What is it to "hear"?

[Tariki]

One of the proverbs of the OT goes....(sorry, can't locate the exact chapter and verse)....

He who answers a thing before he heareth it, it is a shame and a folly unto him.

(and to her I suppose... )

It seems to me, reading through so many threads on so many forums, that many - at least to my own mind and understanding - answer many things before they "heareth it". Often the sheer ignorance displayed by those who seem to have come to final conclusions about teachings other than their own is tragic ( And I do mean tragic, in the sense of the consequences of such ignorance seen throughout history)

What is it truly to "hear" something? When can we truly claim to "know" the truth of a Faith other than our own? Or even within our own Faith, an interpretation other than our own?

Would it not be best to seek to "hear" our own Faith, and follow our own guidance, and leave any judgement of others to a Reality greater than our own?

And as a Buddhist, I'll throw in a phrase used in the "Salutation to the Three Jewels" to describe the Dharma...................EHIPASSIKO, usually translated as "come and see (for oneself)" The invitation is given and offered. Maybe we can only truly accept one - which becomes our own unique and unrepeatable journey?

 

[wil]

seek first to understand...

if we did that often we'd never have time to judge and berate others we'd be working on ourselves listening and attempting to hear.

nice thoughts...

 

[seattlegal]

The spirit of liberty is the spirit which is not too sure that it is right; the spirit of liberty is the spirit which seeks to understand the minds of other men and women.
--Judge Learned Hand of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals

 

[cyberpi]

I submit:
If a person hears only his own voice, then he does not learn anything true that he did not already know.

If a person hears only the voice of others, then he still remains ignorant of himself.

Would it not be best to seek to "hear" our own Faith, and follow our own guidance, and leave any judgement of others to a Reality greater than our own?

I submit that Faith requires a form of communication with another person. A book is not a person, but a mere pattern left behind. The pattern is not the Faith... the interaction with the person who made the pattern is. I suggest that judgement is a comparison which is necessary to hear and do if you wish to learn something new.

 

[Tariki]

I think to truly "hear" is to make at least some genuine attempt to appropriate a "teaching" for oneself. Obviously this makes me ask just what the word "genuine" implies! (One thing always leads to another)

And perhaps another dimension to it, in as much as we extract "questions" from others and their own experience that call for an answer from our own. Maybe this is what cyberpi is indicating. This makes me think of a saying of one of the Desert Fathers, who when asked by Evagrius for some piece of advice by which he might be able to save his soul, replied....."If you wish to save your soul, do not speak before you are asked a question" Maybe this "answer" relates only to obedience, yet I think we can spend our lives being "unknown to ourselves" and by consequence answering questions that are not our "own". Being weak minded myself, and easily led by those with stronger convictions and wills, I have known far too much of that.

And to me there is a distinction between the "judgement of others" as I intended and indicated, and "comparison".

Cyperpi,

Just seen your reference to this on another thread. You indicate that to truly "hear" would imply answering honestly. I think what I have said above does relate to this in many ways.

Thanks
Derek

 

[Thomas]

As a Catholic, my faith, and in fact the idea of faith itself, is often dismissed with a casual wave of the hand when the subject comes up at social gatherings, but your Buddhist reference, "come and see (for oneself)" caused a smile ... the next time I meet that incredulous gaze, I shall ask, "Have you tried it?"

There is a line from a book by George Bernanos, which has become for me something of a definition of 'tradition' ... a Mother Superior is instructing a novice, and says, "Remember, my child, it is not the rule that keeps us, it is we who keep the rule."

Thomas

 

[cyberpi]

Tariki,
In my post I was trying to rebuke that 'Desert Father' for telling a serious lie. That 'Desert Father' would kill Faith, a witness, and a prophet.

I submit that the proverb is NOT referring to whether a person speaks before he hears a question, or before being a fully qualified expert in another's eye. The proverb refers to when a question is asked that a person answers it fully to the best of his ability, rather than fabricating an answer per his vices. In other words, I submit the Proverb says nothing of a person that judges and speaks the content of his mind... while you may not see his purpose, it does not mean there was not one.

Ignorance is like bad breath... if a person does not speak up when he sees it, then it is he who is guilty and will suffer for it. If the person speaks up, then the ignorant is blessed. But if the ignorant ignores him or fights him then it is he who is guilty. If the ignorant never spoke in the first place, he remains ignorant of himself and blind to his condition.

 

[Tariki]

Ah! Comparisons! And seeking the "fruit" of any text!

A disciple once complained, "You tell us stories, but you never reveal their meaning to us."

Said the master, "How would you like it if someone offered you fruit and chewed it up before giving it to you?"

No one can find your meaning for you.

Not even the master.

 

[cyberpi]

Said the master, "How would you like it if someone offered you fruit and chewed it up before giving it to you?"

A bird sits in a nest in a tree awaiting to be fed... will the bird have faith to open his mouth and live?

I like milk, honey, ground olives, sweet figs, wine of the vine, the voice of the people... and in all of them the voice of God. Like flour munched on by yeast... every one of them chewed. That desert father who silences a child with such a tale is a liar and a thief... because it is he that didn't want to 'hear' of it.

 

[Thomas]

Words spoken are symbols or signs (symbola) of affections or impressions (pathemata) of the soul (psyche); written words are the signs of words spoken. As writing, so also is speech not the same for all races of men. But the mental affections themselves, of which these words are primarily signs (semeia), are the same for the whole of mankind, as are also the objects (pragmata) of which those affections are representations or likenesses, images, copies (homoiomata).
(Aristotle, On Interpretation, 1.16a4).

The question then, as I read it, turns on whether the hearer has the capacity to capture that affection or impression, to capture the essence as well as the substance of what is heard.

Here is a paragraph from Frithjof Schuon:
Metaphysical knowledge is one thing; its actualisation in the mind quite another. All the knowledge which the brain can hold, even if it is immeasurably rich from a human point of view, is as nothing in the sight of Truth..."

(Here I am reminded of the words of St Thomas Aquinas:
"Everything I have written is like straw before the wind... ")

As for metaphysical knowledge, it is like a Divine Seed in the heart; thoughts represent only feint glimmers of it. The imprint of Divine Light on human darkness, the passage from the Infinite to the finite, the contact between the Absolute and the contingent – herein lies the whole mystery of intellection, of revelation, and of the Avatara.
(Frithjof Schuon, Spiritual Perspectives and Human Facts p9)

In my studies of the philosophy of language, I have been reading Paul Ricoeur on the meaning of metaphor ... all language is a communication, and all communication is a means of the transference of impression. The sentence, which by definition is the minimum linguistic self-contained structure, comprises in the wider context of communication:
he who speaks,
he to whom the words are spoken,
what is spoken about,
and the impression the speaker intends to convey.

This transference is twofold: On the horizontal plane, the meaning is implicit in the words themselves: "Stop." "Ice melts." "Put the kettle on." "The quick brown fox jumps over the lazy dog." One hears and one understands, because the words convey a sensible or one might say surface impression – words used in such a way are signs.

On the vertical plane, words become symbols, their meaning is metaphorical – they stand in place of something else – but crucially as symbols they do not point to something else (as signs do), but they transfer the very essence of that in whose place they stand ... this is the whole meaning of rite and ritual, of the mantra and the mandala.

One attains an end either by (following) signs, or (through) symbols.

The etymology of symbol is from the Greek verb symballein "to reunite" or "to put together".

So the question then is not what one hears, but whether one has the capacity to put it all together...

That is why the Blessed Virgin, the Theotokos, is the paradigm of faith in the Christian Tradition for, as St Luke (2:19) tells us:
"But Mary kept all these words, pondering (sumballo) them in her heart."

She put it all together before He even started on His mission, and her faith was unshakable, and even in the face of God, implacable: Take this exchange between creature and Creator, between the Handmaid and God, at the Wedding at Cana:

"And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the servants: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye."
John 2:2-5

Sorry guys, a bit like Topsy this one ... it 'just grow'd'.

Thomas

 

[cyberpi]

Ah! Comparisons! And seeking the "fruit" of any text!
A disciple once complained, "You tell us stories, but you never reveal their meaning to us."

Said the master, "How would you like it if someone offered you fruit and chewed it up before giving it to you?"

No one can find your meaning for you.
Not even the master.

I do see a Master there, so if I could rewrite that a bit...

The disciple asked, "Teacher, why do you ask us so many questions without providing the answers?"

The teacher answered, "What do you mean? I am showing them the path to find the answers to any question that they could ever possibly ask. What more could you possibly ask of me?"

 

[Francis king]

yes, we all are guilty of not listening, quickly offering cheap opinions and throwaway comments, failing to realise the depth of the passion behind the words and feelings we casually distain, but hopefully we are conscious of this and our intentions are noble- to incite the passions of the faithful, to quell the fevent madness in the hearts of the zealots, and so this is why we offer opinions for many things based on no substantiated evidences, and with no thought for what is adequate, or accurate... answering honestly is often not what ppl want when they ask their questions, often they do not want your individual opinion, they are looking for somebody to justify their own position and reaffirm their worth, or they are letting you know how clever they are... it's a game, like any other...

so, to truely hear.. how do we get there, to that place where we really listen..? as far as I can see, some ppl are just that way, they can empathise, see all sides, etc, and for some ppl it will take many lifetimes... after all, society is not structured that way- we are all individuals, we all are all exhorted to excel, to look down upon those who are beneath u and to tremble under the gaze of your betters... we all have either an inferiority complex, or a superiority complex... we either feel we're better than (select) others or feel we are inferior... if you get beyond that, then you can start to listen to what's being said and allow its truths to surface...

for me, to really hear is like... to listen to a psychotic's ramblings and understand that within his delusion he is attempting to tell you something, and then discovering what that something is...

to really hear is... to see beyond the games that ppl play, to be able to discern when a person is being truthful, and when they are not, and not only that, but to also understand why they are giving you their truths and falsehoods, then you can really listen...

 

[Tariki]

Thomas,

yes, it certainly did "just grow'd"..................and challenges many of my own strings of quotes and what-nots! Much to "hear" and reflect upon.

Anyway, just to throw in a few thoughts and quotes of my own concerning the whole thread, looking back at the original proverb I am inclined to understand it in what appears to be its essential simplicity. To give voice to opinions before one has any particular knowledge of what one is speaking about is foolish and shameful; to truly "hear" implies the prior capacity to truly "listen" , which in itself implies the capacity to surrender a self-centered view of the world. Well, enough of that.

Just as another aside, looking back at the original source of the story of the Desert Father who advised an aspirant not to speak before he was asked a question, apparently the Father in question was Macarius of Egypt, who was eventually canonised by the Catholic Church................a liar and a thief indeed! According to my knowledge the original Desert Fathers were the precursors of the various Monastic communities of Christendom, which are founded in part upon the call of obedience. Reflecting myself upon my reading of the journals of the Trappist monk Thomas Merton, I can see both the fruits and the curse of such a call..........yet more often than not, the fruits.

As far as "straw before the wind", and the various other quotes, just as a matter of interest and comparison, here are some entries from the Journals of Merton concerning what is often seen as the central philosophy of Buddhism, the Madhyamika.....

On Madhyamika........................the utter negation of thought as revelatory of the real. The death of thought is the birth of Prajna, knowledge devoid of distinction, i.e. intuition of the unconditioned. Absolute reality is not set over against empirical reality. The empirical, liberated from conventional thought forms, is identical with the absolute. Transcendent to thought, the absolute is thoroughly immanent in experience. Madhyamika is critical of thought, open to experience. It accepts the phenomenalization of the absolute and knows this as twofold:-

Avidya: through ignorance and defilements
Prajna: the free conscious assumption of phenomenal forms activated by wisdom and compassion.

The former is the unconscious activity of the ignorant, and the latter that of the Enlightened. Hence, not escape from the world into idealism, but the transformation of consciousness by a detached and compassionate acceptance of the empirical world in its interrelatedness. To be part of this interrelatedness.

Hence the Buddha overcomes samsara - this world of birth and death - not by mere denial, but by showing forth its true nature.

(Merton also mentioned, after his meetings with various Tibetan monks, that there was a controversy among Tibetans as to whether in order to know something one must know the word for it as well as apprehend the concept)

Straws in the wind etc also calls to mind the story from the Buddhist texts concerning the bhikkhu who was enlightened merely at the sight of the Buddha holding aloft a flower. Given the sheer extent of the discourses recorded in the scriptures, I've often wondered whether he in fact just feigned "enlightenment" to spare himself any more of the same!

Anyway, I'll stop now. Shopping to get. Sighs of relief all around!

 

[Tariki]

Just to amplify what I have already said regarding Thomas Merton and the fruits and curse of obedience, and to pick up on a comment of Cyberpi regarding the Desert Father whose call for obedience and silence would "kill a prophet". The curse I spoke of was the call of Merton's superiors that he cease to write on "peace" and against the use of nuclear weapons. The pain that this caused Merton can be gauged by the fact that he resorted in his journals ( and letters) to the "lowest form of wit" - sarcasm! - in response to the call/order.

Relating this to this thread, I would just say that Merton's immediate superior did not pass on the "call to silence" to Merton for a few months after it had been decreed by the "powers" above his own head. This enabled Merton to complete various "works in progress" and distribute them in his time honoured "underground" fashion prior to the "silence" being imposed and obeyed. I think in this we can judge that Merton's superior had "heard" Merton, and within the restraints imposed by his own vow of obedience, sought to bring the true heart of the Church to the situation - rather than allow the un-oiled creaking machinery of the "institution" to totally prevail!

It just seems to me that nothing is totally clear-cut in these situations. We all act within certain restraints - seen or unseen, acknowledged or not. Within our own restraints and failings, we yet need to seek to "hear" the Other and respond with/in empathy.

 

[cyberpi]

I consider the most valuable method of teaching is asking students to speak their ignorance on homework and tests. It must seem like a cruelty to turn around and rebuke some answers to make them bleed red ink, but if you can embrace that then I suggest that it is the path to learning. What exactly is the disgrace?

Empirical versus metaphysical: It may seem like the only information a person can learn comes in through the eyes and the ears. I discovered that it is not true. Many answers are mysteriously given. There is another way in. I see the brain as just a mechanical machine where memories can be stored, ideas cranked on, and control loops opened or closed. Whether I am the one who does it, or someone else does... I recognize a capability beyond the brain to brings ideas to a problem. But, it seems as if communication by words on some things were designed for plausible deniability at every turn.

It sounds like Madhyamika presents this understanding but seems to resist that there is information metaphysical to the world. I can understand why though if considered that even the gospels in the bible can be seen as an empirical experiment which says, "if you hear this and do this, then you will see something and be cleaned". I don't know much with Eastern religions though... is there anyone experiencing or demonstrating metaphysical things with Buddhism today?

Re: Desert Father: I included the word 'desert' for its gospel meaning... not to reference the person who wrote it. What I meant is, self included many parents at some point simply did not want to hear it. Any communication channel can be clogged, but I fail to see how anyone's hearing is improved by telling someone to zip it.

 

[Tariki]

Cyberpi,

Thanks for your post and clarifications. Could you just clarify further? By "metaphysical" do you mean "supernatural"....transcendent to nature?

Anyway, I would tend to agree with you on reflection that to express a view - however "ignorant" - can well be a means of gaining understanding. Maybe we just need a capacity for self-judgement, a willingness to learn, and a good teacher! Looking back on my own life and remembering "views" held and expressed in the past....................And, yes, I also agree that many things seem mysteriously given. Given in spite of our views rather than because of them.I have always loved the words of Thomas Merton, written to a young child, when he spoke of the road to joy which is mysteriously revealed to us without our exactly realizing

 

[InLove]

yes, we all are guilty of not listening, quickly offering cheap opinions and throwaway comments, failing to realise the depth of the passion behind the words and feelings we casually distain, but hopefully we are conscious of this and our intentions are noble- to incite the passions of the faithful, to quell the fevent madness in the hearts of the zealots, and so this is why we offer opinions for many things based on no substantiated evidences, and with no thought for what is adequate, or accurate... answering honestly is often not what ppl want when they ask their questions, often they do not want your individual opinion, they are looking for somebody to justify their own position and reaffirm their worth, or they are letting you know how clever they are... it's a game, like any other...

so, to truely hear.. how do we get there, to that place where we really listen..? as far as I can see, some ppl are just that way, they can empathise, see all sides, etc, and for some ppl it will take many lifetimes... after all, society is not structured that way- we are all individuals, we all are all exhorted to excel, to look down upon those who are beneath u and to tremble under the gaze of your betters... we all have either an inferiority complex, or a superiority complex... we either feel we're better than (select) others or feel we are inferior... if you get beyond that, then you can start to listen to what's being said and allow its truths to surface...

for me, to really hear is like... to listen to a psychotic's ramblings and understand that within his delusion he is attempting to tell you something, and then discovering what that something is...

to really hear is... to see beyond the games that ppl play, to be able to discern when a person is being truthful, and when they are not, and not only that, but to also understand why they are giving you their truths and falsehoods, then you can really listen...

Francis, I just stopped in to say I found some truth and beauty in what you wrote here. It sometimes takes a long time to find the proverbial "message behind the message", but it is worth it to me. I don't believe it is something we can do quickly most of the time, do you? If I rush the process, I find myself reading things that are not really there. I see it happening all the time. Language inherently begs us to look beyond it, though. LOL, I am just rambling now, I think. I guess I just wanted to say something to you because I thought you captured something important. Sometimes what we are reading really may be a "message in a bottle".

InPeace,
InLove

 

[cyberpi]

Cyberpi,
Thanks for your post and clarifications. Could you just clarify further? By "metaphysical" do you mean "supernatural"....transcendent to nature?

Yes... something not measurable by empirical methods. Something that sees without spending energy. Something that can place an extra 'effect' on matter where the 'cause' remains hidden and non-measurable. Something not composed of known particles or wave interactions of the fundamental forces: weak and strong nuclear, electromagnetic, and gravitational. Something that can see the history between any two particles even as they collide and separate over vast distances.

 

[Tariki]

InLove,

Thanks for drawing out the significance of the words of Francis king. I must admit that in my own rush to answer points being made for my own benefit, I originally bypassed the post...

It all seems part of "going beyond" what is more often than not a superficial "surface" that we interpret as already "known" and therefore dismiss, much to our own loss.Well, your not the only one who can ramble. Again picking up on what you have said, and a couple of points by Cyberpi, I remember once at a prize giving for a physically handicapped sportsday, a young Downs girl receiving a Third Place (Bronze) medal for the hundred yards. Her face was a picture! The "reality" was that there was only three in the race, and she had been guided around the small course by an adult. Yet what is the "reality" to be "heard"? And another ocassion, when my own daughter drew an oval template to represent an empty face, to be filled in by the children. The children were of all kinds of "special needs". Afterwards, all the various attempts were hung upon the wall. I looked at one that only had a small green smudge in one corner and remarked to my daughter...."They havn't done much on that one". And she replied, "for him, that's a lot."

Anyway, thanks for the clarification Cyberpi. I would only say that it must be understood that as far as Buddhist "philosophy" is concerned, the meaning and intent is always "soteriological", the attempt to embrace "wisdom", defined as "the mind-heart thirsting for emancipation seeing direct into the heart of reality". And words seem only able to represent reality in a limited and relative sense, never to ultimately define it or contain it. Which leads to the famous old Buddhist slogan, quoted ad nauseum on Buddhist forums........"Don't mistake the finger that points for the moon itself", and to the words of the Buddha himself, who indicated that his teachings were for "crossing over, not for grasping".

And not seeking to be contentious, yet I must say that when the "transcendent" is deemed to have "revealed" "its" will to world via a "holy" book, a will that would be totally beyond the "natural man" to apprehend without such "revelation", then trouble can start - especially when one group claims the divine right to interpret the words definitively. Well, enough of that.........

 

[cyberpi]

I suggest that a person always chooses his/her teacher. Does that help? While a teacher might choose his students, or a student might be oppressed to see information that he considers irrelevant or ignorance, I submit that the student always chooses what to chew on in his mind, to discern, to judge, or to believe.

What I meant by, "would kill a prophet" is that IF it is politically correct to self-censor until someone asks a question, then a profit, buddha, renown scientist, or innovator, would all die before revealing their idea or 'revealed' information. On the introduction of their words, there is only the existing beliefs to conflict with. Often the new words are considered ignorance, especially in science. When someone said the Earth rotated around the Sun, someone called it ignorance and surely someone said, "Who asked you?"... or even, "Who made you God?" Ask Darwin... he knows. But also Einstein, Galileo, everyone has their detractors.

For me the line between science and religion is nearly gone. I see science just as 'soteriological' as Christianity or Buddhism. As I see it, in both science and religion the issue is the length and the cost of the experiment. What does it cost to repeat the experiment so that a person can see for themselves for certain that something is true? Because if every experiment in the book is not repeated, then a person is taking their education on faith. Yet if an experiment is repeated, then the student is placing Faith in the teacher. The teacher says, "Do this and you will see this", or "hear me and you will learn"... so repeating an experiment is an act of faith in the teacher. Learning is an act of Faith. Some experiments are pretty darn costly too... like taking your whole life away. Sacrifice, meditation, a college degree... could a teacher just judge me now and tell me whether I am worthy so that I don't waste a lifetime in meditation or church before discovering whether I can be enlightened or saved in an afterlife? That would be convenient. If I seek the enlightenment or transformation that Buddha informs me of, I suspect it would take some serious time commitments, and that it might be determined in the end that I simply lack something to ever get there. Maybe I am considered too obstinate or non-believing. Worth it still maybe but there is a cost.

I confess that I have not even proven for myself that the Sun does not orbit the Earth. I understand it takes a telescope and looking for retrograde motion, but I have not proven for myself that the Earth rotates about the sun in space relative to the other planets. I have not proven for myself that the Earth is not gravitationally flat, as I have not been in orbit in zero gravity yet. While the knowledge that it may be true feels good, it will probably never be useful to me in my lifetime... strange as that seems. Yet people lost their lives over these theories. I submit that learning it is like repeating an experiment, and it is faith in the teacher no matter what the subject is.

So I do not see danger in anything metaphysical because the student chooses the teacher. If someone reports an unseen friend that allegedly reveals to them some knowledge, or whether a scientist claims to have done an experiment and presents a theory to help present some knowledge, learning from the person requires Faith either way. The requirement I think is that a student in his mind judges, discerns, compares, or somehow seeks the inner knowledge to develop a model for himself of what is true, of what produces fruit for them. A person with Downs is probably going to want to learn something different than most, and a person with cancer might not want to waste the time learning medicine. Even in science, the student chooses the teachers to place Faith in.