Who speaks, who listens?

[anna]

In any dialogue, be it mundane, or angelic (of course, everything is mundane, and everything is angelic, but for the sake of argument, I’m dividing thoughts, concepts, and its resultant dialogue into a hierarchy) – the crux to understanding another, is who, or what speaks, and who or what listens. In every personal experience, myself, with spiritual teachers and their messages or expressions of their state, the level of understanding of the listener (in this case, me) determined the understanding, and not the other way around. And a truly liberated teacher will be able to speak to ALL individuals, of all levels of understanding, and yet those who listen will determine if that teacher is “wise”, “liberated”, or whatever based upon who the listener is, or who the listener thinks she is. This will explain why arguments ensue between followers of truly enlightened beings, because of the listener’s perception of who that listener believes herself to be.

Thus, the great ones inevitably address their listeners as equal to themselves, and address answers or questions on that assumption. It is only the listener that either cannot, or can, grasp the true meaning of the words of a teacher, based upon the listener’s “level of understanding”. This term “level” is flawed, of course, because there truly is no “level” to understanding – either the listener listens as a liberated being (even though she may not realize that she is liberated at the time of hearing), or the listener listens as a separate, and thus, limited being.

The ability to release the conditioning of consciousness that makes us believe we are separate is limited not by the teacher’s ability to “liberate” that listener, but by the listener’s conception of who she thinks she is. That limitation is habitual, and difficult to break through, therefore. Only by counter-measures to the conditioning, facilitated by what is known as “satsang” in India, or “good company” in the west, or “hearing the good news”, and imbibing it, consistently, devotedly, and intensely, can the conditioning be overcome, and the mind therefore liberated from its separative conditioning. That usually takes time, although I am led to understand that with the proper amount of intensity and desire, it can occur instantly. I remember some student asking a great and wise teacher, “Why is it that I have spent 30 years trying to see the universe and one’s self as you do?” The teacher responded, simply “It is because you don’t want it enough – you are still interested in the benefits of separative thinking.” Isn’t THAT the truth! Or to quote a more controversial teacher, Da Free John, “You must be getting something from it.” – in response to a complaint by a student that she couldn’t extricate herself from her conditioning. (Remember DFJ? - what a teacher, and what a character!)

And it is as simple as that, and as difficult. We are seduced by the world and all its supposed rewards, and there is a legitimate reason for this to be. The world depends upon its continuance of its manifestation by the myriad beings to involve themselves with the world and its rewards. Were we to all cease following our desires and instincts, the world might easily unravel. I am of the belief that this was deliberate on the part of creation: and thus explains in large measure the difficulty in extricating one’s self from that creative imperative.

[jenjulian]

The Bible states: "He who has ears to hear, let him hear."

Think this is making the same kind of statement?

Is this why I recently picked up a book from 10 years ago, that I previously thought was very uninspired and this time I found profound messages in it?

[anna]

Seems to me that the answer is yes to both questions.

I recall about 30 years ago reading J. Krishnamurtis' book, and really slogging through it, not grasping much of it. About 15 years later, reading it again, and being surprised that I found it such hard reading before. Indeed, there have been books I have read later, and found entire passages which I did not recall reading in the original reading. I had, obviously, simply glossed over portions of the writing. Or, instead, one wonders, was that later passage iI discovered ever in the original reading, or was it later "added" by the reader? Hmmmmmm ? Who was it that said" reality is considerably more than we think it is?!"