It is often heard: “Why have a dialogue with like-minded people?” or “You are talking to the converted,” and so on. The main idea behind such statements is that one should engage in dialogue with those whose views differ from one’s own. This is indeed a perspective, and I’ve been trying to understand it for the past several days.

Some ideas seem very attractive at first glance, but when delved into deeply, their true intent becomes clearer. Besides this, our intuition is also an important force, warning us: “This seems right, but something is off.”

I cannot clearly articulate the difference between intuition and whims, but there is a significant gap between the two, though sometimes it can be confusing. However, if intuition is correctly identified, it becomes a highly powerful and useful tool.

Anyway, returning to the point—those who often suggest engaging in dialogue with people of differing ideologies, in my view, lack a clear understanding of Truth (eternal and perennial, Sanatan). They inadvertently treat thought as the sole mode of cognition.

This happens unconsciously because they haven’t observed the various mental processes that occur within the self. They have reduced thinking to mere ideas. Processes like meditation, contemplation, observation, or understanding Truth through stillness are not given importance.

Such individuals encapsulate everything into “thought,” yet they haven’t seriously reflected on the nature of thought itself. Their beliefs are often vague. These are the same people who usually argue that individuals with differing opinions should engage in dialogue. Perhaps this belief stems from the idea that such interactions could provide an opportunity to understand each other’s perspectives, potentially leading to consensus or the birth of a new idea.

Underestimating thought is wrong. It is a significant force, but its utility depends on clarity about:

1. What is thought?
2. The distinct nature of processes like truth, will, desire, imagination, analysis, etc.

With this clarity, thought becomes a powerful tool; without it, confusion reigns under the guise of thinking.

Thought serves two purposes: to do or to know. In the realm of “doing,” the role of thought can be assumed to be clear. In the realm of “knowing,” the question arises: “What is to be known?” Ultimately, knowing will concern Truth—or something else? This is the question I am raising. Those interested can investigate it. If this proposal seems reasonable, it becomes evident that the purpose of thought should also be the search for Truth.

Now, the question arises: With whom is such dialogue most meaningful? In my opinion, with those:

1. Who have clarity about Truth.
2. Who thoroughly understand thought and mental faculties.
3. Who possess a deep yearning to recognize Truth.

When such individuals engage in dialogue, they are not truly speaking to one another but to themselves—in pursuit of Truth. Each participant honestly contributes whatever they have discovered as an offering to the group. Others do the same. There is no room for argument here. The sole purpose of the dialogue is to uncover Truth. The other person simply acts as a trigger for me. This is, in essence, the true process of dialogue.

23 November, 2024

This article is an edited version of a post by Shri Pawan Kumar Gupta, originally shared in the SIDH WhatsApp group.