K: Surely, there are two ways of listening. One can superficially follow the words, see their meaning, and merely pursue the outward significance of the description; or one can listen to the description, to the verbal statement, and pursue it inwardly–that is, be aware of what is being said as a thing that one is directly experiencing in oneself. If one can do the latter–that is, if through the description one is able to experience directly the thing that is being said–then I think it will have great significance. - As One Is
K: If I have an image about someone, that knowledge is obviously going to impede our relationship. It becomes a pattern.
K: If you treat what we are saying at a verbal level, then go away, it is a waste of time. - Madras Feb. 1952
K: You can only listen when you are not translating what is being said into your own terminology, your own background. - Talks in Europe, March 1968
K: So, is it not important for the mind to inquire and remain in that state of inquiry, which is not to seek an answer but simply to see if you know anything at all beyond the knowledge which has already been accumulated?
Q: What do you mean by inquiry?
Common definition: an act of asking for information, an official investigation.
**It seems that K’s notion of inquiry had a focus on seeing, or listening and looking together, and not on answers, knowledge, or translating what has been said into one’s own terminology. Simply listening, not agreeing or disagreeing, In other words, it wasn’t an intellectual or judgmental endeavor.
Then this question arises: “What then was K actually suggesting that we observe together, and inquire into, as two friends having a dialogue together?”
K: You are not going to learn from the speaker, but you learn by observing, by using the speaker as a mirror to observe your own movement of thought, of feeling, your own psyche, your own psychology. - Beyond Violence
K: It is important for you to find out your own ways of thinking and what that thinking implies, as I have been trying to point out this morning. - As One Is
**So, where can we observe “our own ways of thinking,” if not in relationship, in dialogue? Isn’t it the responses we all make that reveal the ways of our thinking?
Now, is it possible to openly listen to each other, observe the nature of the responses, and then, describe what we see? And if what we see appears to be “a psychological thought,” is that “judging the person,” or simply an attempt to describe the nature of the “response?”
There seems to be some confusion between describing the apparent nature of a response, and judging the person who may express the conditioned pattern? Isn’t the assumption that “thought is personal” part of human conditioning? A rather ubiquitous pattern in the culture?