Yes: where we can go beyond opinions and share a common perception of the same fact?
Yes. The overlap could be that we both speak the same language, we both come from the same country, we both vote Democrat, we both like the same kind of music, or we are both a bit intellectual, we both believe we are semi-enlightened, etc. In essence, our opinions or circumstances overlap. This can give us a false sense of togetherness.
Birds of a feather flock together, creating groups. And groups are then in conflict with each other.
But in a dialogue I feel we can go beyond small areas of convergence, to recognising that we overlap as human beings, in terms of sharing a common world, a common consciousness - even if we like different music, have different temperaments, different opinions, etc. Right?
To be in the common ground of the human consciousness (and not in the limited narrow space of opinions) is to acknowledge that peopleâs minds including mine âdeserveâ equal consideration and attention. When I see this âequalityâ I realize I am sharing the same space with the others.
One paradox appears though, which I donât know how to tackle: authority
What effect has an authoritative mind in a dialogue, when I already see I share the same world with you ? Is there a danger for me to fall into authority? When I see all minds are the same, is authority a danger to my mind ?
Suppose one authoritative mind appears to dominate a dialogue, if I decide to put down that mind (ego), my authority becomes larger than the other one, meaning I donât see our minds are the same.
Not sure how to express this problem of authority in the common ground. I have a sense that authority can no longer affect my mind when I realize that our minds are the same. A mind that is part of the human consciousness sees no reason to dominate nor to feel dominated.
PS: I know that the above description poses the risk to sound like a lack of awareness of what authority is.
Authority in dialogue is very difficult to know how to deal with. The problem is that authority takes many forms, many guises, not all of which are obvious.
If I hold onto a specific idea or belief, I am implicitly giving this idea or belief authority. If I hold onto a certain experience of (partial) insight, I am implicitly giving this experience authority. And when I meet another in a dialogue this authority is active in the background, even if I do not act in an overtly authoritarian way.
There are also people who have made an authority out of an ideology which is supposedly anti-authoritarian. But behind this anti-authoritarianism there is some belief or ideal which is acting as an authority.
So itâs tricky.
This is why I was suggesting to Dev that people ought to be encouraged to be transparent about their beliefs and assumptions about truth. If people are open about what they believe, then there is a possibility of questioning these beliefs, examining them to find out if they are true or false.
Then there is the issue of personality, relationship.
Some people are naturally open, frank, humble (without false modesty), willing to be vulnerable, willing to be wrong, willing to subject themselves to criticism.
But there are people who are more closed off, evasive, not transparent, not open. This may be because they are introverts, or because they have grown up isolated from other people, or because they have been conditioned not to show weakness, vulnerability, etc.
Obviously it is easier to dialogue with the first type of person. They are willing to meet you on the same level as equals. But we must also be able to dialogue with emotionally frozen types, people who are rather formal and impersonal, distant.
These are some of the issues related to authority as I see them.
Yes. One becomes egoistic when trying to suppress another egoist. Ego meets ego, which maintains egoism. Authoritarianism meets authoritarianism, which maintains authoritarianism.
To put authority and ego aside and meet with the same mind, is true dialogue. But can we do this?
If someone is acting with an egoistic or authoritarian attitude, what can one do?
I think one could call them out on it simply and objectively, without becoming egoistic or authoritarian oneself.
One could say: look, I feel you are being authoritarian, egoistic. Are you open to asking yourself whether you are being authoritarian and egoistic? Are you open to finding out whether you are clinging to a belief, an experience, an idea which for you has become an authority? And I will do the same - so we are in the same boat.
If they ignore you, if they close themselves off to your suggestion, then there is no dialogue, thatâs all. One will have to find someone else to dialogue with.
I think youâve hit the nail on the head here Rick. K talked of âcommunionâ, which I understand to be communication with some depth of friendship and affection.
The atmosphere in the forum tends to be dictated, as is logical, by the participants at any given time. This of course varies over the years. I feel we all bring our own energy to this place and we all contribute to the general atmosphere. I suppose itâs up to us all to take responsibility for making this âa safe placeâ. The moderator has a very tough task but Dev seems to do a very good job.
Iâve been there, moderated an active music forum for a while. It was very stressful, I ended up by folding and letting the forum languish. I ghosted my own forum, and it eventually petered out. Itâs hard for me even to imagine what it would be like to moderate a forum for 25 years!
Then there is no listening. So what seems to be missing is the acknowledgment that the listening that is required is not and because it is not one makes images and the division, that cannot be undivided, until one listens, remains. And round and round those who do not listen, go.
This implies a division surely - those that listen and those who do not listen. Arenât we all in the same boat as far as listening and everything else goes?
Listening means paying attention in the present moment without the interference of oneâs prejudices and ego, right?
The problem is that we meet each other fully armed with prejudices and ego! We try to listen, to pay attention, but our listening is limited by our prejudice and ego.
We can listen to each other up to a point, but then our prejudice and ego comes in and prevents listening (which is attention).
Are prejudice and ego seen as false? What does one do with falseness? If one just carries on with the falseness, what can possibly transform? How can there be a meeting of anyone if prejudice and ego are maintained by each one?
If we have resolved the problems of prejudice and ego, then we have resolved the whole problem of human relationship
Has any one of us actually done this? If we have done it, then of course we will be capable of complete listening (which is attention).
If we havenât done it, then we can pretend to listen, or try to listen, or listen partially, but we will not be able to pay complete attention. Hence the difficulty.
âKnowledge accumulating listeningâ is what we have been taught to do. Hear something remember it. We have not been taught this way of listening directly, not formally. This way of listening is essential for functioning in our day to day living with practical issues. However, no other way of listening is taught. It doesnât even occur to almost everyone (which include our parents, teachers and you) that there is any other way to listen. As a result an ego is formed composed of prejudices, beliefs, philosophies, and so on because we have used âknowledge accumulating listeningâ. When you listen that way here, that is what is referred to by me and by K in his talks as ânot listeningâ. As long as you use âknowledge accumulating listeningâ you cannot resolve any ego created issues. Step one is learning how to listen differently. Call it âegoless listeningâ or âquiet mind listeningâ or use Kâs words âlistening with a quiet mindâ. Because you do not know how to âlisten with a quiet mindâ you can not resolve ego created issues.
Youâre playing the role of teacher, Bob, as one who has learned âegoless listening or quiet mind listeningâ, and that means the reader must either take you at your word or suspect that youâre deceiving yourself.
I think itâs fair to say that few, if any, listen or look with a quiet mind because we are conditioned to react to what we listen to and look at, so my feeling about anyone who comes here to teach is that they must be skillful enough to do it quietly and invisibly.
I feel the two things go together donât they Bob?
One cannot listen or be aware, attentive, if oneâs mind is dominated by prejudice and ego.
And one cannot understand or see the whole mechanism of prejudice and ego unless the mind is somewhat quiet and free from prejudice and ego.
Prejudice and ego are there to be seen, to be comprehended. We cannot pretend to be free from prejudice and ego if they are still present. (or we can, but such pretence has little meaning)
Similarly, we cannot pretend to be serious about learning about prejudice and ego if we do not take time to listen, be aware, pay attention to prejudice and ego as they occur in our minds.
It all goes together. We are both the student and the teacher.
Inquiry, do you see that you used âknowledge accumulating listeningâ to respond? Iâm not anyoneâs teacher, just as K was not anyoneâs teacher, though I can not prevent anyone from seeing me that way.
If you take me at my word that is the same trap that taking K at his word is. Where did that get you or anyone else? If you suspect that I am deceiving myself, that is my issue not anyone elseâs. However, if you use that thought to stop you from exploring what I pointed to, well?
What is that saying attributed to Jesus? ⌠First take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck of dust out of your brotherâs eye.
Itâs a rather good saying - though we donât generally follow it!
Yes, that is right !!! But here is an Ego trap: noticing the conditioning or the ego in another, what is going to do to my own ego ? Activate it ? Ego recognizes another ego leads to a competition between Egos.
Can I see your ego without my ego ? What happens in that moment ?
there is this saying
When the Buddha woke up, the whole world woke up with him
which is of course a different kind of recognition in one self and in another at the same time