This may be a description of most of us.
One has to be tough to survive the process of identifying oneself. If you have no faith in the game because it works only for those who would rather fight for what they believe in than live without belief.
Your summary is accurate. Listening ends when thought begins. So sometimes listening never even begins. For example, before the other even speaks, I start thinking 'here comes so-and-so, heās always ā¦(whatever, the words donāt matter). Until thought kicks in, listening is. Conditioned knowledge is not a barrier to listening. Now if I am unable to make sense of what I hear (what the words mean) and part of my conditioning is that I must make sense of all I hear then thought begins. Or I have made sense of it but agree/disagree (or any dichotomy) thinking begins. In any case, when thought begins, listening to the other ends and listening to self begins.
Sounds good, but itās too pat. As I said, if I canāt listen to my thoughts, I canāt listen to anyone else.
I wouldnāt say that thought and listening are mutually exclusive. I would say that learning to listen is its own discipline.
Just exploring here. Is what youāve replied an accurate example of reacting? Have you disagreed? And have you, also, expressed a conclusion? If so, has the exploration, the enquiry ended?
I donāt disagree with you and Iāve drawn no conclusion. Iāve elaborated on what you said because thinking and listening are not always or necessarily mutually exclusive, though sometimes thinking and listening are at cross purposes.
When I am listening, what we call listening, consuming the words and ideas, am I out of control, and there is an effort to be in control?
i am not sure that this is in line with what we have said so far. Is it all thought that prevents listening? We have said that knowledge of what words mean, does not impair listening. When you say āchairā and I think I know what you mean, is this not thought? When you say chair, and my image of a chair is conjured up in my mind - surely this is mentation/thought?
What we arrived at so far was that thought based on good and bad, dependant on what I want, thought arising from what I think should and shouldnāt be, was the impediment to listening, the veil of subjectivity.
I want to react, give my point of view.
If you are saying, Peter, that the ears will hear, the eyes will see, the nose will smell and so on with all the senses and the brain will process the input from the senses and mind is not necessary except to access memory to function practically (ie, make a sandwich). Thatās effortless, choiceless listening. There is no control. That will effortlessly, choicelessly continue until the mind, the self, starts up wanting to be in control and thatās when the effortless, choiceless listening ends. Now the mind, in effect, is saying āall the inputs will pass through me, the self, to be evaluated, sorted, measured, judged and so onā. Now the common understanding of what listening is includes all this. K does not; as soon as the mind reacts, listening ends. (I can give a reference) Because K is the common factor for us being here, that is the meaning/definition I am using.
Hence, this action fragments the self, divides one from another. The inevitable outcome is conflict.
1 Like
Accurate summary. I elaborated on listening in my reply to Peter.
1 Like
Can we listen means : can we be free from the knowledge of good and evil?
Is the apple un-eaten when listening is?
1 Like
Listening ends when the mind reacts because the conditioned mind is resisting what it hears. But the conditioned mind that is no less interested in self-knowledge than in defending and preserving the status quo, may be more interested in finding out what it can about its conditioning than in maintaining it.
In other words, the structural limitations of thought are not in dispute, but the limits the conditioned mind establishes and enforces for the sake of its beliefs, values, intentions, biases, fears, etc, are arbitrary, and serve only to compound the confusion and conflict that characterizes our species.
Everything after the ābutā is a sleight of hand, a con, the oldest trick in the book. Everything before the ābutā is ignored, not heard, not acted upon when the mind is in control. It does not matter whether your first statement is true or not.
No, I am responding to the opening post and my response is asking about control, looking at the basic psychological condition we have and where control comes in. It is not so much a mind in control, as it is the mind acting to be in control. That is why the form of listening we have is not actually listening.
1 Like
Iām lost. What is this a reply to?
Listening ends when the mind reacts because the conditioned mind is resisting what it hears. But the conditioned mind that is no less interested in self-knowledge than in defending and preserving the status quo, may be more interested in finding out what it can about its conditioning than in maintaining it.
Thatās your last reply.
The words are slightly different. Where do you see a difference in meaning?
What am I doing? Am I in control, for better or worse, and it can be changed, or is there something I can discover about myself, my way of thinking, that will negate all this nonsense?
This reaction of absolute certainty that the above is not something to listen to - but something to denounce - is a big conclusion to jump toā¦and impossible to defend without a reasonable argument All and all, a huge expenditure of energy that only serves to confirm the beliefs and values one cannot question or examine.