As you might know there has been fighting in the suburbs. Something to do with race, religion, culture. We then think about reconciliation. There is talk about better relationships, understanding and tolerance. We might like to think it couldn't happen here, but you know fighting is not something new. Riots, violence, terrorism, war, all of that is very common throughout the world, and throughout history. We think of ourselves as Christian, Jewish, Muslim, English, Australian, American, and so on. Then we say it is un-American, un-Australian, un-Christian, and we repeat the problem. Normally we think we can approach these issues by talking up the ideals, the virtues, and putting down the negatives as some evil, some stupidity. We don't see that we as people are completely responsible, dividing our thinking into some tool which can be applied as a remedy, ignoring that thought is involved in belief, religion, nationality, culture, theories and ideals. Whether we condone or condemn our actions, saying there is good and bad, there is the one and the same passionate human being.

I have a passion for work, sport, a hobby, as much as I do for a cause, a belief, a religion. Is there a good passion and a bad passion; A well intentioned passion, and a misguided passion? What happens in passion that one passion leads to life and another passion leads to violence? To understand the different outcome and the possibility of mistake, we need to understand passion itself. The word is from Latin, pati, to suffer. The same pati, as in patience. In the dictionary it is any strong emotion, as hate, grief, love, enthusiasm. This implies the external, the outer experience affecting the inner person, who is moved to respond, actively or passively. In this divided arrangement, between life and living, there is one self, considering, controlling, being patient. The passion is applied according to patient understanding. An application revered as appropriate, civilised, lawful, good, even intelligent, behaviour. The convention is to be patient, passive, so as to control passion.

What we may think is passion is actually control. A determined and methodical pursuit to acquire skill, develop ability, apply technique, express oneself, fight for justice, and so on. For some reason we have taken a path of control, and we use the word passion to express a devotion, a zeal for what we control. We live in control, and this can not be passionate. With control there is a struggle, conflict. That's not to suggest a lack of control is passion. Where there could be a thirst for life, we are limited by our own conventionality. We are actually thinking of some other order, another set of controls to our liking, and what we might think is the throwing off of controls, produces a conflict. The energetic, violent outbursts, protests, which are a reaction to control, also show the nature of control. Far from the patience to observe suffering, to actually, fully live the emotion that is love, hate, fear, enthusiasm, we seek to protect one self. It is in control that there is a division, the objectified, which is the controlled, and must conform to the conditions set by its control. Only by this duality, do we sense control, order, peace.

Actually living fully, the self-experience of feelings attached to one self is an illusion. Whatever we call the feeling, love, hate, peace, anger, fully moving in awareness with no division, these emotions are consumed in their own petty experience. When there is nothing left, no sufferer, no being patient, active or passive, when there is no controller and no controlled, then we are living passionately.

Does it matter who says it?

When I say you, I don't mean you personally. Now the listener/reader is puzzled by such a statement only when they aren't with this. I can explain that listening/reading is only personal when you put the self there. You don't do it when you are reading a novel, watching TV, sitting on the beach, walking in the forest. Something personal is to do with you as different, compared to me, the other. I can explain all that, and true, there is the speaker, the writer, but I am not invoking the person. It is not you or me, and it is the interference, imposition of that which limits the awareness. But I don't want to get bogged down in explanations. The other thing which needs to be made clear, is that the word is not the thing.

There is the word communicate, which we can examine and understand, like in the dictionary, to make known, giving or exchanging information, from Latin for common. We can talk about that as a matter of interest. But the word tree is not the tree. My, or your understanding of the word, what it means for you or me, is not material. What becomes an issue is that words are in the mind and that rearranging, modifying, words in the mind, and using them to find meaning, correctness, truth, is not where Life, Truth, Reality, lie. But I only digress for a moment of explanation, not to argue or assert my view.

The limits of thought.

When people are talking together there are images about who they are, where they live, their gender, occupation, and so on. It's these images that set the direction, tone of the conversation. It is a response of image to image. When I am in a social situation having polite conversation , or in a meeting of some kind, presenting my point of view, there is a purpose in maintaining such a stance. This approach to talking together is what I question. Talking together in a conversational, inter-personal manner, serious or not, is nothing more than an exchange of ideas. We might experience some result from these meetings , or feel that a development has been made, but that is all about progress. As some one dis-advantaged, dis-enfranchised, disappointed, this is what I want to achieve. Adjustment to my physical, environmental, social, political, economic situation, is the standard operation, the ongoing activity, that we are already dealing with and with which some gain, some lose.

While we might agree there is some thing to fix, we do not see any cause. The assumption is that corruption, deception, violence is inevitable. The underlying cause of this situation is left unattended. The internalised thought process of the mind, my conditioning, which I bring to the moment, and is affecting the outcome, is ignored. I see myself in an immediate setting, whether it is a place of work, a social or leisure activity, and it is this setting which dominates me. My mind internally accepts or rejects the setting according to my internal images, memory. Positive or negative, words, ideas, plans, are held in obedience to the boundaries of the dominant setting, and my own conditioning.

This comparative thought process occupies the mind satisfying the conflict between the inner and the outer demands. This is a complete distraction from the actuality of the situation. Rather than a simple application to some activity, work, sport, the inner self is driven by its own interpretation of reality, which is false. I might talk about respect, responsibility, care, but it is not actually taking place between people, because my mind is involved in images. What I apply to my day to day life are these images, completely insensitive to life.

We are talking about the thinking brain. In this case, in the popular sense, brain means mind. Maybe deluded, maybe not. I don't know. We have the expression -"keep an open mind"- do you know it? The brain is open to new ideas, images, experiences and so on. Really open, in the sense what the mind sees, feels, hears, experiences, thinks, is filling the brain. That brain says I have an open mind. I am listening, watching, living. It may be only a partial experience but that is the limit of my brain. There is a communing with nature, people, life as I know it. So my question is, is this not a process? Is not this flow of thought, ideas, images, the process of consciousness? What I believe to be an open, interested, mind, is in fact a process which completely occupies the brain. This tells me there is an image of realisation, which is in the brain, which it is wanting to be detached from. Wanting detachment, because it sees process occupies the brain fully. If nothing else, this tells me this is false. That is there is an image, and the image making is a process, making the image false. Whether a mind obsessed, or open, the brain is processing.