Sitting outside in my backyard garden, listening to the birds, enjoying the play of light and shadow, I feel touched by the light, the sounds, the gentle breezes and the other sensations of a restful quiet. The sky is blue and wisps of cloud float by. The trees and shrubbery sway to and fro, and when I look at a bush sometimes I can see a moment of stillness when a leaf is poised to be moved by some invisible force. Before I wonder are the leaves moving or is it the wind blowing and decide one way or the other, there are no divisions, only a joyful, lively, wholeness.

Looking at the clouds in the sky, the shapes begin to look familiar. I think I see a shape which represents, becomes, a symbol of something I know more real. It is obvious the clouds aren't actually the real thing, and so the mind has a dual perception of things real and symbolic. Perhaps it is the same when looking at the stars at night and seeing patterns, figures. The symbolic impression of something real, like an animal, is readily comprehensible, without having named it, before words. It is just a correspondence in images.

The mind tells us of a danger, of the terrain, of what to eat, so there is the function of telling us of a matching shape. This observation of a difference in the state of seeing, of the actual and then symbolic imagery, is also the experience of mind, of an inner and outer state of being. Then the symbolic imagery, operating separately in the mind, is thought. It is when we are operating primarily from memory, and relating to each other only symbolically, as we do in human affairs, that there are problems.

Is it ever quiet?

Sitting under the trees, in the shade, watching and listening, there is the rustle of the leaves, the twittering of the birds, and all the movement of the dappled light amidst the shrubbery. There is also memory. Past remembrances playing on the mind. This inner disturbance is uncontrollable. Is it possible to be free of this? Free in the sense of being quiet without some other distraction. Can I sit in the garden and observe quietly? The observing not as some entertainment, and without the chattering mind? As I sit I wonder, and my thoughts are obviously a noise interfering in my quiet. This inner noise a complexity of my consciousness, that sits and wonders. What is the quiet I am thinking about? It's a quiet without thought. What would change now to be like that? Of course if there were no thoughts, no memory; is that possible?

This thinking is going on in the mind. And from there I am looking outwardly. Sitting there observing, I wonder what it is to observe quiet, silence? Observe in the way a discoverer means, when you see something for the first time, when the seeing is not affected by the observer. Not a quiet, silence, in the mind, but the seeing where there is no inner disturbance, no conflict of inner/outer. Where the seeing is living, an actuality of observing, with no sense of division. To see the rustle of the leaves, the changing light, all moving naturally, wondrously, untouched by me. To see like that, now, is the quiet to be revealed beyond my involvement, not something I have found. My experience is just some limited complexity of thought, memory. Now it is the quiet mind observing and there is no thought, no memory.

I am me and you.

On a very hot day have you had the feeling it is hot. You feel hot, you feel the dryness on the skin, the air temperature, the intensity of the sun's rays, but you are not concerned about it. You don't hate or enjoy it, you are just aware of it. Compare this to someone who says, it's too hot! I feel terrible. I wish there was air conditioning.

The point is, one is embroiled in the climate, the other in thought. Yet in our common circumstances, it is our thoughts about the situation which we convey to one another as complaint or pleasure. And it is the interest between each other in this, which we see as a good measure of our relationship. We are then satisfied or dissatisfied with life. When no one shows interest in our latent experience, in me, there is sense of failure, of lack of purpose. Yet these aspects are all arising in thought, from the self, extending in comparison, expanding in speculation, and so on. That is, not me.

Is it too much of a step to see that it is an illusionary me. An understanding of self expressed in the content of self, thought. There simply is no thing "me". Thought as an idea, an image relates to some thing, some reality, outside, and introspectively mimics duality, the me/not-me. This inner complexity of thought impounds on this illusion to give it false definition.

Is spirituality, religiosity, what we are looking for? I think not. There is nothing there for me. When we want to enhance our circumstances, not-me is in contest with me. Divided, there is no common focus, no ground to inhabit. "Me" has no where to be but in thought. It can't exist in actuality. We might project some feelings, some affection, some desire, but the self can't be revealed, in fear of disillusion, loss, death. And that is conflict. This is all in the mind.

All this we talk about to see what is false. Then there is nothing. Under this superficiality there is an abiding energy, love, that emanates into your being. This is not a reconstruction in terms of "love" that we might desire, hope or wish for. It is a basic life force, not affording any identity, personality, speciality, and so on.

Can we approach this without arguing. Or is arguing inevitable, with each protagonist putting their case. The banker, the doctor, the engineer, the chemist, the ecologist, the lawyer, and so on. Is there virtue in human action? The good banker, the good ecologist, doing a good job. What then is the cause of violence, destruction, corruption? Is it just the bad, or is all human action violent and destructive? This is the question. We separate ourselves out of human action, then put the case for good and bad. We stand outside of responsibility and make false choices. Compartmentalising the world and acting within those parameters is folly. It is just the continuing destruction.