The other day I was working with some young people. They were new arrivals to the job and had no training. They had been given a job to do but had no idea what to do. I am no expert, and have no authority, but I started to fill them in, my fellow workers, on what was involved. But immediately they grasped on some oddity in my words, some mundane matter in what I was saying, and completely lost sight of my attempt to help them. They began assertively discussing this odd point of theirs. Then when some more able person came up and gave them some instructions they were all ears and attentive. The instructions being given about the work assumed a level of understanding that they simply did not have as yet. They still had no idea of the complications and were struggling to do what was required. They applied them selves to the job gradually picking up the basics and stumbling along to figure out rather simple but hidden factors which are clear after some time.

This attitude, the individualism, heroic self-determination, demand for authority, where did it come from? Is it really worthwhile? Doesn't it take time, time in confusion, time in argument, time compromising? Why respond with a stubborn arrogance and completely miss the point? The aggression, assertiveness, is hostile, disrespectful, degrading. What is this reaction? Of course when I am alone, in unknown territory, trying to achieve something, I might act like this. But this was an industrial operation, where there is a complex process, where one follows set steps. We might say we learn from trial and error when learning skills, but that's technical training. Here no technical skills are required. There is nothing to achieve save the good outcome, correct functioning of the operation.

What is the purpose of having such a mind? Am I ever actually, not psychologically, alone, in unknown territory, trying to achieve something independently? Even were there to be such an actual situation and it was isolated to me, why does it take place within the mind, as an attitude, as a conditioned response? What happened to open minded, unassuming awareness of one's immediate environment and the simple dignity of people? We just don't see that we are relating to each other through the mind, through images, and are dependent on the strict outcomes of this habituated interaction, image to image. Not seeing this, we are doomed to competition, conflict, and violence.

Thinking for the first time.

Handling some packages I noticed that a large parcel often felt light and a smaller package which was lighter, felt heavier. Even without the comparison the large parcel felt light. So I was wondering what did I actually do when I "weighed" a parcel, when in fact I got it wrong. What was the mind doing? Thinking about this I figured out that I wasn't actually weighing, which apparently is not a skill we have, and is why we have invented scales. Yet you would think we need such a kind of skill wouldn't we? Anyway to my mind the proof was that we didn't. So what was it, I thought, when I considered I was feeling weight.

Exploring this question further I found what we actually do is detect density. Why we have such a skill and not simply one for weight is strange. I can only guess primitive man was concerned only with the capacity to move rocks, and a record of weights was irrelevant. Usually we assume we measure weight, and say it is heavy or light. But we don't. All we do is measure density, and in the mind, note, in the mind, we automatically make an abstract comparison. And come to a conclusion which in terms of actual weight is erroneous. Strange to us because we assume that the thought processing we do is essentially comprehensively correct and viable, without discretion.

Sharing the contradiction.

Two people are having a conversation. One says that everything is energy. So what you see in the world around you, is in fact all made of the same thing as in your experience of seeing. You seeing is no different to the matter, the objects you see separate to yourself. There is a vast energy field encompassing the viewers perspective, so that there is no inside, outside, just a wholeness of life. This sounds crazy to the other person who normally sees from the perspective of the viewer, and sees other people living separate lives, and interacts with objects differentiated by matter, space, and time.

As far as they are both concerned that broad view is a viewpoint with no relevance. All of their lives is concerned with the interaction between these separate things. Even were they to understand, to momentarily share in this vision, it is not how they live their lives. That observation of the world, as having an essence, without the distortion of mind, is neglected, in favour of what they are accustomed to, even if it is an unnatural collection of ideas, goals and theories which they follow. Ideas, goals and theories which have been invented to fill the void of living a material life. Yet it is within those terms that they propose to improve life, to find love, peace and happiness. The plan to make material life better is a material plan, and it is that contradiction with love, peace and happiness that is the cause of their conversation.

You know in this world there are experts, professionals, and those who have opinions. The world we know is traditionally, academically, commonly, held to be real and the basis of our understanding. It can be seen, quite simply, factually, that we confuse our understanding for the real. I am just putting this as an introduction, not as argument. If you already know this fine. There is the known and that is what we think about. Thought is limited in the mind and has no actual relationship to anything. In fact knowledge is illusionary. So in this way we live illusionary lives. Do you see all the fighting, struggling, suffering, cheating, arguing, greed, hate, anger, and so on, as an ordered world? Isn't it disordered? We make this disorder. Universal order, ultimate reality, what ever it is, has order that we can not make. It has reality we can not touch.