“Both”? Are not “they” one and the same?
Dear Paul, the question is there and clear. Is that what you are stating and asking just springing out of your thinking? Or what is your question?
Dear Inquiry,
exactly.
We asked if it is possible for the mind to be free of its patterned behaviour. The pattern is thought craving security in ideas and images; one of these images is the image of the thinker who is separate from his thoughts. The thinker and his thinking brings in time. Any action based on thinking must therefore be limited; and the thinker himself is a limited entity, tied to time.
Now, can all of this limited activity come to a complete stop? This is the central question. We have not posited any answer. Have you as the thinker, as thought, as the representative of all thinking, have you listened to the question? That’s all. The origin of the question is totally irrelevant. It may be a flawed, distorted, fraudulent question. That doesn’t matter. Only our listening will reveal the true nature of the question, not our assumptions before we even approach the question. Those assumptions are still part of our limited activity. So can everything be silent first, not wait until we are satisfied to be silent. Then we are free to observe our reactions to the question.
1 Like
Dear Paul, you are bringing in a lot of assumptions. And it is indeed important where the question comes from. When it springs from thinking, then thinking operates and will try to solve the question it has created itself. That is the pattern you describe. Can there be a listening in it at all, a listening without a pattern? Before we go into that question we have to find out what is the state of our mind out of which a question springs? Writing in this blog and communicating with others is not possible without thinking. But is it only thinking active here or is something else taking place in which we use thinking but really explore what actually is happening in us and between us?
Then break the pattern. That’s all. Don’t allow thinking to operate on the question. Can you do it? Give thought at least a tiny chance to find out.
Breaking the pattern means to see what is, because thinking is not the dominant factor. And “what is” is then that your question comes from thinking so the question is not relevant. Can we see the fact of thinking and do not want to change it or be free of it or do anything about it? Just see what it is. Can you?
Paul
You wrote:
"…Can everything be silent first, not wait until we are satisfied to be silent. Then we are free to observe our reactions to the question."
Is what you have written your own state of Awareness? By your inner inquiry?
Are you already Aware of this Silent Space you speak of?
If you already understand, by your direct experience, what you have just written then you will also have a deep understanding that these reactions/questions/answers must be ultimately dissolved by Self Inquiry: as Silence. Where only observing/openness to seeing remains.
Anchored in deep inner Silence there is surrender and the willingness for ‘not knowing’; an acceptance of what is here - out of time and limitations of thought. Any question arising here leads us further into deeper Inquiry, into deeper Silence: We realise the simplicity of Presence.
***You: " …***free to observe our reactions to the question."
Reactivity to questions, answers, dialogue and so on is present when we feel affected, challenged, bound by the process of our limited menotanous thinking. We can, if we choose, observe our reactions in our life in every moment, not only by questions. However, it is our deepening level of our Awareness and willingness to be the Silence, that brings the sense of Freedom. Utimately, the observing, the questions, the freedom, all of it, are mere stepping stones that dissolve within the Almighty Silence.
you wrote;
So can everything be silent first**,…**
First? Before what?
Can we not be aware of Silence in the midst of ‘everything’ in life, as it is?
There is already ‘Silence’… now, first, last, always, ever… every present moment.
There can be no plan ‘to get there’ first; so to enable us free to observe.
We have to be willing to explore our deepest self, to enter into the Silence, to be still, to be vulnerable, unarmed, to be willing to ‘not know’.
Marie
1 Like
No, no, no. When you break any pattern you have no idea what the meaning will be or what will be revealed. That’s the whole point of breaking the pattern.
Madam, there is no such thing as one’s own state of awareness, with or without its capital letter. I am putting a question, that’s all. Don’t make any more of it than that. Otherwise the question is lost and you are all off in the clouds.
Dear Paul, why do you always move away and contradict yourself? You can only talk about breaking a pattern if you know about it. Can you see that first of all it is just thinking what takes place and can we look at it without wanting to break anything or getting anywhere. Can we be aware that there is only thinking and see its nature? And that any movement away from it is still thinking?
@ErikProchnow what do you mean by ‘see’ thinking?
Isn’t it that when thinking is active the seeing is not?
Are you saying that breaking the pattern is not a matter of perception? Maybe only a matter of testing and see what happens?
Also, what if we change the word ‘breaking’ with another word? What would that word be? Would this change, maybe it can change our current conflicting exchange?
Isn’t the position we have fundamentally, I, you, me, him and her? Do we have to go any deeper? This position, as it is, not deeper, is where there is responsibility. I have to look to myself and see what I am doing, what are my thoughts, all of that. I may want to talk about it, but talk about the nature of thought, which is not positioned, me and you, his and hers. Otherwise we are having a therapy session with a game of patient and psychologist. Obviously the exchange is a complex game repeating all the common ideas we have about anyone and everyone, and thinking this or that is the problem, or there is a problem because he or she said such and such . This is the not responsible position. Then we can see the approach we have is the irresponsibility.
Good morning Ayham,
I would also speak of percieving or observing thought, being in touch with it with my whole organism. Writing here and communicating with you is not possible without thinking. Can we percieve that and percieve the nature of thinking what it actually is that is active in the communication between us. To me it is clear we can, percieve that. But the question I raised is, if that perception just springs out of thinking or not? Because there is a difference. Thinking by its nature is not the self. It is thinking. Thinking which can bring about the self and than take over the senses and perception. So thinking can either spring out of perception or out the self which is thinking. Which is it what we are doing here? Changing just words is still within the frame of thinking. So can we be in touch with the fact that there is first of all thinking and what it actually is?
Paul,
my dialogue with you allows our inquiry into what you have written below. I am simply curious.
You wrote:
"…Can everything be silent first, not wait until we are satisfied to be silent. Then we are free to observe our reactions to the question."
A(a)wareness or understanding of what lies beyond conditioned content; is offered in your own ability to be silent; to be free to observe your reactions. This is realised from the Space of true Meditation/Silence.
You, Paul, are the author of these words (in bold type above) which I am simply highlighting towards our inquiry.
I asked if what you have written; your words, is from your own direct experience, that is, your own direct realisation of the silent (that you speak of), and by this, your own A(a)wareness; or perhaps you prefer ‘process’; all irrelevant, of the Silent Space beyond, that had perhaps directly offered these words.
This was simlpy my question to you; which did not get lost: as is your fear for your own question(s). Indeed you have answered this, demonstrated most perfectly, in the wording of your reply.
Finally, allow me to clarify: it is my own direct experience of Silence by true and continuous Meditation, that there is absolute clarity of what is my conditioned content and that which lies beyond this: There are no clouds - as you describe.
Marie
We are aware that we are caught in the pattern of thought, thinking, the thinker. This awareness of being caught may itself be limited, but we have talked about it, looked at it and we are now at the point where we are asking if there is the possibility of this pattern coming to an end. We don’t know if it can or cannot. So, as Ayham says, we are testing it out. That’s all we are doing. Isn’t this a valid use of thought? But if you insist that the question is invalid because it is coming from thought, then we are forever stuck and we’ll never move forward. In asking the question we’ll find out exactly where the question comes from when we arrive at an answer. If the answer leads us back to thought, it has just been a circular tour; if we find something new, however, it is not at all pointless. Otherwise, we are in danger of dismissing every single question as invalid. As I said earlier, where the question comes from is very much a side issue. The central issue is: can we put the question of thought coming to a complete stop without curtailing or interfering with the question? Apparently, we are finding this very difficult.
Then let’s address the question. Or, if you are unhappy with the question, let’s pose a different question.
Dear Paul, yes this seems to be very difficult. Maybe because it all is just a result of thinking. That is all I am saying. How do you know that it is just a side effect, where the question comes from? If we all agree that we are caught in thinking, would then not the realisation already be the starting point? How do we see, percieve that we are caught? Is this just a logical explanation we have read somewhere or a conclusion we have drawn ourselves? Or is it something that we percieve directly? If we do we could start to see why we are caught and if there is a different way to live, because we would not be caught in thinking. But if the being caught is just a conclusion, just a result of our thinking then every testing will still just be in that pattern. As you say then we are stuck. But we are not stuck when we are looking at what really is. And that is just thinking.
Wait. Are we thinking together? That’s an entirely different matter.
Go on, so where are we then?