Scientist: But that-which-regions and its nature can't really be two different things—if we may speak here of things at all.

Scholar: The self of that-which-regions is presumably its nature and identical with itself.

Teacher: Then perhaps we can express our experience during this conversation by saying that we are coining near to and so at the same time remaining distant from that-which-regions; although such remaining is, to be sure, a returning.

Scholar: Only the nature of waiting and of releasement would be named in what you say.

Scientist: Then what is that nearness and distance within which that-which-regions opens up and veils itself, approaches and withdraws?

Scholar: This nearness and distance can be nothing outside that-which-regions.

Teacher: Because that-which-regions regions all, gathering everything together and letting everything return to itself, to rest in its own identity.

Scholar: That-which-regions itself would be the nearness of distance, and the distance of nearness . . .

Scientist: ... a characterization which should not be thought of dialectically . . .

Teacher: . . . but how?

Scientist: In accordance with the nature of thinking so far as determined solely by that-which-regions.

Scholar: And so by waiting, by in-dwelling in releasement.

Teacher: Yet what then would be the nature of thinking if that-which-regions is the nearness of distance?