Don't you understand that there is an "I" which is self, ego, which we discuss, and which I look at wholeheartedly, while there is I, which is the speaker/writer? Why is this same point made over and over again? Is it meant to clarify some point, so that we can together move along in the dialogue? So look at that question. What does the question mean? Why, in a human society, would someone put the case that there is a human being that speaks/writes and that this is reason not to consider what is said/written. That is you only consider truth to be that which others speak, rightly or wrongly. Whereas I am putting the case that truth is not dependent on I, you or me. I don't speak/write to be right, nor to gain approval, recognition. In a dialogue, where there is an understanding of what is happening, where you and I share the listening, the careful attention, and there is truth, then it is not claims, arguments, agreement at work.

Perhaps we should really not be concerned with truth at all, since it is nothing that I could approach, except falsely. By negation there is truth, but it is not truth as we commonly think. The dialogue needs to be clear about the language. We talk about complex things, referring by word to such things, but this is not one person saying this is my point of view, my position, my ideas, my belief, except perhaps in passing. In dialogue there is the flow of thought which we are exploring together. It is utterly retrograde to think of what arises in dialogue as any one particular persons statement, because it is self, actually, that is being explored. Now if self is divided, if that is a fact, then that is the fact we must urgently see.

Mind spin.

In this region there is a community TV station on which a man airs a Meditation program. He gives talks which are intended to loosen up the idea of mind, and to debunk any preconceptions we hold to be true. For example, referring to scientific material, he points out that the brain is not the center of memory, intelligence, knowledge. He talks about this confusion about identity, self, brain and mind. By implication, we are drawn into asking the question what really is the source of memory, intelligence and knowledge. We are curious to understand, if it is not this, or that, then what is it. That process of questioning and inquiry is interesting, but what I notice is that faced with doubt, contention, ambiguity, that we still revert to some different explanation, some new theory. He says the true mind is a subtle psychic body. This is of course akin to religion, or at least hypothesis, speculation.

We see facts and describe them. Then the description, because it is artificial, and inadequate to the actuality of the fact, depends on our belief, and our support. We live according to these ideas. Through the ages the descriptions have become complex, technical, philosophical, cultural. The reality is no longer there. We deal with all of this through the mind, mechanically. So when we question, doubt, enquire, refute, then the mind faces impermanence, insubstantiality, and fearfully prefers some thing to nothing. Lets take this a bit further. Look at this directly and immediately. We are talking with someone and they remove an assumption we think is fundamental to our existence. Then we introduce an alternative idea which we then see as merely ideas and obviously binding to thought. What do we intelligently do then? Look at this. Don't see this as a development in thought, but actually see the predicament.

What is mind? We say it is not an organ in the body, and we say it is not an article of faith, belief, and so on, nor is it a construction in thought, and it is not some mysterious, outer experience, source or energy. Then what do you see, immediately? What we call memory is the actual, constant, repetitious seeing, sensing. What we sense, and sense is absent, is instantaneously formulated in thought. What we call intelligence is the choices we are making habitually. Living is our environment. The mind is involved in its own organic, molecular, observation and awareness, operating at the speed of light. It functions according to our condition, biological, mental, social, historical, traditional, and so on. Any decision, choice, rearrangement, rethink, transformation, is limited to our condition. Watch this very carefully.

The sensate mind.

Is any one really thinking? We give responses, discuss, but is that thinking? We grab a word, an idea and then argue, correct, patronise. Is that thinking? Actually the idea of thinking brings mixed responses. Thinking is to be deplored as a conditioned mental, psychological, machinery? Thinking is a creative tool? Thinking is sacrosanct? When I read a comment I see my thoughts immediately start addressing the question raised. I think, and I am going down the path of replying to the matter raised. That is, thought is responding mechanically. Just how we have been taught at school. It's only because I also see that my thoughts are being prompted by thought that I hesitate. But this is an action completely antithetical. In ordinary terms, normal thinking, I am expected to respond according to the point raised and to stick to that, answer the question. In fact I usually am compelled to agree or disagree. I don't know why.

I feel very cautious about that kind of response, and start thinking about it in a broader perspective. Perhaps it is a learned response because I was a bad scholar and never knew the answers. Often I am berated for being like that. People often say, you are avoiding the question; that's not the point; not doing what is required; or some accusation like that. So thinking is quite a hot topic between friends, family and in general, socially, politically. At school, work, sport, people speak within the norms to set order, authority. An opinion, a viewpoint is considered meritorious. The aggression, competitiveness, is considered normal. Self-reflection is seen as wasteful, unnecessary. Listening is also mechanical. An exchange of information. My mind automatically hears and responds. When I respond in words I am using knowledge. I say what I know. I can put it helpfully, thoughtfully, educationally, but it is limited in thought. The only activity here is in the interchange of ignorance and knowledge. There is no creativity. Listening as a matter of respect, of relationship, is rare. Listening and sharing in the reality of the words, can be done occasionally. This is an emotional, sensual response.

When we look at a few words we are bound to misunderstand what is being said. We use words in the ordinary way without caring about their precise meaning because we think there is a common understanding. In dialogue, with a shared interest, this practice can be looked at. I don't mean we examine the words just to argue, but see how their normal use is a distortion. The practice of looking at the standard use of words is an inquiry, not a statement. The exposèèè&& is intended to show what is, the fact of distortion, so that it is no longer a confusion. When we select these examples which are a reflection of our standard misunderstanding of life, do we again look at the confusion, to end it. What we are so tempted to do is discuss credibility. You should be concerned about credibility. We can discuss belief but it is the belief you have as part of yourself, as part of the self. Putting words on a platter, rewriting, reviewing, debating, arguing, is food for thought. The actual dialogue you are having in earnest, the mind is seeing itself now, without looking through the words. Is it impossible? You only say that when you want to hold your own views. There are many times when you are listening and share in the thinking and realise for yourself what the thinking is saying. This is shared and you don't look at the speaker or your self as imposing. When there is this right thinking, the wrong thinking is obvious and has no place.