Yes, you may now directly address my simple question(s) that I have posed to you from the beginning of my correspondence if you wish.
I am neither happy nor unhappy by any questions posed by you. Perhaps it is my question(s) that you are unhappy with; shown by your disconnecting to facilitate our inquiry.
However
I have already said in my last response to you; you have illustrated your reactivity perfectly in your reply. Although this does not answer any of my questions directly, it is a very clear demonstration of your thinking.
I will condense our exchange to one single point; as it has thus far been repetitive. I will come directly to the consideration of ‘Thought and Position’ . Perhaps we can then inquire honestly, together, if you wish to.
To facilitate I will use this perfect example.
Your reply in our exchange was as follows:
“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.”
Thought and Position (topic)
My questions are as follows:
Question 1. What was your position/reaction/thoughts/emotions/physical sensation that moved you to this reply?
And,
(Here in your own words - the words which moved me to dialogue with you initially)
“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.”
Question 2. Did your reply come from the silent space that you yourself describe above?
But I have not described any space, silent or otherwise. I am asking if we can be silent from the beginning, simply, naturally, without the slightest pressure to be silent. As I said, I am putting a question. My state of mind in putting the question is irrelevant. It may be a stupid question. But do you see how we resist even the simplest of questions? It is as though we cannot meet them without the full battery of our intellectual armoury.
If we are misunderstanding one another then, yes, that’s a common mistake in any relationship and if we care for the other person we’ll do our best to correct it.
The correction is now, and to whatever lingers from the past in image or resistance.
Not to prove something or justify it, but merely to communicate the recognition that did take place, no?
Is it really a correction in the sense that we act on the past? Or is it a change? Maybe the correction is just a reaction on the past and therefore part of the problem? Would the recognition of what took place not be an aknwoledgement of the consequences of that mistake which we feel right now? If so the recognition is dealing with the what is, the consequences of the mistake.
I really don’t understand this part you noted. However:
I think we are beyond that now. We, as in the people involved and following this thread, are not interested in allowing the past to be involved in today’s matters. We are, now, being watchful, together, of any position assumed or to be assumed. We are witnessing, today. Witnessing of our relationship and its aliveness. Watchful of what is necessary, today, now.
The mind can renew itself only when it is wholly detached from yesterday ~ JK, 1932
Correction, change or as K puts it as ‘adjustment’. Doesn’t matter which word is used.
No, but you are already taking up a position when you say this. I don’t want to assume anything - myself, yourself or ourselves - at the start. We are just watching to see what gets revealed. Are we aware of each position as it arises or appears?