Answer one or two, but not three.
1. "Without a word from Vasudeva, the speaker felt that the ferryman took in hhis words, silent, open, waiting, missing none, impatient for none, neither praising nor blaming, but only listening."
Is listening in this way a good thing, in your opinion, or not?
OR
2. Try to put into your own words what the river teachers Siddhartha about time on p. 94.
OR
3. Try to put into your own words what the river teaches Siddhartha about the river's many voices on p 95.
28 comments:
Prompt 2 (pg 94)
"...it taught hi how to listen, to listen with a silent heart, with a waiting, open soul, without passion, without desire, without judgment, without opinion."
"...time does not exist."
"the voices of all creatures are in its voice."
WOW...this is a pretty awesome and cool river!!!!!!!!! Above all, i think the river taught him how to listen (which is what the book says) but i think to sum evreything up....i think it taught him the calmness, serinty of becoming knowledgeable. and not to go searching for continuously adn rigourously bit just sitting and LISTENING for it..NOT waiting for it...just "beinging" almost and knowing that it wil come when it wants to!!!!
I lov this river!!!!!
I'm going to answer prompts 1 and 3:
I think listening in this way is a great thing. Response seems to be paired with listening, a cause and effect relationship, but this description seems to be the ideal of listening, described by Merriam-Webster as "to hear something with thoughtful attention." This "virtue" of the ferryman does not make Siddhartha or his passengers feel ignored, but has the opposite effect. Lots of passengers feel inclined to "tell his life story" to the ferrymen due to this kind of listening. But, if Siddhartha and the ferrymen do not respond to these passengers who pour out their "suffering, confessed evil," are they being helpful in a Buddhist sense?
Perhaps they don't answer because they think that this professed suffering is something necessary to go through. Siddhartha describes that many voices were in the river, "the voice of a king, and of a warrior. . ," and that these voices together created the "sacred om." Every person might be like the river; could be described as having multiple voices, at different points in the flow of their lives. Doesn't Siddhartha go through different stages of life in which he 'embodies' different 'voices'; self-deprecation, worldly ways -- and through the experience of embodying the different voices ,he is literally lead to hear the sacred om? These experiences make the life Siddhartha is now leading possible, even though he had to go through lots of suffering.
oooohhh...my earlier post was 2 AND 3!!!!
Promt 1
I VERY much agree with jake about this type of listening...almost the ferryman taking the meaning of listening literally (from dictionary)...i find his listening skills and processing information VERY GOOD and IDEAL...i think everyone should have listening skills like that!!!!!!! To really listen, process and think incredibly carefully about what is being said......SSOOO good!!!!
"No my dear friend, why should I be sad? I, who was rich and happy, have now become even more richer and hapier. I have a been given my son."
I think it is realy sweet that Siddartha thinks and says this about his son!!!! Very wise, thoughtful, wise and loving!!!!!!
Checking in. . .
From page 94:
"Yes, Siddhartha," he said. "Is this what you mean: that the river is everywhere at once, at its source and it its mouth at the waterfall, at the ferry, at the rapids in the sea, in the mountains, everywhere at once and only the present exists for it, and not the shadow of the future?"
I love that paragraph.
I respectfully disagree with Turner's explaination.
I think the end of one of the paragraphs on page 94 explains it for me. I think he realizes everything is present and everything is and is being. In my own word I think it means everything has a set course or not to be cliche, "destiny" or something of that sort. I think it means nothing new really happens because it has been occuring the whole time and it was going to be all the time.
This is a confusing question but I like it.
Thanks!
-Rocco
wait...rocco, i don't get it??!!??? I agree with your statement about your quote that you posted!!!! What's with mine???
checking in!!!!
checking in.
It's Hunter!
Prompt 1...
In my opinion, listening in this way is a good thing. This is because just listening is like going into something with an open mind, without judging anyone. In this specific part, I think Siddhartha feels like he is very comfortable with Vasudeva because he's just listening, "that's all he ever learned to do." (quote, don't remember what page.) I feel like everyone should be more like Vasudeva and listen when someone is trying to say something and forget about what your schema assumes and just be able to have an open mind in order to understand what someone is trying to say. Listening is KEY to any relationship. This is true for all relationships including, but not limited to: sibling and sibling, parent and child, friend and friend, etc. I think listening, like the ferryman does, is pretty much a basic rule of life.
I will first answer prompt 1.
I saw that a lot of people think listening is a good thing and I agree. Usually when you listen to a person there can be many different moods in it but when you listen to the river or something to do with nature like Siddartha and Vasudeva did, I think it gives you concentration and will refresh your soul. I have done this before by going on a small mountain and just sitting there for a hour and it made me concentrate and after doing this, I felt like I was refreshed.
I'm going to do prompt 1...
Listening, in my opinion, is very helpful. It creates some kind of bond between the speaker and the listener. The right listener (like the ferryman) is trusted. The person who needs help, needs to vent, or just wants to talk, will continue talking and confiding in the listener if they listen in the right way. That basically means that even if they dont say anything in response, they still give off the right vibe.
I'm sorry if this isn't well thought out or intellectual, but I'm really sick and can't think well...sorry.
prompt 1.
Yes, listening in this way is indeed a good thing. This quote describes that Vasudeva is an unbiast listener, which is a good thing because he has no prejudice of the thing that is being explained to him and therefore he will pick up the subject in a clearer way. Not many people listen with interest to what others have to say like this, and actually take it in.
Checking in...
It seems like I misinterpreted the prompt the first time...
prompt 1
I think that listening is a very good thing like Vesudeva but in his case it also seems like he only listens and does not say any opinions or advice about it at all in this example. I think that it is good to listen very well but it is also important to give ideas and comprehend what you heard in order to help the other person.
checking in
Here are prompts 1 and 3:
This way of listening is certainly good. The ferryman's listening is, first of all, objective. I mean to say that he listens with no intentions, no hidden will, no fore-consideration, etc. It is not his purpose to impose upon the words he "takes in", rather to accept them, let them hang in the air, exist and, most importantly, come out of the person speaking them. I think it is very important for one to release thoughts pressuring their3 mind, weighing on their thoughts. Even today, we must all do this (as you all well know...). For Siddartha, this is particularly important, as he has just realized a new way of life, a rebirth, and must relate to the Ferryman his importance thereof.
Siddartha and Vasudeva are conversing about the river's many voices and Siddartha asks if Vasudeva knows what the many voices of the river speak when heard simultaneously. There is no direct answer given, but, from the text, one assumes that it is the word om. The word for "perfectness", for eternal breadth and simultaneousness. For joy and peace. This is what we hear when we are able to cancel out all the miscellaneous jibber jabber, and concentrate on a singular whole, be it of time, or a group of people.
listening in this way is good or bad depending on the information. it seems good to start listening like that and then decide or make opinoins about it after. i feel like dong that is really hard so it would benefit most people.
I think that that kind of listening from that passage can be good or bad. In my opinion it is good to listen so that when I talk I say something edifying or helps the person I am talking to. The problem I have with the listening form the passge is that it says that they neither praise nor blame and only listen. That can be an issue because what if someone needs praise or needs to be blamed in order to help them?? I think that by listening I can learn a lot and it also benefits others when they can have soemone to talk to. But on the other hand it is necessary to give advice and to be the one talking. If everyone listened there would be nobpdy to listen to, someone needs to be talking so that others can listen.
it is definatly nessesary to make opinions based on things you have heard.
Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeecking in!
Matthew.
What i think the river is talking about is the embodyment of listening. I like how Turner stated it in his little paprgraph rephrase of what he thought him. Basically the only way to listen is to listen with nothing. Like When I think about it when it omes into my life it could actually work. Lke for inctence me and my friend got in a fight today and if we just listened to eachother with nothing no opinon's, no judgment, no desire, I feel it could have had a much better out come.
So Overall the river thought him to listen with nothing "per say"
1. Sometimes, often in fact listening is more appreciated than speaking. Someone who listens is analyzing the data that they are hearing. If someone is intently listening to another person, or another animal or object they will be able to learn from it better and care for it better than they would've if they had been busy speaking. It is true that speaking is an important step in helping someone. But first you must understand their situation and sympathize with them before you speak. (remember Mr. Gregg's lesson about listening before speaking that we learned through the fishbowl activity). There is also clear evidence in the text that Siddhartha finds Vasudeva's listening helpful:
"Siddhartha felt what happiness it is unburden himself to such a listener, to sink his own life into this listener's heart, his own seeking, his own suffering."
(pg. 92)
Sometimes when someone is deeply troubled with their life they just need someone to listen, to care. They don't need words. Just sympathy.
This is Sofia...
I do feel that listening this way is fantastic. I believe that this is the true way to listen, but it's something most people can't do. One can't help to sometimes interrupt, get impatient or overly excited, etc. It's just human nature. Listening in this way, though ("...silent, open, waiting, missing none, impatient for none, neither praising nor blaming...") makes the speaker really feel like what they're saying has meaning and leads to them feeling a sense of importance. This sometimes also leads to the speaker's excitement as they talk, making whatever they're saying come out really well-that is, very detailed, interesting, and explanatory.
Just checking in...I agree with sofia. Listening with real intent is a difficult task.
CHECKING IN
Prompt #1
I feel as if the way that Vasudeva listens is a very keen way of listening due to the amount of intake he can handle using his technique and how well he can interpret it. Whats interesting about it is that he is completely unbiased about his listening, yet he takes in so much information it would seem difficult not to. Vasudeva's style allows him to get the most amount of information possible ready to be processed and understood but maybe almost to the point where he would only seem useful as a tool. What I mean by that is that by his lack of judgment, he is only useful as someone to talk at rather than talk with. If Siddhartha is using Vasudeva is this way than that technique would fit well, if not it wouldn't seem useful in a conversation rather more an explanation of some sorts.
I completely agree with sopie. Mr Gregg has said something like this before, where you should always listen and interpret, but only bring forth your point if it is truly needed. As sophie said, the speaker will not be interupted this way, and can continue on a same train of thought. Also, while you are listening to the speaker, without putting your own ideas and opinions out in frot of theirs, you hear and learn much more.
Post a Comment