In most discussions there is the general and the particular. The abstract and the actual. Is it required that the speaker is continually qualifying the discussion to make it clear when which is what? We sit and listen, interrupting or not, following or not, clear or confused. The speaker is attributed with authority or not, and within the audience there are the those who are attentive or not. Whose responsibility is all of this? is discussion an essential life factor? Is your place in life dependent on communication, on others? Is your understanding a mental, verbal, sensate requirement? When I place a demand on my situation there is no awareness. This demand can be active or passive. When there is attention, not the focus of attention, concentration, but the open awareness of observing the whole immediacy of your interest, there is the effect of a clear intelligence. Is this sustained, permanent or, does it wax and wane? Shifting according to circumstances. It is there for me as the observer with my interest, and I am not saying it is special effect, but there of course needs to be me there when we think of the particular, and I don't need to be there when I am speaking generally.

When am I speaking immediately, and not reporting, which includes time, memory? Does this make a difference to you? A speaker uses language which is built over time, with the past, memory, and the future, speculation. Is there speaking immediately which is without time, memory? is there a listening, talking together, which shares the immediacy of intelligence? What is the point of it? The clear glow of intelligence that is there in relation to my interest, my attention, is not dependent on words, ideas. It is not expressed by me, it is there without input or development. There is me being attentive, listening, watching, yes, but the clear glow of intelligence is not an ability, a capacity. Is this of interest to anyone? What is the importance of intelligence different to what we normally consider thinking, logic, reason, knowledge? Does intelligence, untouched by thought, speak?

Life, civilised or barbaric?

Talking about life are we different to life? What do you answer? No, of course not. You say life is what we live. But what do you talk about? We talk about what is on the mind, about families, work, business, sport, art and so on. Are they you? Or are they experiences, ideas, images, feelings, thoughts, about everything. So do we live life or do we live thought? And are these thoughts the true situation or just our interpretation? Do we really see clearly? We can think we are free of bias, habit, propaganda, theory, conditioning. It is you who is thinking and thought, knowledge, is the conditioning.

The thought process is operating within the confines of the mind, as you see the world, and then as with your interaction, your response. I say I am English, Australian, Fijian, Tahitian, Aboriginal, Japanese, American, German, French, Christian, Islamic, Hindu, Shinto, and all of that. All the differences, country, language, customs, cultures, civilisation, are there well enough, but we carry them in our minds, memory, and in educational, racial, corporate and national identities. So when I meet someone do I really meet them, or do I meet all these differences of the mind? And when someone says something and I am offended, what is hurt? Is it you who is hurt or is it that conditioned self? When I believe it is really me that is hurt, aren't I perpetuating, consolidating, that sense of a separate, divided self, one that is racial, religious, nationalistic?

When there is an insult to my culture, my civilisation, and my pride suffers, my self-esteem is demeaned, what are you going to do? Are you going to look at the fact of the mind, where there is this idea of self, or are you going to fearfully argue and threaten? I don't eat meat, and someone asks me are you a vegetarian? You know, you can only eat meat when an animal is killed. Is there anything wrong with killing animals? Look at the thousands of years of mans history and the accumulation of knowledge, it is that mind we are applying in our search for understanding. How can that mind, which is a product of the past, answer the question, is it civilised or barbaric to kill animals for food? All I can do is consider I am able to live healthily well enough with out killing animals, and live this without dogma.

Intelligence is independent.

When people come together to talk do they make an effort to drop all their preconceptions, to quiet the mind, to have no expectations, and together as friends, carefully, sensitively, talk about some common interest, concern. That means not being judgmental, not jumping to conclusions, not hearing only the superficial words. It means listening within oneself, as if there is no special emphasis on who says what or why, but listening to the dialogue within for its meaning to the listener alone, who is interested in learning. We do this naturally when we are curious, inquiring, interested. More often though we aren't so sensitive, jump from one idea to the other, making superficial comparisons, asides, and taking exception, even offence at some word.

Is there any chance of understanding in this situation? We don't listen, not seriously listen, we just apply our minds to the thoughts, ideas, concepts, theories, we hear and, as what we consider to be an intelligent person, respond, reply, agree, disagree and so on. This is the normal meeting, talk, we have. We build on our knowledge. In the world there are multitudes of people, who we say are individuals, I, you, me, a self. Ourselves, the word, is the collective first person plural. Apart from the physical corporeality of each human being, the notion of I, self, is some thought in the mind. It is an inference made by that being about itself in the world, which is supported by language, customs, generally by the conventions and belief systems of the society, etc. But I am questioning that. Is the self, really a sound base, or is it a result of an inability to live intelligently in the world?

A duality in the deeper, inner sense, is the observer and the observed. It doesn't surprise me that we have ambiguity. This seems consistent with duality. That means to me that while I can have an experience of what is, it is experienced in terms of the observer, who sees the observed separate. That includes my deep inner experiences, awareness of the mind, listening, watching and so on. Now with this ambiguity, we ask, therefore, what actually is? It seems obvious then, that this is the continuing dialogue, the duality, and is not actual. That is it is not what is. Now I am not implying there is a sublime state of pure undivided consciousness. I am just working through the negation, and so what is, is not the result of me.