The Magic in the Middle

I've been deeply inspired by two blogs recently - Helen's Why the next Buddha will be a collective and Mushin's We are the next Buddha.

If you read my profile page, you will know that one of my favourite quotes is one of Thich Nhat Hanh's:
(I first saw it on Siona's blog for all of my teachers.)

Anyway, about the same time Helen and Mushin's blogs came out, I was musing about David Bohm. My partner, also called David, was doing some research on quantum physics,  I glanced across at his screen: a website about  Bohmian wave mechanics. I did a bit of reading, dawdled off to wiki's page on him, and came across something I found very exciting:

Bohm Dialogue. Now, this may be old hat to you, but it wasn't to me. My experience of Bohm is from watching videos of him and Jiddu Krishnamurti when I was on retreat at the Krishnamurti Centre in Brockwood Park, near Winchester in England. This was in 1988. I loved the dialogues, and found David Bohm warm hearted, delightful, funny and, of course, very bright - in more ways than one. He and Krishnamurti were wonderful together, exploring the world of science and spirituality and many other things. Watching them was more than just watching  'talking heads', it was, for me, a felt experience of relating - as if something 'more' happened while they were together.



I digress. So, there I am, multi-tasking - 34 tabs open in Firefox...I'm reading Helen's blog, and then Mushin's blog, and of course I wander down to the comments and lo and behold dear Balder is talking about Bohmian and Krishnamurtian dialogue. This a matter of minutes after I'd been reading all about this Bohmian Dialogue. It's all getting far too synchronous...


Mushin has taken a step further in his blog The We of Us - A Trialogue :

 "We are going to speak about We, at least that is my plan… It would be very nice if for the time of this conference we would come from the We-space, out of a we-fullness. So that as we are talking about the We, we're not just talking about it but talking as much as it is possible from it."

It's fantastic stuff.

But I want to get back to Bohmian Dialogue - just for a moment, and for those of us who do not know what it is. If you don't, read what I quote below (from wiki), and then go and read Helen and Mushin's blogs.

Bohm Dialogue or Bohmian Dialogue is a form of free association conducted in groups, with no predefined purpose in mind besides mutual understanding and exploration of human thought. It aims to allow participants to examine their preconceptions, prejudices and patterns of thought. Bohm Dialogue was developed by David Bohm, Donald Factor and Peter Garrett  starting in 1983.

Bohm Dialogue (often referred to simply as "Dialogue" by its proponents) is conducted in groups of 10 to 40 people, who sit in a single circle, for a few hours during regular meetings or for a few days in a workshop environment. Participants "suspend" their thoughts, motives, impulses and judgments - exploring and attempting to "think together" collectively. According to the proposal, Dialogue should not be confused with discussion, lecture, discourse or debate, which, says Bohm, all suggest working towards a goal rather than simply exploring. Meeting without an objective or agenda is done to create a "free space" for something new to happen.

David Bohm writes:

In such a dialogue, when one person says something, the other person does not, in general, respond with exactly the same meaning as that seen by the first person. Rather, the meanings are only similar and not identical. Thus, when the 2nd person replies, the 1st person sees a Difference between what he meant to say and what the other person understood. On considering this difference, he may then be able to see something new, which is relevant both to his own views and to those of the other person. And so it can go back and forth, with the continual emergence of a new content that is common to both participants. Thus, in a dialogue, each person does not attempt to make common certain ideas or items of information that are already known to him. Rather, it may be said that two people are making something in common, i.e., creating something new together. (from On Dialogue)

It seems then that the main trouble is that the other person is the one who is prejudiced and not listening. After all, it is easy for each one of us to see that other people are 'blocked' about certain questions, so that without being aware of it, they are avoiding the confrontation of contradictions in certain ideas that may be extremely dear to them. The very nature of such a 'block' is, however, that it is a kind of insensitivity or 'anesthesia' about ones own contradictions. Evidently then, what is crucial is to be aware of the nature of ones own 'blocks'. If one is alert and attentive, he can see for example that whenever certain questions arise, there are fleeting sensations of fear, which push him away from consideration of those questions, and of pleasure, which attract his thoughts and cause them to be occupied with other questions. So, one is able to keep away from whatever it is that he thinks may disturb him. And as a result, he can be subtle at defending his own ideas, when he supposes that he is really listening to what other people have to say. When we come together to talk, or otherwise to act in common, can each one of us be aware of the subtle fear and pleasure sensations that 'block' the ability to listen freely?"

In the group experiences I have had with one of my teacher's, Paul Lowe, a very similar process occurred. The Harmonic Chant meditations I have participated in with David Hykes are related to this 'listening' without agenda.

I call it deep listening, group listening. Where each one of us is responsible for the 'whole', where we make it our priority to come from a place of attention - whole body/mind/self/soul attention. When this happens, something arises that is more than the sum of the parts. It is sometimes called the 'magic in the middle' - Helen refers to it. I've experienced it, and it is my deep sense that if we are to evolve - globally - we need to make it a priority to "come from the We-space, out of a we-fullness."

Ask yourself: are you making choices which separate you from others? Are you primarily focused on your own personal well-being? Can you include the possibility that this well-being is deeply connected to that of everyone around you? Are you putting yourself in situations which challenge your sense of self, your beliefs, your identity? Are you including others - all others - when you have a thought, or act upon that thought?

I need reminding when I've become tight and self-focused.


I remind myself that 'meditation' is a living, breathing, moment by moment, eyes-wide open inclusion of all that is. The more I breathe deeply, the more I am 'in' my body, the more this 'in my body' feels outward into the world, including the self, going beyond it, opening, surrendering,  passing over into the unknown -  the easier (and more interesting) each moment is.

Who is breathing? I am breathed, we are breathed, we are breathing together.

I see an image of a gathering of trees - a forest or just a small copse. The trees standing tall and short, some branches touching, some not. There are shady spaces underneath, other areas are dappled with sun. Leaves fall, melt into the earth, feeding it. The trees' roots stretch outward, touching, caressing, and out of the earth grow flowers and moss and mushrooms. We are that copse. It is up to us to keep growing, together.