I don't have a career in answering peoples questions about philosophy, religion and so on. In fact hardly anyone asks me a serious question. Yet because I have this serious minded nature, I would tend to take people on this journey. Gradually I am heard to express insights, philosophies and wisdoms. It has always been natural to me. Most of the time, being an average person, I have had to modify my language to the ordinary circumstances I am usually in. Only in general conversation with acquaintances will I occasionally express some deeper thinking. Since having read what others have had to say, I am more confident of the process. So it is possible to allow the more revealing examination of the thinking. In my own thinking I can more readily resolve some confusion. This is not without some technique, as the thinking is itself problematic.

Most people are not anticipating that there is a revolutionary change to their mind. Yet I have always thought how amazing has been the change in my thinking which, without dogma, could be explored in a dialogue shared together with other people. On the other hand when I have looked at the comments people often make, there is evident a continuing lack of understanding. Each of the respondents comments are a continuation in confusion. One speaks directly in regard to the thinking. It is without commentary. Except when obviously making commentary. I do not speak to receive agreement, or even confirmation. It is like a craft, or sport. You are making something and as each step progresses, the object develops and increases, until it is finished. The involvement is just in a growing activity. This involvement ceases with the end of the action. The thing has been made. Yet for the vast world audience in search of understanding of this kind, the relationship and the dynamic is not realised. Seeking an audience, a group, or a role is not the relationship or the dynamic. It is just a fact that there is a speaker and a listener who could equally participate in the dialogue. Although there are many issues which might arise, such as cultural and social norms, that either participant might be at pains to eliminate from the meeting. An important fact to remember, is that these are meetings between people in regard to topics such as religion, seeking enlightenment and so on. Though not essential to the meeting, it is still the origin of the relationship.



I worry that there is no thinking to end the problems. To do something about these matters, what's my job? Is it to propagate some ideal factors as the necessary conditions for change? Well if that's what you can do then fine. Is it to participate in discussion about what was said, quoted or reported ? Well if the respondents are seeking to find the shared misconception of their own conversation, it might help. Is it to fulfil a role or position. Well if you did, you would spend most of the time trying to appease other people. So what do you do? Well it might mean achieving your goal and being indifferent to the externalities. Or it might be an active presence in the empty meaninglessness of life.

For me the problem has been to fill a role as I see it in the world. This role could be anything. I have no idea what. There are many roles, as well as non-roles. At the same time there are the ordinary conditions of an ordinary life. The role less. The role that became apparent to me was of learning about the mind, and my thinking, but without making this an obsession, or a preoccupation. It was a matter of fact. It needed no cultivation, and the nature of it was delusive. This is a very different type of role. It does not have any way of accommodation in the ordinary world. Yet it is essential that it is in that same world, without separation. Even a journey of inconsequence can be a role.

Seeing and the seen are not different.

When I look at something I say I am seeing. There is the language, the style of talking, we can call this communication, but this implies the two positions of a speaker and an addressee. So now we are no longer looking at what I am seeing but talking together. Then I try to use words to redirect the looking to what I was seeing. But this will always fail. We have conditions, issues, psychology and so on. In any case what I see is not of interest to others, and why did I think it was? Perhaps it is something amazing, beautiful, but you have to just see it for yourself, and it is there for the seeing without my direction, advice.

You'd think it would be easy to say look at that and share it, but it is very rare. But we can examine what is seeing. Seeing something there is the mechanics of seeing, and there is the thing seen. In the process of seeing there is much to consider, and perhaps it is interesting. But putting that aside for the moment can we say what we see is a seeing? That is the thing, it might be anything, has an aspect that is just what it is. We can analyse it and say it is this and that, but in the moment, there is just the seeing. Usually the word seeing means you looking at something, there is the distance, the movement, between the two points, you and it, and then there is acknowledgment, all in an instance. In the mind there is a brief moment when the seeing is just that, with nothing affecting, nothing more -Without the process, putting in the distance, the movement, and then me.

I say brief moment, but it doesn't have to be. The more we notice it, this process, the more we see. Not a different kind of seeing, not a changed seeing, because all that still implies the see-er. The seeing, and the seen, are not separated. There is only seeing. Perhaps it is something I am interested in and have been exploring for a long time. I don't know how it is done but it happens. I can say you should look into it for yourself, but I am not suggesting apply oneself to some activity to achieve a result. It comes in contemplation.

Today I was sitting and watching in my room. The breeze was gently moving the curtains back and forth. I had a lot on my mind, but I could see the beauty and peacefulness in the gentle swaying of the curtain, as it moved in the breeze. I wondered why did I think that's how I want to live, free and spontaneous. What was so attractive about the imagined freedom I might have? I thought about a mind totally open to the world, receptive, inclusive, alive. These are questions coming to me while I sat. It's true, I am thinking of freedom, and I am thinking of my condition, and I wondered why? What was it that made the mind do this?