Iām lost. What does the face with a monocle represent? Mr. Peanut, a cultured snob?
Does the āflushedā one represent shocked embarrassment?
Why does the sobbing face look like a house with a floating fire inside?
Why be cryptic? Say what needs to be said.
Our emotional reactions feel so overridingly important, more important than any enquiry or dialogue.
The fact that our selfish needs are so overriding is why forums like these have to enforce rules of engagement to curtail the worst of our petty, conflictual behaviour.
The ability to listen is a rare and precious thing indeed. In its absence, one might keep in mind the following :
We are generally uncomfortable faced with our inability to respond to a claim. It becomes a personal/emotional affair - someone is to blame (preferably our interlocutor) Here on Kinfonet, especially on a thread about ālisteningā, rather than give in to our petty reactions, we might stay with the fact.
āI feel that what you say is not interesting - its not what I want to hearā. āI find you irritatingā āI think you might be crazyā - sometimes these kind of statements may be beneficial to the enquiry at hand - but usually they are a symptom of me versus you. (or me reacting to the discomfort of being my self)
Is there a difference between listening with discernment and listening with judgment?
I feel that we are reacting to our own conditioned responses rather than from an interest in what is being said.
If it is my discernement or judgement that is the basis for my response, it is different from listening.
One is a relationship with the known - we are listening to ourself; the other is a fearless embrace of whatever is.
Whatever our reaction, can we be sensitive to it? If we cannot hear what is being said, if there is instead a movement of self (of judgement, comparison) can we at least be aware of that movement?
In response to your question : judgement would be about disagreeing or agreeing, and discernment would be about recognising the situation. One usually leads to the other. (discernement => judgement)
Discernment of the situation is followed by a judgment and not the other way. If one starts with a judgment it does not follow to discernment, right?
In discerning the situation, which may require a judgment to respond, the judgment may be of the situation or of the other. If the response is of the situation it is impersonal and if of the other, it is personal, a clear judgment of what one thinks of the other. It may be positive or negative which are the same, just opposite sides of the coin.
The danger, in either case, is that in listening to the other, something that was not said is added to it or something that was said is ignored which is the faulty functioning of the intellect. If the intellect is not faulty, then the message sent is the message received. Right?
However, as we know about the effects of conditioning, we know that the intellect may be faulty, adding or subtracting from what is heard before being sent to the brain. So, as you said, can we, ( altering what you said slightly, can one)be sensitive to that? Does the reaction, which includes a feeling (pos or neg), and is different from a response which does not include a feeling, indicate that miscommunication has very likely occurred? Can one be sensitive to that and observe, without the intellect which would likely just keep the chain of reactions moving away from the initial reaction? Out of that observation, the false may be seen and action that ends the reaction is immediate.
I have an image of myself : the Judge. I compare images of my own projection, and pass judgement upon them.
Can an Image be sensitive of its relationship to other images?
(Sorry, Iām cherry picking here and feel that I have missed the actual question/message you are trying to send)
I agree that the art of communication is full of dangers and pitfalls.
Maybe you are asking whether we can be free from the need to judge? Can we see the movement of self/comparison/knowledge and in that moment be free of it?
The desire to be free to ālistenā in a new way? The desire to āchangeā the way āIā listen? Is the āfreedomā something to be gained (in time)? Who is it that attains this freedom?
(Pardon all this if it misses the point.)
The desire for this or that, is obviously a motive for my benefit - that I will presumably attain when I do it right.
One image aiming for another image over time.
We can suspend judgment for the sake of discernment when our opinions and beliefs are not so firmly established as to trigger knee-jerk reactions of defense and retaliation.
I have beliefs and opinions because, without them, who am I?
Are you sure about this? Can one who is habitually reactive and defensive fearlessly embrace anything that is not aligned with what one is already embracing?
For food for drink for sex, for shelter, it seems natural enough but somewhere along our line the brain picked up the idea that its psychological state could be different than what it isā¦better, happier, more fulfilling etc and along with that ādesire to changeā the door was opened to all the exploiters who would help you realize your desires and more. K stated this as āreal change is the denial of changeā.
So maybe the āart of listeningā is nothing to do with motive?
Yes, Dan, āListening isā can only be when there is no motive. A motive will create measurement, comparison and judgment. With no motive, no desire, no thought, only then is the mind effortlessly quiet and then āListening isā.
The āsituationā is that of two people perceiving something differently, and each one judging the other as wrong. But If one or both discern that neither can see through their own way of seeing, they canāt help but judge themselves blinded by belief.
As long as there is an image, then āListening isā cannot be.
Regarding listening, can there be this one measurement or judgement: āhearing what is, as if for the first timeā?
Yes, and that seeing has to come from outside the self.
Are āweā not getting ahead of ourselves with this question? Can we see anything as it actually is? It may be that our perception is so instantaneously coordinated with our beliefs and opinions that we canāt see until/if we can.
If we can know or guess by what means/magic the mind goes from being its slave, to being a function of intelligence, this is all a game, the winners of which can toy with the losers.
When ālistening isā one is hearing āwhat isā, not as if for the first time. There is no first time because āfirst timeā implies one heard the āwhat isā before the āwhat isā was and one may be hearing it for the second, third, etc. time, which is absurd. Right?
1 Like
Can that happen before the self is ready for it? Will the self not resist what comes from outside when it doesnāt conform to or support the self? Wonāt the self fight to the death for what it believes it is? Does what comes from outside slay the dragon of ecocentricity? Or does the dragon wake up to what itās doing?