Anyone who cares to listen to another does this, and not only with the spoken thoughts of others, but with one’s own thoughts as well, because it’s all just rhetoric. The only difference between listening to someone else and listening to oneself is that when another speaks, the stream of thought that I am defers to the other’s. It’s how one gives a fair hearing to another.
it is part of the wrong turn to listen to one’s own thoughts. It may indeed seem to diminish some of the intensity of thoughts, but it does in no way lead to freedom.
Anyone who listens to one’s own thoughts to find the way to freedom will find a new way to carry on the old way.
One listens to one’s own thoughts because they are conveying a continuous stream of rhetoric that, if ignored or inadequately listened to, can only persist because the beliefs and values that perpetuate it are never seen for what they are for lack of listening.
One listens to oneself, not to get what it believes it must have (freedom), but to understand and fathom the power of belief.
But, how to put those ‘aside’? What are ‘those’? Can I put something aside, without seeing those?
Yes, thoughts/reactions disrupts communication and misunderstanding happens. Let misunderstanding happen. If one is serious to have relationship, let him/her come forward and look at the misunderstanding and both understand what they misunderstood, without accepting or denying, and be aware of it. What’s wrong in misunderstanding things? Am I not ready to face the effects of misunderstanding? Fear of Misunderstanding?
Created myself an ideal to “Not Misunderstand things ever”?
Can I listen to one, who points out me that, “You misunderstand this”, and ask them “show me what I misunderstood, I am very much serious to look at it”, and both look at it, be aware of it (If speaker misunderstood - speaker shall also be aware of look at that misunderstanding), and again continue the way/inquiry speaker was upto?
Say, Charley/someone is Alone, and arises many psychological desires, as one is being lonely and suffer of ‘past pleasure thoughts of it’s absence now’, or even bored of being alone. Now, there is no speaker. What to listen then? Not listen to thoughts what it is all about and come out of loneliness to some speaker like K and try to grasp what they say but not look/listen to ‘my thoughts and sufferings and desires’ and be aware of it? To escape from one’s own ‘thoughts/desires’ by listening to some other, and not ever look at thoughts and again seek out someone to listen to them, and seek security from one’s own ‘thoughts/desires’ by way of listening to speakers/knowledge?. Say, If one understood one day what speaker says, but psychological desires/sufferings of one’s own is still there. What’s then?. Even K, speaks again and again, to look/listen/observe the ‘sufferings/etc.’ Do I need an assistance from someone to how to look and listen to their assistance, more than their pointing of “look at it”?
Is listening to ‘my thoughts’ mean ‘abiding’ to it? I don’t think so. Listening to thoughts means, to not let the body become a slave to thoughts, and sit and spend time to look at it without unconsciously dragged by it. If one don’t listen to ‘what thought is and all the things in oneself’, one cannot throw it away. It’s not a one time throw. Desires arise and thoughts arise, when listening to speaker too. If the listener is very much serious, will surely seek the speaker to clarify what he/she listened “whether misunderstood or not”, and look at it again to grasp what speaker said clearly.
Seriousness to understanding matters, but not to grasp things instantly what speaker says, whatever time it may consume to understand, and in that ‘thoughts’ happen and misunderstanding happens. Look at both, what speaker says and what one ‘thought’, listen to both, again and again. Seek out to the speaker with both. Express what one ‘thinks’ - even if it is a misunderstanding - to the speaker, as one is keen to understand. Clear perception will come for sure in that seriousness.
No one can see thoughts. One only hears thoughts. The only thing that one can see within is the conditioning, which is the event which occurred in the past that has done the conditioning, and that has caused the thoughts. The rest of your post is incomprehensible.
The “event”? Were you conditioned by one event or a series of events? Doesn’t conditioning take time? Aren’t you the product of a lifetime of conditioning, irrespective of your belief that you are beyond all that?
You are taking my post to always_free_i_am_gma out of context. As C has posted elsewhere, the answer to the above is obviously a series of events throughout a lifetime.
Please see: Honesty and Freedom
Do Charley see “all” the events happen in past as “Conditioning”? Let it be Pleasure, Let it be Scriptures, let it be K’s Dialogues, Let it be “The process”. Do Charley see all the ‘past’ events as “Conditioning” or only some ‘particular’ events (like Fear,sufferings,etc., but not pleasure/the process/K) as “Conditioning”?
Do Charley see Conditioning (maybe not thoughts - it’s fine) as “Cause”, whatever the past event it shall be? Or “Conditioned” to see ONLY some/few past events (out of all events which were experienced in all her life/past, including “the process” or “K”) as “Conditioning”?
Experience is conditioning - Thus the importance of being aware of your experience - Awareness conditions experience.
Am I being conditioned unconsciously, habitually? Or am I aware that I am deluded? Unconsciously reinforcing the past - or being free of the past, moment by moment?
Honestly, these kinds of questions create an image in my mind of a person wandering through a mine field looking for happiness in mental self sacrifice playing with dead end concepts …
Where do you see the actual purpose in this, my friend?
Images like these arise unbidden in our mind. The relationship to the images in our mind is such that we react strongly to them, we might feel that they have some reality apart from our beliefs and conditioning.
Which allows us to demand that these images take responsibility for their existence, that they explain themselves.
I like to think that dialogue is contextual, the people, their thoughts and emotions in that moment may be key to really grokking what is taking place.
“What is dialogue” is a question that I find interesting and explore regularly here. Namely with regards to : what are we in relation with?
The purpose? curiosity about experience. With the understanding that what I believe and project creates/affects the inner and outer world we all have to live in.
Why look for truth as the only limiting criteria when developing your creative imaginary capacity can transform the static view of your subjective reality into a much more evolved understanding of the multidimensional, objective reality we live in?
You would have not say that if you were a little bit familiar with the teachings. Truth to you is limiting and false is unlimited !
Truth communicates but imagination or falsehood doesn’t…
Stop the constant use of slogans and show your ability to think on your own, independently
and not like a cult follower … as I understand it, K didn’t want to raise a bunch of mindless puppies … ahahahaha
