Select Page
Dialogue

Dialogue

“A conversation between someone who has realized the truth and someone who has had direct experience of it cannot be reduced to a simple exchange of information. Rather, it takes the form of an exchange of views which, although they may differ in form, spring from a shared root: experience. In this type of encounter, there is no need to defend a position or a desire to confront. What emerges is a tacit, almost silent recognition between two people who speak from a knowledge that is not borrowed or theoretical, but verified internally. Words circulate without any demand for agreement, and in this unpretentious background, a deeper affinity than any superficial difference can be sensed. Even when it occurs between seekers who are still in transit, if there is sincerity, the exchange remains fruitful. Ideas do not compete; they are allowed to appear, resonate, interweave, without needing to impose themselves or be resolved.
On the other hand, dialogue becomes unviable when one of the interlocutors has no experience but clings rigidly to a theory, a doctrine, or a text that they consider unquestionable. Under these conditions, dialogue does not fail: it simply cannot begin. Where the mind is fixed on absolute certainty, all openness becomes impossible. Belief becomes a trench, and words no longer seek to understand, but to refute. There is no room for encounter, only for reaction.
Faced with the mere possibility of a different perspective, a perception of threat is triggered. From that framework, opening up to another point of view would be to allow contamination of the “purity” of what is held to be true. Fanaticism then operates as a preventive closure: difference is not contemplated, it is feared. It is received as a fracture, as disintegration. Thus, fear sets in, and with it, the compulsive need to reaffirm an identity that, far from being solid, is always perceived as on the verge of collapse. When truth is confused with ownership, any possibility of real encounter is extinguished. And what could have been mutual recognition dissolves into inevitable exclusion.”
Prabhuji
Friendship and companionship

Friendship and companionship

“Friendship, far from being reduced to a spontaneous affinity or mutual attraction of temperaments, constitutes a relational experience that engages fundamental structures of the psyche. From a psychoanalytic perspective, it involves not only conscious bonds, but also unconscious displacements that shape its complexity. Sigmund Freud, in Zur Einführung des Narzißmus (1914), argues that the beloved object—and by analogy, the friend—can constitute a projection of the ideal self. In this sense, friendship can be read as a form of transformed narcissism: the friend is chosen not only for their manifest qualities, but for what they embody of the unconscious desire for an idealized image of completeness. However, an exclusively narcissistic interpretation is reductive. Melanie Klein introduced a fundamental distinction between partial object relations and total object relations. While the former involve the fragmentation of the object according to partial drives, the latter imply the ability to recognize the totality of the other, including their contradictory aspects. Genuine friendship, as a total object relationship, requires accepting the ambivalence inherent in all human bonds: love and hostility, the desire for fusion and the need for separation, proximity and distance. In this context, the friend is not a mirror image, but an autonomous subject whose difference cannot always be integrated without conflict.
The authenticity of friendship is therefore measured by its capacity to sustain otherness. Jacques Lacan points out that the other is not simply what complements the self, but what introduces a point of irreducible opacity. The friend, as a symbolically constituted other, cannot be reduced to a mirror function. True friendship involves transcending narcissism, not remaining fixed in it.
Listening, in this context, takes on a structuring value. It is not a matter of interpreting or resolving, but of sustaining the other’s words without appropriation or judgment. Donald Winnicott, when speaking of “good enough presence,” describes a way of being that does not invade or demand immediate reciprocity. In mature friendship, this listening becomes a potential space where the unsaid, the uncertain, and the vulnerable can unfold. When it is not conditioned by need or utility, friendship constitutes an experience of symbolic gratuitousness. It does not seek validation or reward. It does not respond to a logic of debt, merit, or equivalence. Like love that has overcome the compulsion for completeness, it is sustained by the acceptance of imperfection, the renunciation of control, and the ability to accommodate the fragility of the other without interpreting it as a threat.
From a psychoanalytic perspective, therefore, friendship cannot be conceived as an accessory or merely affective bond. It is a relational structure that allows the subject to work through their drives, contain their aggression, and open themselves up to ways of coexisting that are not regulated by domination or strategic exchange. Being a friend, in the most rigorous sense, is not being indulgent or unconditional, but rather being capable of sustaining a bond in which the other does not appear as an extension of the self, but as a presence that destabilizes, challenges, and transforms.
Understood in this way, friendship does not numb, console, or save. Nor does it guarantee emotional stability or constant harmony. What it offers is a form of companionship that, without eliminating psychic conflict, makes it livable. In this shared journey, completeness is not achieved, but a form of presence that makes the fact of existing less inhospitable.
Prabhuji
The bond between men and women

The bond between men and women

“The bond between men and women cannot be properly understood if it is reduced to emotional factors, cultural conditioning, or functional patterns. At its root, it refers to an ontological structure from which human beings are constituted as living relationships. Such a relationship is not generated by aggregation, nor is it explained by utility. Rather, it manifests a fundamental openness to otherness, inscribed in the very condition of being a person.
Edith Stein warned that sexual difference does not imply opposition or hierarchy. It represents a concrete manifestation of the mutual gift that shapes the relational vocation of the person. From this perspective, the masculine and the feminine are not sociological categories, but integrated dimensions of the act of personal being, which only attain their truth in relationship.
Martin Buber conceived this structure as a dialogical event in which the self is constituted in relation to an irreducible you. Authentic encounter does not seek to absorb or reflect the other, but to welcome them in their unique presence.
Emmanuel Levinas developed this intuition by pointing out that the other does not present itself as an object of knowledge, but as a face that challenges and summons. This ethical demand precedes all theoretical elaboration, and its origin cannot be thematized without betraying its meaning. Meditation, understood as a way of life ordered toward interiority, allows for a non-instrumental openness to this presence.
Loving without lucid attention degenerates into repetition and conflict. Meditating without loving openness leads to sterile confinement. Only in the convergence of both dimensions is a fruitful reciprocity configured, where each preserves their uniqueness without closing themselves off to the other. There is no symbiosis or subordination. There is welcome.
Xavier Zubiri, from a phenomenology of affect, affirmed that human beings are not subjects facing objects, but realities that are affected by other realities in their being. The other does not appear as data or representation, but as a presence that imposes itself in its own way of being. In the relationship between man and woman, this manifestation takes on a particular intensity: it simultaneously involves the body, language, desire, and meaning.
The unity thus conceived does not respond to an ideal of fusion or an attempt at domination. It takes shape as an existential anticipation of a reconciled way of living. The other no longer appears as an obstacle or a mirror, but as a silent witness to a truth that is not elaborated, but revealed. This type of communion cannot be improvised. It requires sustained silence, ethical attention, and fidelity to the center from which being offers itself.
When love is embodied in lucidity, and meditation opens itself to concrete otherness, a form of communion emerges that is not based on time or necessity, but on the shared recognition of a truth that precedes both. This truth is not the property of anyone, but can be found in unity that respects difference. Where this unity occurs, a higher form of humanity is revealed, defined not by the affirmation of the self, but by the willingness to be transformed in relationship.”
Prabhuji
Integrating interiority and relationship

Integrating interiority and relationship

“In certain states of meditative contemplation, the impulse to withdraw from the world emerges. This movement does not express escape, but rather the need to confront one’s own consciousness without external interference. The inclination toward solitude is not a mistake. It is misleading to interpret it as a rejection of others or as a sign of opposition between connection and interiority. Radical autonomy has no basis. Subjectivity is always constituted in reference to others: we are born into a community, we share symbolic systems, and we participate in interpersonal emotional networks.
Martin Buber argues that the “I” is only constituted in the encounter with a “you.” The subject is not a closed monad, but a node of relationships that takes on meaning in reciprocity (cf. Ich und Du, 1923).
Internalization does not require the breaking of ties. Voluntary isolation is not a condition for self-knowledge. It is not necessary to exclude the other, but rather to silence the ego’s pretensions.
For Jean-Luc Marion, the subject is not a source of giving, but a receptacle for the gift that exceeds him. In the experience of love and contemplation, an ontological passivity of the self is revealed (Étant donné, 1997).
Those who reach a certain existential maturity understand that inner life and openness to others are not mutually exclusive spheres. Both can coexist without cancellation or fusion. Withdrawing from the world under the guise of introspection can become a form of evasion. Similarly, diluting oneself in exteriority without reflexivity leads to a loss of self. Integrating interiority and relationship requires the decentering of the self. Shared life is not opposed to authenticity. Joy does not come from isolation, but from the cessation of self-imposed identity demands.
Nishida Kitarō develops, from the Zen tradition, the notion of “the self as a place of negation,” where the self is not substance, but a function of a radical openness to the other and to nothingness (Zettai mujunteki jikodōitsu, 1932).
Serenity does not require constant reaffirmation of the self. It appears when the need to justify oneself to others or to maintain a defined image of oneself ceases.
It is not the world that must be abandoned, but the narcissistic representation of a self split from the whole. Once this fiction is overcome, reality unfolds as ontological communion.
In such a state, meditation and love are not mutually exclusive. By losing their compulsive nature, both practices reveal a structural unity that transcends all possessive or defensive logic of the self.
Prabhuji