UnbornTao

The only thing you have is your experience. Listening requires a shift in how you experience reality, such that you grasp another's experience rather than your own - and from their point of view, not yours. "Listening" to yourself leaves you alone with your viewpoint - perhaps clarifying it or something like that. It's still about you.

Sounds good.

Right. When are you going to set aside your arrogance and actually listen to Adi Da, for example? Notice how, behind what you "say", there really is a demand for belief, even if implicit, and despite what you claim to the contrary.

The notion of Infinity is extremely convenient, actually. You can literally say anything about it, and it wouldn't have any significance either way. That doesn't mean there's a real breakthrough behind it, though. There likely isn't. More often than not, it sounds like a convincing and powerful conceptual fabrication that is being forced onto some sort of experience.

I'm not sure you're as enlightened as you think, to be clear. You tend to disseminate a particular cosmology. And come on, you are quite arrogant too. States are great - and are not awakening.

@PolyPeter @Leo Gura 'Lots and lots' is still relative. Notice how the matter is being held essentially in that manner.

When you say something like "beyond absolute", what are you talking about? You're not hearing what I said. And if we combined our arrogance... Jesus. I always forget that you're likely talking about psychedelic states and not enlightenments.

It isn't "Infinity" when something is said to be beyond it. There has to be one thing that is not another for the distinction of 'beyond' to be made. This is to point out that when you talk of things in this way, it might not be enlightenment. And voilà - bullshit uncovered.

It's funny how infinity is actually held relatively. You understand that infinit-ies is referring to something relative, no? To Infinity and beyond.

Spitting facts!

The point is that you already "listen" to yourself. There's no one else you "listen" to except yourself, since your experience of reality is all that you have. I'm not saying this as a fantasy of spiritualism. The possibility being presented here is hearing something different from the way it is for you now. Otherwise, it could be regarded as metaphorical listening, introspection, or noticing - perhaps. However, this matter is within the context of communication. Communication requires two people. (I can see how your mind might react with its so-called knowledge in response to that). Since this topic is about listening, you have to get out of the way.

Should write about being grounded.

And what's really going on beyond the surface for you? What do you "do" with "it"? Performing a ritual isn't necessarily the same as listening. It goes beyond hearing the words coming from their mouth, and even understanding them - once again.

There does seem to be a connection between those, definitely. It's called an art, after all.

There is the possibility of two people creating the same experience as a result of interacting with each other in this way. It just isn't rational. This is what K is talking about in his quote.

It's an inquiry that you can take up.

Listening is actually aimed at having another's experience as it is for them. This means it is by definition not about you. If, after the ritual has been performed, there isn't a shift in how you experience reality, even if just a little, listening hasn't occurred. We might say that it requires a willingness to step out of one's world, to put it metaphorically. Not-knowing is the base of this act. What's funny is that the quote is precisely describing the very process taking place here: listening for answers, for validation, for information, to confirm what's already believed, to reject or accept, as a form of intellectual understanding, etc. This is different from the act being alluded to in the quote. The quote is from a talk in 1966. He'd been teaching for almost four decades by that point. I'm just saying - maybe he had something to say that we have a hard time coming to grips with. Not that listening is mysterious or inaccessible; it just doesn't seem to be common in this context. The only one who seems to have understood the assignment is @Davino, if his word is to be trusted. Notice everything that's come up for us as we stumble along the topic - our minds immediately bringing up "what we know" and inserting it into the conversation, and the difficulty of creating some space around the topic, even if only for a few days.

Yeah, but this is in the context of listening to another. The risk of interacting within your own bubble is that it can easily become a self-fulfilling prophecy with no real feedback.

"What is purpose?" is your question.

Sounds good. For some reason I get the feeling it might not be quite landing, though. I might elaborate in a new post, as I struggle with this. Thank you. I'm going to take a shower.

Think what you want, but do the exercise (if you want).

The point is learning rather than simply going through the motions. There's a difference between mechanical repetition and applying intelligence and creative correction as you practice - it's not simply about doing the same thing over and over again. That said, it depends on the particulars, too. With chess, it may require a different approach, I don't know. For example, if you're going to cook an omelette, approach it as if you're cooking an excellent omelette. And then: How does what you do contrast with your image of "an excellent omelette"? Something like that. Don't use your failure to live up to it to beat yourself up, though - that's not needed. Just learn to see what you are not seeing, and refine that process. Felt compelled to share that - for whatever reason.

Sure. The difference is that I've been contemplating this for awhile.

By necessity, listening precedes understanding. The first danger is automatically assuming you know what is being said - because you understand the language, it fits your view, and so on. The problem with putting your focus on 'understanding' is that it feeds into your assumption that listening is restricted to the conceptual. Since we take words to be symbols, we think this is merely a conceptual endeavor. But there is a deeper kind. Read Krishnamurti's quote and see how what he says applies to you. He's describing the process as it occurs for most people.