to bring Buddhism into the Western society. And that's the weakness of E.T. Suzuki's books. He used basically the concepts of the 30s and 40s as of psychology, the unconscious, to bring Buddhism in. It's very powerful, but you can't read those books anymore, get anything out of them. They're not operational. That's also the reason for the fact that Schwarzbrunner was invited to the lecture, because he used the terms and terminologies from the pre- and post-19th century. He also used the terms and terminologies from the pre- and post-19th century. He also used the terms and terminologies from the pre- and post-19th century. Yeah. What interests me is how Hans got to, first of all, keep things very clear. And he thinks productively and he thinks intuitively.

[01:23]

Now that comes from his study in physics and that comes from his genetics and that comes from a training he went through. Or does that come from a deep desire to think clearly or profound anxiety if things are not clear? Okay, so what I want to say here, is that this, so these terms like Dharmakaya, which means everything has space, inclusive space, So Dharmakaya's word means you have complete freedom. And then when you're emphasizing the potentiality and almost form, the Hilbert space, that's more like Tathagatagarbha. Now, when this 10 to minus 43 second thing, the one thing that's interesting about psychology is this character.

[02:45]

I don't exactly remember the division, but it's something like 1 34th of a second. Yeah. So what they did is when the shiv went from looking at the parik dharma as the particles of reality, To Dharma as the perceptual units. They actually identified a number which was the smallest perceptual unit human beings were capable of. And recently, modern psychologists have discovered a few people measuring them.

[04:06]

If you put something in front of them real fast, certain people can pick it up. It happens to be the same number that Lewis came up with. Okay, so this now, now, now, as I said in my lecture, is, on the one hand, the present, when you're no longer identified with the past and future. And then it's also the present in which you have brought down the units until you've tracked, you've practiced tracking thought to a source, or dealing to a source, until you're there at the moment things are occurred. And I would call that the present of the present.

[05:23]

Now, when you're at that detail, you're also very close to the wave particle point. because you're just at the point when it's measured. Now, when you would say intuition or something like that happens when you, for some reason, are there. And often it's when you're not concentrating. You concentrate and concentrate and then you forget about concentration.

[06:26]

Oh, you snap into it. OK? So another way of looking at the present is what I call reading the text of the present. In other words, as my teacher, Suker, she said, you look at a tree and you just see a tree. And then sometimes when you look at a tree, you see it all. What's the difference when you see a tree and the tree makes you recall? Or sometimes you're reading a book and you just read the book but suddenly the book begins to infect you. And the book starts to read you.

[07:32]

We would say that's close, and you get to stay in that space. That's a very creative space, and that's when that targeted garbage is present. So all of that, this now, now, but reading the text of the present and this continuity of consciousness, all of it is the same territory. We don't know about this. I would really refer to that point, because the You know, it's very strange that, from a critical point of view, that time plays a very important role in a different role than space.

[08:33]

You know, sometimes when you think about those holes, you say the hole may include space and time, right? But when I talk about those holes, It is only the whole at a given time. So we have this texture of now, now, now, of the sequence of now. And the 10 to minus 43 seconds are only mentioned because, I mean, there is a certain time scale which may play an important role. Important only that we have different time slices. All what is important is the now, and this comes in a sequence. And now it is very interesting that, and that in a way reminded me of what you said about the presence. I have written it down in this two different ways, the presence. Also in quantum mechanics, the presence has two different notions. The presence is thought to say, ah, The awareness of everything at that time point, and of the present time, it's a passive type of thing.

[09:42]

But at the same time, this awareness, builds up the expectation for the next step. So there's an active element in it because it prepares the next time step. So it's not at all passive. So it has a certain penetration into the future preparing that. whether there is a tendency or . It's really in there, because the present defines the expectation. There is exactly this extension of the future. So in a certain way, the present is not at all . But somehow it's a finance-like type of feeling. At the lower end, it's just realizing what it is. And at the upper end of the presence, it is already on the jump to the next step.

[10:43]

So it has both the forces elements in it. And so I have the feeling it has something to do with that two definitions of present, where you said passive experience of the present world, the just now. In a way, alert, expectate, I don't know whether that is what one would call it, but then a creative actor in a way that you prepare for the next step. Alert, stage in the direction. Yeah, that's right. What is the stage of the alchemy? Alertness is in practice, but it's a beginning stage. As you develop alertness, that's not the same as being embedded in the present. But alertness begins to enter you into the next one. Right. So, . When I speak of the whole, it is not the whole of space and time, but the whole to a certain moment, because the world has this shift.

[12:01]

One time shift after the other is full. It is the same as here, the now, now, now. And the time gap is not important here, but only the ordinary is still full. It is quite clear that there is hunger and that is later. The world is in every moment a new world and But the moment, the world in the moment, the world and the moment have two different properties. It is for the first time the reality of everything that is there, now, passive, Und das andere, dass dieses, was im Augenblick da ist, baut ja das Erwartungsfeld auf für den nächsten Schritt. Das heißt, also die Gegenwart ist immer schon auf dem Sprung. in the next opposite direction. And that's why there's a tendency.

[13:02]

That means it's already building up in which direction it wants to jump, because the future, the next opposite direction, has a certain structure, so to speak, that there are greater probabilities that it will develop in one direction. So the chair will develop in the chair. There's a great probability. I do have a more general question concerning the relationship of physics and . And it seems to me, except that you're talking about the Trojanus spirit and being careful with using scientific terms, seems to be a very close relationship.

[14:07]

And the background I'm asking is, are you remembering an article by Ken Gilbert, where he's talking about holy cow of the new age, that now science can prove the truth of Buddhism. And it's the other way around, that one point of view is able to strengthen the other point of view. And he believes that this is worship. And now for me, you talked mostly in this direction too. His argument, I like how you see what you think about his argument. His argument, as far as I remember, is like this, that the realm physicists are working or living is about the simplest form of

[15:12]

entities in the world that every day run in stress material, and there is no pause. And the reality that Buddhists is talking about is the human experience. And Gilbert is an evolutionary thinker, and he believes that you can't compare these two realms in a kind of... Maybe they look like they're happening the same things, and maybe this is an accident, but it doesn't matter at all. Because physics is physics, human beings are human beings and that's it and you can't it's just a kind of a he says a category of it's just a way you can't think it's a can I just is it possible for you to respond it seems very important in my perspective

[16:32]

Let me respond. Oh, I know. Well, that's all right. You can say it in German. And I have read an article by Ken Wilber. Yes, I have read that too. The article says that physicists deal with part of matter, i.e. with a small area of reality. where there is no life in the everyday life, but rather there is awakening and masochism. And the Judaism deals with the human experience as a human being or as a religious person.

[17:45]

And it may be interesting that the question of flesh descriptions with the experience. This is perhaps a different logic, but in my opinion, not many people know how to do it, because according to the scientific research, apparently, as the rest of the data from LISMUS confirms, one needs to go into more detail. So this is a coincidence, OK. OK. I haven't studied, I know him slightly, Ken Wilber. I haven't studied him thoroughly. But Ken Wilber is a very systematic thinker.

[18:48]

Everything fits into his system, at one level. And his system doesn't agree with Buddhism or physics, I think. And I'm not, you know, I studied, I came from a family completely involved in the science. I studied in graduate school with a history of science and technology and I've read a lot of science because it interests me as an intellectual discipline. But I've at the same time tried not to carry over science into the way I think about Lewis. But it does happen. In the categories that we've chosen to talk about here and analyzing it, there's a surprising similarity at the descriptive level. More than that, I don't know. But the descriptive level is extremely important because that's the one the level we exist in. Oh God, sorry. But at the

[20:04]

If Buddhism and Zen at a descriptive level are so similar in many instances, and a lot of things that aren't in the physical language of physics that are in the language of biology fit into Buddhism too. That's, on the one hand, a function of the degree to which a mental language, which includes physics and biology and German and English, has come to a certain point, which I'm part of, and I have to be part of. That's, on the other hand, So somebody wrote this. You're taping this. This gets written down. 50 years from now, somebody may look at this and say, well, that's very dated. He used a certain language. But I can't help that.

[21:32]

But on the other side of that, and you say, one of the reasons I asked, it's brought up how Professor Dewar thinks. Because I think that a certain kind of thinking at a certain level of detail, coming from a physicist and coming from a Buddhist, produces such a similar worldview, means there's probably something similar. Just like if I read a particular poet or read Meister Eckhart, the kind of experience he has brought into his view of the world is quite similar to mine, then there's something there.

[23:07]

But the something there only interests me in that it joins us. I don't care what's there as long as something's there that joins us. And I'm also very pleased that there's nothing there that joins us. The main difference, I think, between these two worldviews is that when I'm listening to you or what I hear about criticism, for me, I don't deny Every day being... In what we're talking, yeah. And when I listen to you, then I feel like the spirit, or when we talk about poems, you know... But that's my job, is to relate it to you.

[24:39]

Yeah. My job is to relate it to you. I believe that it's not just a personal thing. I feel liking the... Buddhism way of thinking somewhere life comes in and this is to me the But he's bringing it into working with people and being very live right here. Yeah. But perhaps I should also answer to that point. I mean, I think I would answer in a rather similar fashion. I would first call it really an analogy. It's an experience which has some similarity, but we started out from very opposite point of view.

[25:43]

Here, I start with the material world, and he starts actually with a human being, I mean, and then himself, right? And the question is, how can ever these two things go together, right? Now, that's very interesting. Were they ever separate? Yes. Were they ever separate? Yes, I think they just, I mean, specifically they are. I think I know a tremendous concrete universe, which is what, for me, they were never separate. ...is also matter, but he has an old-fashioned perception of matter. The main point is that we discover in doing physics, we were determined to look at physics to as matter as matter. And when we look close to it, at the end, nothing of matter was left, right? In the present description of matter theory, there is not a single thing left which you would associate with matter.

[26:48]

There's something like expectation. What's the matter? And also which I also found interesting. Before you come up from the emptiness, you see the form. Indeed, the first structure you see is not matter but form. All the important laws in physics have something to form with symmetries and not with the attribute of matter. So from my point of view, there is no distinction between living matter and dead matter. Matter, well, it's not matter, it's actually the living thing. The matter in my sense at the lowest level has much more in common what we think of spirit or mind, right? Mind is probably when you say put in your hands. So it's not the localized mind, it's the straight out mind, right? It has much more in common with that, right?

[27:51]

Now, you can organize the mind in various ways. in an anarchic way, and then it becomes a stupid matter, what we call matter. Or you organize it, and then it becomes living matter. But the mind of matter is not at a certain point, that you have a kind of a vessel, and after you have a nice vessel, you fill in the mind at the end. But it's a property of this funny matter. So the electron, In that sense, it's not what Ken Wilber thinks. It's something you know. He thinks it's a grain of sand, just only very small. No, it's very much alive, not as alive as we, right? Because it has not the freedom of decision, right? But it is recreated all time. It's not something fixed. I mean, if something is not You know, being there all the time, you will say it's awfully lively, right?

[28:56]

The debt is just standing around all the time, you look at it, it's still there, that's what you call debt. Matter at the basis is nothing of this kind, right? So also that dissolves, and now you have these two different structures, certainly we're on different levels. There are similarities, and you, in a way, get very curious and say, is that just an accident? And it may be an accident. You know, in a sense, when I go to another country, I go from Germany to Italy, and I have a certain experience with it's very funny people talk a different language. It doesn't mean that if I go to China that it's the same, but there are some similarities that if I leave the country, things get different. You know, in that sense, the analogy may be there. Who is the organiser then? Pardon me? Who is the organiser which makes that the mind becomes the material? Oh, in the self-organising system, mind has this property of organising itself in a stupid way when we call it matter, and which is more difficult

[30:10]

in this more stack-up way, and then you would call it living matter. That's basically the Buddhist idea, too. It's a self-organizing system. And each system you create has its own self-organization and its own momentary identity. Yes, but it can be that it is not the same goal in a certain way, but we are talking about something with a different language. But it also may be, I mean, as he said, you know, because a physicist is a human being, and we in a way are formed by our culture, that of course... I mean, referring to your question, you know, that the physicist is also a human being, so the way he treats, we finished, the way he treats the subject matter, of course, many other influences coming in.

[31:38]

So the analogy which may arise is that because we are in this tradition, We always try the same tools because we have this awareness and so we get the idea to also go this way. So the analogy is really made to be connected because human beings are doing physics that they get this kind of answer. You know, I find that whenever I study or read anywhere, actually, I don't know what word to use, but it's in the details with a kind of absoluteness. And each sentence has its kind of totality that moves to the next sentence. I find I agree with whatever they're talking about, whether it's Foucault or someone else. When I look at somebody, it's like those are things that we're reading into the details.

[32:39]

If I, oh, here, this is just like... I see something. So it might be a physicist. It might be a psychologist. But most people think in generalizations. They link one generalization loosely to another generalization. And it's kind of interesting. Yes, and that's also the reason why I see it's not the same thing to speak about Buddhism and the same thing to speak about physics. I think when we look at the whole thing more historically, I would say Buddhism is something which has been elaborated since centuries, and physics on the other side. And also what we have in our back minds when we speak about physics is something which has been elaborated over... in the last few centuries. And there have some changes come about in the 20s of our century. And I would say that 99% of physicists have not yet grasped the philosophical results of these changes. And I would say what happens in physics, which traditionally dealt with that matter, is that this way to look at things where life is divided from

[33:49]

It has proved to be a way to look at things which doesn't bring us further, which has to a certain way proved to be not very valuable to God. And I think physics is much more in transformation than Buddhism is. And some physicists are seeing that there are other epistemological concepts which are very similar to Buddhism, which could bring us further, but which, when they are thought through, the whole way will completely transform physics. So it's a mix up when we speak about these things. There are a lot of physicists which can use these formalisms but which do not have for determinism or for this whole bunch of consequences of the epistemology which is behind them.

[34:54]

I think we never should forget this historical dimension of these two fields. Well, the same is true for Western psychology. Yes. It's very new. It's 100 years old. And the same thing is valid for religiosity in our culture, too. We have a rediscovery of mystical traditions, which was overlapped, completed by a vision of one only truth, which was very similar in the Christian churches, the Orthodox churches, and the natural sciences. And this whole concept of epistemology is breaking apart, and that's a big transformation, whereas Buddhism is something much older, which maybe we could kind of support. I think Buddhism is in a pretty fertile and almost volatile transition, because it is meeting the West. And the Western civilization developed a whole lot of thinking and categories which, no matter what you do to get Buddhist terms independently into the language, even keeping terms like Dharma and not translating it, it still is being affected and twisted and changed, and possibilities that Buddhists in the past didn't see are there.

[36:15]

And in addition, when you have a situation where most of the scientists, by far and away, among all the scientists that ever lived, they're alive today. And we have so much communication among each other. A transition which took 300 years in China and people couldn't talk to each other very well. That kind of, in today's society, that kind of transformation will be compressed into 20 years or 50 years. So you're going to have an acceleration of the communication about possibilities in Buddhism that's happening simultaneously with the meeting of your Western culture. And that's going to transform us. We don't know what's going to happen to it, but it's going to transform. And the one thing that anchors it always, kind of anchor, is this emptiness and this meditation practice, which always kind of verifies and you come back to. But I look forward to, I mean, as physicists begin to see all these possibilities and they themselves explore, and biology and physics, you know, can be great.

[37:24]

Yes, and the fascinating thing about quantum mechanics is also that the human being now suddenly plays a very important role. Because depending on what kind of experiment I do, I get the idea that it is a particle or that it is a wave. So I don't think that quantum mechanics is just some lifeless matter, but in the perception of the human being, that is, that I am a particle. Yeah, and it's the Tiktawa also which I found is the most important thing that the separation is only approximately valid. Of course, this is part of the observer and the observed are not separated completely. I mean, they are actually fundamental in the relationship between things and not the separate parts. And that, in a way, also goes back to old tradition because we have built our world of objects, eliminating us.

[38:26]

But the basic element from which, so to say, experience is built are from relations. So from our point of view, it's a two-headed thing, a connection, right? A relation for us is something derived, one A here and B, and it's connected. But the relationship is actually the original thing and the object if you cross two relations. Well, we should end soon, I think, but I want to say something. Please do. I'm still seeing a big difference between physicists and humanists. You also look great. I can't say anything. I'm like Tyson. Because humanists seek to impact nature with a lot of humility. Very loud. Physicists seem to be back in nature with a big portion of humility.

[39:35]

Physicists don't believe this at all. And we shouldn't forget what physicists did. They didn't discover economics as an act of freedom. They have been beaten to do this from mathematics. they had to see that nothing, all this will stop if they don't particularly step. And a lot of them still have problems to accept what's happening and to accept the relation of experiment and restoration. and they still use quantum mechanics as a tool, as a mechanical tool, as far as they can accept the holistic part of quantum mechanics that they do, but when they cannot use it for practical purposes, they just extrapolate and fix it and work on it and beat it.

[40:45]

as everyone here. And as the year goes on, in this way, working with this will be just nothing. Well, you see, what actually, for me, the most surprising part of quantum mechanics is that leaving the level of our conceptual thinking. You know, we go into a world where our conceptual thinking breaks down. We still find a language to talk about it in context. This to me is a miracle, I mean, because you would expect that we are like a sandwich, we're just in a certain area our language has developed to deal with our surroundings here.

[41:51]

We penetrate two areas where our language is not appropriate at all. So you would just say you cannot say anything because this language is not adapted to that, right? This, in a way, I expect, right? But now, very funny, that the conceptual language we have, we can't, in a way, change it in such a way to penetrate this area. But of course, in a strange way, not, I think, that we catch everything. But I'm amazed how far you can get that we can at all deal with quantum mechanics where the object is not there in a language which is, so to say, an organic object. I find it absolutely nerve-wracking. And I've told you, as we do it, we invent an object in an infinite dimensional space, and we can't, of course, live in an infinite dimensional space, but we have the ability that we know what the one dimensional space and two dimensional space and three dimensional space and here we stop and then you say we just continue and we develop the mathematics which works in an infinite dimensional space, right?

[43:03]

And that's the reason of we can't dream in that space, we can still work in that. So that for me isn't real. It's not that we in a way force the whole thing into it. I mean, of course, you may miss certain things, because you can say, perhaps, I mean, certain things just fall through, which you count as pragmatism, right? I think it's a question of language. It's a question of belief. And I would say, now that I speak this term, belief, I think we should stop. But one thing, I really wish I'd had the chance to interview you about how, without practicing meditation, you get to think so clearly.

[44:19]

Just a remark about the remarks, although we haven't heard so much about them. I am very surprised that a kind of enmity towards the physicists is felt by the young colleagues here. And I have the feeling that there is a confusion with people who produce weapons or similar things in the industry and are also physicists and the pure scientists who are sometimes the most engaged environmental fighters. I don't know if I'm right. Yes. Yeah, but it's because of that... You know, I think the reason is, and somebody else said that before, it's very strange that this new development in physics, which took place in the 20s, and everybody was very excited about, you know, and very upset about.

[45:40]

And it's a change of paradigm. This change paradigm was accepted in a way that they have forgotten. that there was a change in paradigm. The British today think like in the 19th century because they just absorbed the new wisdom and handed it like a television set, which they switch off and it's on. So they don't understand the basics anymore. Most people include us that way too. They hear about what Buddhism really means and they work around it and they remain just the same old person. They think it works, right? But they don't understand it anymore. I see that in my examinations, you know, that the young physicists don't understand what's in the back of it. And this in a way is sad, because if something becomes common, I mean, no TV set would work without that. But everybody thinks a TV set is like a mechanical device. It's like many people have seen dolphins and don't realize the paradigm shift there.

[46:43]

The forest did. Thank you so much. It is so cool.

[46:47]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_79.88