I stayed for a few days at a lovely hostel in the countryside. There were many tall gum trees, palms, birds and wallabies. A pleasant and interesting place. On the return trip I began to encounter the day to day world again. People were bothered by the little things, getting on buses, getting out money to pay the fare, struggling with pushers, bags of groceries, the driver impatient for everything to be quick and efficient. People troubled, annoyed, unhappy, glum looks on their faces. There was an anxiety, a haste, a lack of love, lack of care. The city was busy, chaotic, and a little frightening. People rushing by, taking chances with traffic, and only intent on the goal. Why, when we sit down to talk do we not see that and pretend to be content?

At the hotel in the city the receptionist was almost surly, bored, unpleasant. Another customer came up and waited. The receptionist, in the middle of taking my booking, said to the other customer, in abrupt tones, "You'll have to wait. I am serving this man who came before you. Fill out this form...." Then continued with my booking. We could have been in one of those imaginary communist countries where service was reduced to a common incivility. Later I was again at reception, waiting because they were busy. A group of young people came up after me, and then when asked whose next, stepped forward ahead of me. We happen then to get into the lift together and they were talking amongst themselves complaining about the rudeness of reception, not recognising their own mistake just a moment before.

On the plane flight home, I had the middle seat. Whenever I have had either the window seat or the aisle seat, I always made it a point of not using the the inner arm rests. But now both of the other passengers laid claim to my arm rests. I mean by their behaviour of resting their arms on the arm rests, since no words were exchanged during the trip. So I graciously obliged and held my arms in, avoiding the arm rests. Their willfulness was noticeable, as if the fact that I might have had some claim to the arm rest charged them with a greater need to control it. We sat in this competition to each other for the whole trip. Of course one can say excuse me, or give a little nudge and so on.

When I grew up there was a class system where some people assumed superiority and privilege. I wonder what we call it now? Of course we we can defer to a friendliness, but it arises from people separated in power, and where initially, subtlety, the superiority is first contested. Like when we react to words, without listening and appreciating their context, the whole understanding, only sparing and bantering with the writer/speaker in competition. When we meet people do we have sensitivity in our meeting or is it the false meeting of separated people? Separate by all things, ideas, fashion, custom, belief, wealth, and so on. We may be able to talk politely, or rudely, but is there sensitivity? What do we do in relationship? We talk, think, observe, and so on. Do we watch, listen, with sensitivity?

A meeting usually means it is a beginning of getting to know someone, something. We expect to become better acquainted. This is the progressive development of impressions, knowledge, experience, memories, which we retain and remember as the meeting. This is all the mental and sensual aspects of that meeting. So the people , separated by their thoughts, memories, separated by their insensitivity, gradually reconnect with all their sensual and mental faculties, giving each other some interaction, some regard, for this interpersonal response, comparison. So there is no actual meeting. It is the interplay of all that accumulated stuff, conditioned thinking, an exchange of opinions, ideas, attitudes, beliefs, prejudices, and so on.

To go back to the beginning, is sensitivity in the ideas, in the attitudes, in the habits, in the thinking? Can sensitivity be assumed to be derived from, a part of, conversation, discussion, thinking, and be developed by that exchange? Or is sensitivity something we have to take care to observe, primarily, differently to thinking and talking and being our usual selves? I don't mean to exclude such activities, but do we need to attend to sensitivity in a preparatory sense? What preparation does not interfere with the meeting? If I am doing some activity, asking for some participation, thinking something will help the meeting, then I am not meeting.

Sensitivity may mean to some a kindness, goodness, calmness, quietness, and so on. These are really our ideas and beliefs. It can also mean a sensitivity to what ever there is, without the interpreter, the evaluator, nor the conditioned response. Sensitivity to what is may mean there is a disturbance, a prejudice, an agitation, a discomfort, and so on. It is what ever there is and there is no knowing what it is, categorically. In the actuality of sensitivity, the action we call sensitivity, there is no definition, no meaning, no respondence, and so my discussion here is to be taken just as the writer inquiring, because there can't be an intermediaries role. The meeting is naturally brought about by seeing what is. It is not the experience of the inner and the outer, you and other, but a whole undivided experience. It is a first awareness, leading nowhere, beginning nothing.

Don't assume, see it for yourself. Why is thought, ideas, theories, beliefs constantly occupying the mind? Why do we need to argue what is the correct view of the world? Arguing means we don't really know but will fight rather than look directly. Why does this happen? Afterwards we try to appease each other and will talk of the validity of different views. What is it that makes the mind so intent on holding thought to be a reality. Yet you know it is only the mind occupied in thought. You know there is nothing immediately in the world related to things you are talking about. You are only thinking. Now standing in the world, like any one else, thinking or not, is there really a world or is it thought?