Firstly - I’d like to apologise : sometimes I think that some of the stuff on Kinfonet is so crazy that I react by making a joke - usually in the form of trying to show how absurd we are being.
Secondly, this need to win, obviously a part of our inherited psyche, just shows how difficult it is to see past ourselves, even when involved in the basest, most selfish action.
Our neuro-psychological imperitives aside. I have questions : Is Kinfonet a platform for debate? Is that what we want? Is debate the best way to inquire into an idea? (By debate I mean confronting competiing opinions)
Or might it be a good idea for regular participants to practise the idea of “open dialogue” or “attentive dialogue”?
I’ve started a thread on the topic of “open dialogue” here
I know this comment wasn’t addressed to me so please excuse me for butting in, but I think there’s an interesting point here.
Personally, sometimes after reading or listening to K or discussing the teachings here, I feel a heightened clarity for a short period of time. For example, if I watch a video of K talking about the art of listening I sometimes find that I listen more attentively afterwards or have a heightened awareness of the fact that I’m not really listening. I wonder if others can relate to this.
Regarding your comment above - some people on Kinfonet have mentioned something similar. Also it reminds me of our Kinfonet discussion facilitator (lovely fellow) who gets feelings that indicate to him that the Zoom dialogue is going well (I think it indicates that the group is giving off some proper meditative vibe)
Seeing that - do you stay with it? Or do you just have another thought which dissipates focus and moves one further from the seeing as one safely escapes from the seeing? And then wonders why nothing is happening from hearing/reading K’s words? Do you see that nothing can happen from thinking? This is not a putdown or a gotcha comment - you don’t know how to listen. You listen for practical things and listening works. But for psychological issues you use the same way of listening which doesn’t work and, so, nothing can happen. You don’t psychologically listen.
Hi Bob. I was saying the opposite - something is actually happening from hearing/reading K’s words (in my case). If I’ve just heard/read K talking about, for example, the art of listening, I often feel my mind sharper, more attentive for a period after having read/listened.
Isn’t listening to K or anyone else a case of attention? An awareness of inattention? Becoming aware of the movement of thought, and how it distorts our perception of what is going on around us?
I may be totally off base but your response reads like something you remember you should do and therefore you should get the result K said you would get. But you don’t get the result. If one is doing it as a remembered thing, which then is a method, then thought doesn’t stop. This may not be what you are doing, in which case, ignore my comment. If it is what you are doing, let’s explore. Step by step,
I think observing attention and inattention is something we can all do at any time. If you’re friend is talking to you and you become aware that you’re not listening, what happens? There is immediate attention and you begin to listen. Is this not so?
I don’t know Bob. My statement seemed pretty straightforward. Self-observation is surely at the very heart of what K spoke about for so many years. But I’m listening.
Someone should have asked K why he called listening an art and not observation and seeing, because, unless K had redefined “art” to mean something that comes into existence without an artist, we’ll never know.
So you were listening then something occurred and you weren’t listening and then something else occurred and so on. That doesn’t seem so straightforward.
Hi again Bob. The statement of mine to which you originally referred (which I said was fairly straightforward) was the following:
“I think observing attention and inattention is something that we can all do at any time.”
To begin with, I am making a connection between attention and listening. I am suggesting that the more attentive we are, the better we listen. I would suggest that attention is usually present when there is interest and motivation. For example, all of us on this forum probably find what K has to say very interesting, so when we are listening to him speak we are probably paying, at least to some degree, attention. However, our attention may drift off and we may start thinking about what we are going to have for dinner. When this happens, our intensity of listening falls away. So we have the detrimental effect which the intervention of thought has on listening.
I am saying that observing such attention and inattention is something we can do every day if we have sufficient interest in doing so. How do you see this?
Is there a difference in the listening when there is motivation and when motivation is not? The first is listening with a motivation that comes from the self and the other is just listening.
Well, I don’t think it’s a good idea to say, “Right, I’m going out to listen to a river today to see where that gets me.” However, you may be out for a hike, as I was yesterday on a beautiful winter’s morning, and stop at the river bank and just listen to the sound of the river in silence for a short while. I would say that was “just listening”. So yes, I would say there is a difference in the two scenarios you outlined.