Do you know what negative thinking is?

[charleycannuck]

The art of listening

@charleycannuck

Years ago, Charley’s “I” tried to access a rather difficult and important conditioning (for months !!) - a conditioning which one knew about superficially. Charley just wasn’t ready then, it eventually arose all by it’s self… naturally. Intelligence must be fully awakened because it is intelligence which is the intermediary between reality and truth. When a right foundation has been laid, the unconscious will naturally and unconsciously yield up all its secrets, all orchestrated by intelligence. It is then that the mind is ready to see itself, to confront itself. Until then the brain which demands security will oppose/obstruct such seeing.

So, again, to summarize the listening to thought remains a static kind of thing…

So, prior to the conditioning itself arising - naturally, Charley was only listening to thoughts - a complete waste of time and energy…

• “The art of listening implies, to listen not to your own thoughts, not to your own reactions to what is being said, not to conform to a conclusion, but rather knowing what you think, what you feel, what your ideals are, putting those aside, listen to the speaker, if you can do that, then we are in communication. But, if you go on with your thoughts, with your reactions, with your memories, then there is no communication, then there is misunderstanding, then there is mere repetition of what the speaker said, either accepting or denying, agreeing or not-agreeing. So, there is the art of listening.”
  J. Krishnamurti, Ojai, 3rd Public Talk, 8th April 1978

So, got tired of reading what intellectuals think of discussing their thoughts on “the art of listening”, so decided to read K instead in my excerpt files - and wouldn’t you know, found this wonderful quote where K’s view correlates perfectly to what Charley had discovered a long time ago - that it confirms to Charley that 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. One understands that it does exactly the opposite over time, that it consolidates the strength of the “I”, the “me”, the “my”, as well as the separation between the observer and the observed. All it does lead to is an intellectual understanding of life, of everything, and will be meaningless in the end. As a matter of fact, it completely contradicts what K is all about. Charley realizes that few are really interested in what Charley has discovered and posts; one just can’t compete with the many voices of the intellectual approach of the group, the gut brains of the herd, since one is alone. Oh well, their loss

[macdougdoug]

Good quote - I add another to your collection - you may beat those darned intellectuals yet!

I may be one of them - but have always argued against the idea of “listening/observing our thoughts”.

[charleycannuck]

mac,

@macdougdoug

I may be one of them

“may” HA lol

mac, people are not, like … 100% intello, 100% materialistic, or 100% idealist…

Years ago, one knew (casually) someone who had just a little bit of intello in her. She had been a gardener, but accepted a job to work with people (more money/security). Over time, years - that little part/fragment of her that thought its way through life (and because of her work, which required that she use that intello part to work with people), grew and grew, and by the time she retired, it occupied all the space… She conformed, sold out, and in so doing, destroyed herself.

[Inquiry]

@charleycannuck

“The art of listening implies, to listen not to your own thoughts, not to your own reactions to what is being said, not to conform to a conclusion, but rather knowing what you think, what you feel, what your ideals are, putting those aside, listen to the speaker, if you can do that,

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.

[charleycannuck]

Inquiry,

@Inquiry

One listens to oneself, not to get what it believes it must have (freedom), but to understand and fathom the power of belief.

So, how is that working for you?? lol Having fun yet??? Charley has fun posting… tremendous fun…

@Inquiry

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.

Ah, Charley understands, you are afraid of missing out, eh? FOMO?? [teasing!]

[always_free_viswas]

@charleycannuck

The art of listening implies, to listen not to your own thoughts, not to your own reactions to what is being said, not to conform to a conclusion, but rather knowing what you think, what you feel, what your ideals are, putting those aside, listen to the speaker, if you can do that, then we are in communication. But, if you go on with your thoughts, with your reactions, with your memories, then there is no communication, then there is misunderstanding, then there is mere repetition of what the speaker said, either accepting or denying, agreeing or not-agreeing. So, there is the art of listening.
J. Krishnamurti, Ojai, 3rd Public Talk, 8th April 1978

Hey Charley.

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.

[charleycannuck]

gma,

@always_free_i_am_gma

But, how to put those ‘aside’? What are ‘those’? Can I put something aside, without seeing those?

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.

[Inquiry]

@charleycannuck

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 “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?

[charleycannuck]

@Inquiry

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

[always_free_viswas]

@charleycannuck

which is the event which occurred in the past that has done the conditioning

Good.

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”?

[charleycannuck]

gma,

@always_free_i_am_gma

Do Charley see “all” the events happen in past as “Conditioning”?

Yes. All of 'em… …

[macdougdoug]

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?

[Art]

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?

[macdougdoug]

@Art

a person wandering through a mine field looking for happiness in mental self sacrifice playing with dead end concepts …

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.

[Art]

Thanks for your interesting reflections … isn’t the mind an amazing thing?

[O7007]

@Art

Where do you see the actual purpose in this, my friend?

Who are you asking ? Do you categorically negate good and bad together ! Maybe English…
How familiar are you with Krishnamurti? I think not much…

[O7007]

​​
​​​​​​​​
“Do you know what negative thinking is according to Krishnamurti?”
Examiner
K said negative thinking is the highest form of thinking …

[Art]

Critical Self Reflection

Question your believe system ever more intelligently. Try to understand your mental pitfalls of applying critical self reflection on a more effective basis and adjust your learning capacity accordingly … Never stop to refine your inner dialog with your various forms and levels of being … try to overcome your hurdles over time! You can learn to apply your psycho-dynamic energy to open your inner vision to a greater understanding and a better grasp of a more complex reality than the some what st…

[O7007]

There is no truth in imaginary self.

[Art]

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?