See, if I ask you, reading is powerful — sorry — when you get a new idea or a new thought, or whatever your thinking pattern is, which evolves out of your thinking or by your intuition, which method do you mostly prefer to express it outward in a communicable way? To speak to people, or through your presence, or through writing? That’s my question.
When a new idea or insight arises, especially one born out of deep thinking or intuition, the first preference is not speaking and not writing. The first preference is presence. Because before anything becomes communicable, it must stabilize. If we rush to speak, the idea leaks. If we rush to write, the idea crystallizes too early.
Presence means letting the thought sit inside, allowing it to reshape perception, not just words, and observing how it changes the way we see, respond, and remain silent. When an insight is true, it automatically alters presence. People may not understand what you realized, but they feel that something has shifted. This is the most powerful and least noisy form of communication. But presence alone is not sufficient for the outer world.
Writing as Distillation of Thought
Writing comes next. If the intention is to transfer clarity — not emotion, not persuasion, but understanding — then writing becomes the strongest medium. Writing slows thought down. Intuition gets filtered through structure. Vague insight becomes precise without dilution. Writing allows the idea to stand independent of the person. The reader meets the thought directly, without being influenced by tone, charisma, or timing. For deep ideas, writing is distillation. Speech is flow; writing is essence.
Speaking comes last. Speaking is powerful, but situational. It depends on the listener’s readiness, the environment, and emotional alignment. Speech is best when the idea is already mature, when resistance is expected, or when energy transfer matters more than precision. Speaking is not ideal for newborn insights. It is ideal for ripened realizations.
So if we summarize: insight arises and presence absorbs it; clarity demands expression and writing shapes it; transmission needs impact and speech delivers it. Reading is powerful, yes — but writing is the real bridge between inner intuition and collective understanding. Presence transforms silently. Writing transforms steadily. Speech transforms momentarily.
Listener, Reader, and the Depth of Penetration
There are many perceptions. One perception says that when presence is there, it is mystical but only partially experiential to others. For those who are deeply attached, a subtle trigger happens in the mind — very subtle, yet sure and penetrative. But it remains unidentified and unrecognized at the physical level. So there is always a chance of forgetting the impact for the listener or observer.
In the second case, when someone is speaking, the thoughts or intuition flow through a channelized, organized continuity. If the thought is organically evolved, internal clarity naturally aligns everything without any editing. When the same clarity comes onto the pen, the mouth closes. There are no words to speak. All words become distilled into focus. A technical deepening happens, and the output becomes more refined. If a listener has the retention capacity to read, then reading becomes the best method.
Now, looking holistically from the perspective of a third observer — who is not related to the discussion — what is actually happening? Two people are communicating in one of the three ways. The third observer is neutral, without perception, so his observation is pure. In every discussion, one is the doer and one is the receiver. We should not fully trust either. That is why observation and evidence are valued.
Presence Beyond Methods
In the first case, presence itself is powerful and subtle. There are no words. If the listener is a true seeker, many things can be grasped through presence alone. Many signals emerge silently. Learning happens without instruction. For such seekers, there is no need for verbal speech, techniques, or classes. But this case is rare.
From the listener’s point of view, verbal communication is easy because the speaker is present, sounds are familiar, and questions can be asked. But the limitation is shallow penetration. The mind is distractible and dependent. Even if understanding happens, rooting remains weak.
When reading, there is no sound, no speaker, and no external support. Visualization becomes compulsory. Repetition strengthens clarity and stability. Even partial visualization plants the seed. Later, verbal explanation has greater impact because the soil is already prepared. Readers can imagine more than listeners. Listening gives experience; reading builds internal structure.
Effortless Observation — The Subtlest Method
Now, from my perspective, if you ask me which is the best way, I simply suggest the subtlest observation toward anything, effortlessly, with zero expectations. That alone creates awareness and reaches the pinnacle of concentration. This is my personal choice.
You can experiment with this. Sit in your room. Randomly select any object — a cupboard, a book, a dustbin. Just look at it for 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes, 1 hour, even longer — without adding any perception. Effortlessly observe.
Or, when you visit a real saint, just observe him. Some subtle facts may reveal themselves.
The point is not what you perceive from the object or the person. What actually changes is your mind. The psyche is hyperactive and does not want to stay with one object for a long time. You are not suppressing it, not forcing it — just not giving it another target.
Initially, inertia remains. The mind moves here and there. Slowly, when it finds no outlet for its hyperactivity, it withdraws and becomes single-focused. Even that object is external, so eventually attention withdraws from it too — and starts observing itself.
This is the secret.
Effortless observation over long durations expands the inner space within you — and that space is not separate from the universe. That, in my opinion, is the greatest.
This does not mean reading or listening is wrong at early stages. They are valid at their levels. Asking which method is best or worst makes no sense. The method depends entirely on your state.
If your mind is physical, you will be a listener. If it can accept subtlety, you become a reader. If it is already evolved with strong observational quality, presence alone is enough. At that stage, everything — living or non-living — becomes your faculty. Not for an inward journey, but for a journey into realism itself.
Continue exploring:
The content presented on this blog represents my personal opinions and experiences. It is based on my listening to the inward sound (Omkaranadam), my personal vision, and my forward intuition. While the ideas shared are deeply meaningful to me, they are not random statements, nor should they be interpreted as verdicts, prescriptions, or advice for anyone.
This content is meant purely for personal reflection, discussion, or exploration of philosophical and spiritual ideas. Readers may choose to engage with it as a discussion about consciousness, God, or spiritual exploration, or simply as a creative and thought-provoking experience.
I do not claim any authority, and no part of this content is intended to insult, offend, or challenge any religion, belief, or individual. It is a humble sharing of my journey and insights with the wider universe of readers and seekers.
Related external exploration:
For a grounded, real-world perspective on experimentation without structure or resources, you may explore this experience-based piece:
Zero-Budget Experiments in Rishikesh