I go to work and in the car I listen to D. Bohm and Krishnamurti dialogue number 15, towards the end of it there is a part that I found remarkable:
K: .....................It means he must listen to me, but my brother refuses to listen.
DB: It seems that there are some actions which are not possible. If a person is caught in a certain thought such as fragmentation, then he can't change it, because there are a lot of other thoughts behind it.
K: Of course.
DB: Thoughts he doesn't know. He is not actually free to take this action because of the whole structure of thought that holds him.
And that sparks an idea in my mind: "Maybe real freedom is just to listen, to listen completely, because when you listen completely, there are no thoughts, no influences from my structure, from my past......and in those moments I am free of them..........
Is there such a thing as total listening at all? When I listen to something very closely, it seems that there are almost no thoughts. Yet, close listening rarely happens by itself, but generally requires effort, which is still thought. Furthermore, the process of recognition of sounds is still going on. So the listener, which is the past, is always there.
ReplyDeleteWelcome Visitor,
ReplyDeleteI can identify with what you are mentioning, it happens the same to me....
But I have a question. who is seeing that effort is required?, who is seeing that sound recognition is still going on?
Who is seeing the whole thing happening?
It is seen by what I call "me". The effort is registered, and then I say: "I'm making effort".
ReplyDeleteI want to go back to your original question in your first entry:
ReplyDelete"Is there such a thing as total listening at all? When I listen to something very closely, it seems that there are almost no thoughts."
So, now I am listening to something very closely, and it seems that there are almost no thoughts....and a thought comes up....and maybe I may even think "no, I do not want to have a thought".....but I realize the first thought coming up, and I realize the second one not wanting a thought...
My question is: in what field is this realization? is it in the same field of thought?
It's rather difficult to answer this question, because the whole process is subtle and usually takes place rather quickly. My sense is that the realization or noticing of thought is still in the field of thought. At least in my own case.
ReplyDeleteCan we have a look at this?
ReplyDeleteCould awareness have a look at itself?
It all depends on what you mean by awareness. Can thought see itself as it arises rather than a moment later? Or can there be an awareness of thought as it arises?
ReplyDeleteAnd what would it mean for awareness to have a look at itself? Can it look at itself if there is thought going on?
My feeling is that they are not the same. Yes, I know Krishnamurti talked (sometimes)about "thought seeing itself", but thought is essentially conditioned, is limited and always projects a "goal" in the future.
ReplyDeleteIs there an awareness which is not conditioned?
Has awareness limits?
Does it "want" something?
Is it "mine", or self serving, or is it not even personal?
These are open questions...they are not answers disguised as questions....
If there is a state of awareness at all, that awareness seems to be partial. For example, an awareness of sound. At that moment of awareness there is no wanting, and nothing personal about it.
ReplyDeleteIs there an awareness which is not just reduced to the senses?
ReplyDeleteDo you mean an awareness of all the senses and more? A non-focused awareness?
ReplyDelete