but as I read the quote it seems that he sees logic as greater treasure than TRUTH and logic to me is a method and not equal to the TRUTH.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 22 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Natarajan S wrote: Logic is what sustains a dialogue in the human realm so that it can flower to its potential.

Thanks for the information on Buber. But is Love Logical? So not all what's going around is based on logic. I'm always more interested in the artefacts than in those who made it, that's why I Love those words: " K. is not important, but what he said is."

I've a friend, who is a piano teacher, from him I learned to apricate K's earlier work and he by me K's later work.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 22 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Natarajan S wrote: my interest is in the action of making it.

Is there in this case something to make or something to make possible?

Natarajan S wrote: Again, can't separate the two, what is important is the kind of life he led which encompasses the two factors you mention.

I don't separate them either, my focus is more on ending.

Natarajan S wrote: Dialogue holding steadfast to logic can happen only in love

I had a lot of dialogues who seemed to have nothing of logic in it and in the end it all came together, so steadfast is not a necessity but Love and perseverance.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 22 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Natarajan S wrote: another question in this regard is whether the physical continuity is binding or not, what would you say?

I do not know what you mean by physical continuity. There is a sense of wholeness At That specific moment but in the conversations afterwards,I noticed that everyone had other issues picked out. So very strangely you could say that healing wholeness takes place for everyone on the same moment in their specific situation.

I only remember them as very special moments without any specific memory.

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 22 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Natarajan S wrote: in the end it all became logical and you both have a sense of being understood by each other while using words. is that not the case?

That's my wondering still, we interpreted as if we understood each other, but is that the case? We have understood something but each other?

Forum: General Discussion Wed, 22 Apr 2015
Topic: Commentaries on Living volume one

Ken B wrote: It seems to me that we should rely on audio and video tapes to get the actual words of Krishnamurti correct.

thank you Ken In 1981 I visited the Krishnamurti talks at Amsterdam and when I got the translation in Dutch I thought I couldn't understand English enough, until I saw the video and realised the difference in transcript/translation and the spoken word since then I prefer the English version and now I see that even there is interpretation going on.

That makes my question in the topic: " Do We Walk our Talk? " even more actual than I thought.

The question was: “ To what extent are we questioning our own interpretation of the words of anyone, even those of K., as fallible or not? "