Unless the mind is quiet

They were. I learned how to listen psychologically from other endeavours and that is why K is so clear to me. Why do you constantly compare what anyone says here to your K knowledge? And when you find similarities, which you will if the other is clear and does actually listen psychologically, you simply make the statement ‘you sound like K.’ Well who wouldn’t. You can’t tell the difference whether anyone gets what K is pointing to or not because, as you say, you don’t. What is stopping you from focusing on that instead of on what others say?

A description that is not being done is just an idea, a concept.

The question is - Do you do it? Isn’t that the only way to find out? Whether I or anyone else does it, isn’t the question, isn’t the challenge.

I don’t understand (at all) what this means. Could you say it differently? or explain a bit?

Yes to both…

I feel describing my experiences and ending with a question mark takes away the impression that what I have described is ‘truth’.

So, Dan, I reread all your comments and ignored the question marks. You, too, must have had a fundamental transformation to speak these ‘truths’.

Choiceless awareness is listening. And listening is only with a quiet mind. This listening is a different way from the listening that is used when one is trying to learn, to understand something. Listening to learn, to understand is the way we have been taught to listen and it is vital for functioning. It is listening with a motive and engages thought. So the ‘new instrument’ has no motive. So the arising of thought is an interruption. One can observe the interruption, let it flower (though the flowering may be an explosion of feeling, of energy) and the flowering is the effortless ending. From listening choicelessly, flowering is the point at which one is in new territory and fear of this unknown, not knowing where one is, is where most escape through thought.

Yes reading/listening to K is what is common to all of us here. However, I am dialoguing with you and the other participants, not K. Asking what K meant or quoting K just invites speculation, interpretation and conflict because the question invites thought, which is the past. That is all to say that references to K are respectfully ignored.

DanMcd elaborates in his posts as have I. A rereading of the entire dialogue may make it clearer.

Then why are you still here? To teach us?

You can’t tell the difference whether anyone gets what K is pointing to or not because, as you say, you don’t.

You hope no one can “tell the difference whether anyone gets what K is pointing to or not” because you believe you’re awakened and enlightened, and you know that, among those who admittedly are not enlightened and awakened, are those who aren’t as self-deceived as you are.

Not by me. True we have read, watched and heard a lot by him but my experience is that , as you go deeper, understanding of what he said can also go deeper. For example I have thought a lot about ‘awareness’ , experimented, etc. But just recently I heard him relate awareness to caring and a whole new possibility opened up for me.

For me, your response doesn’t follow from what I wrote. You wrote about something you heard K say, which is not what I was writing about. What did you understand me to have written?