Well, I noticed that yesterday this naming was such an obstacle or such a threat to the experience with the form scandal, and I noticed that I also name quickly, so I have now made sure that it also comes very quickly sometimes, but when I notice that I am naming, it is a stop, and then I can bring it back to experience, then I come back into the broad. At first I got totally scared, always, ah, now you have already named it, now everything is over, from the experience, and then I thought, now you are almost through and back in consciousness, and yesterday you I have often been told that this is also the case with you.

[01:05]

And I have now paid attention to it and it is sometimes like that, but when I notice it ... I have to go over it again, because I forgot to close my eyes for a moment. that I can come down again or swim backwards and also use that as an access again. So it's not over then, if you notice it. If you don't notice it, it just happens. I noticed that, because I don't get it that way That gives me hope. For me, of course, women and men have become important, because of the fact that I don't see it anymore.

[02:21]

When I come somewhere, I can't see it, I can't recognize it, and of course I don't register it. And as I said, there is a form and a dream that comes to me without any reason. But still it is very, very important to me, otherwise I can't orientate myself. I go into a dream and yes, Then I'm in there for the first time and there's nothing there. But the room also has a form. And I have to feel this form. We talked about it yesterday. It has been mentioned that there is a wall or something like that, that you can go to the wall and feel it. I have to feel this room with all that I still have in mind. And yes, there is Yes.

[03:26]

Somehow, yes, to get to the point, then I go to her, and I ask her, I ask the man who is there now, is it a woman or a man, it doesn't matter. And then I feel it again, then I have a form. And I can orientate myself. I have to say it, I am forced to name it. Otherwise I can't go any further. When I explore the space, I go along the track, and there is a piece of garbage or something that I have to clean and clean. I have to feel it, feel it. Does it feel good or not? Then I have to remember the questions. Otherwise, so that I can orientate myself again, I need a bridge.

[04:55]

And yes, I have to feel it with all my soul, feel the touch, and that I find myself there. And, as I said, everything that I feel there, I have to be able to orientate myself in the way that I can. From walking to being conscious, I have to walk. This is the first time I have been confronted with this. And I think I'm a little more conscious now. That was for me a necessity, that I just do it and that's it. I didn't have any thoughts about it. But now, let me put it this way, I was aware that I could see something, but I looked around and saw more and more of this and that.

[06:03]

It was a momentary recording, I recorded it, and then I went to see if there had been any things that had happened to me. Or I gave it up and let it go. Yes, and that's what I recommend now. And if there's something standing there in the room, you have to either look there or be led there. And there, feel it, and then you have to feel it, taste it, feel it, explain it to yourself. Somehow, then I have a certain idea. No matter what it is, I create it and create a picture of it within me, but the picture that is created within me is also not related to the picture that is realistic. That is, I would always create a picture within me in the future that no longer corresponds to my own reality. I have memories of the past, but I still don't remember. and that is actually what is in form and space and so on, and why I am doing it now.

[07:19]

Of course, I am somewhere, yes, And the biggest thing that I see is, in my opinion, the body, the skin, the insufficiency. When we talk about form, we always think that this is something that we can't reach. This is the last, the most difficult, the most difficult to reach.

[08:23]

And all the others are easy to reach. You only get to the third or something like that. Sometimes you think, I just read a book by Tim Nathan this morning. And he explained it so easily. So it's actually just enough Well, I think it's just helpful when you feel your body, you can feel a lot in your body, or draw your attention to it, you can draw your attention to a body as an exercise, or the creation of the body from the elements, water, drinking, we turn it off again, and there is also the connection to it, to the environment, that we are not separated, but connected, we are made up of air, there is also a connection, we are made up of earth, there is also a connection, but it changes over and over again, and if we take that into account, then we automatically make the experience and practice this connection to the outside world.

[09:36]

Yes, but then this form is at least practicable for us. And this is actually the basis to be able to perceive phenomena, or to examine perception more precisely, or to examine the other scanners more precisely, this is actually the basis. Yes, so it was my impression that one tries to touch what form could be, but it can always be practiced by going into the body and directing the attention to different places and simply these connections with the elements that we have and that always change in us, is an access, or we are in the form, and it is actually enough at first, How would we call the state of mind?

[10:45]

The idea with the skandhas is that in every skanda we see it separately, and every skanda produces its own state of mind, or a very specific state of mind. How would we call it in the first skanda? It is a field consciousness in which the duality also dissolves. If you start there, I would rather say, where there is no duality at first.

[11:48]

If you say, the duality dissolves, then we always go, we always tend to say, we have to... or that we have to arrive somewhere at the One, but when we start at the One, it is quite clear that it is a state of mind where there is no duality yet. Yes, I'm trying, so I'm going to get a little confused. I have the impression that we are bringing awareness into the first skanda, or we are already bringing in the emptiness of the first skanda, as I understand it. one of the five constitutions of the self. And there is a duality in the first skanda, that one understands it as a teaching and a possibility to free oneself from it in the first skanda.

[13:04]

But first of all I understand it as a fact. does it have the resistance of matter or something, signal? Signal, although signal is... I just mixed something up, it's somehow strange, we want to... You also asked about the state of mind. Yes, we want to be completely conscious of the fact that we don't even know the whole thing, then I understand it correctly. I think there are different forms of emptiness. So, as a state of mind, I would already take it as a turning point for the state of mind. I would like to add something to what you said about the teaching.

[14:21]

You can't be a teacher in any of the five skandhas, not especially for the first one, if you don't know it. And in the description of the first one, I think that there is no duality because it is undifferentiated. Not because it is empty in the Buddhist sense, but because it is not differentiated into subject and object. In this sense, it is empty, so to speak, the usual emptiness, not the Buddhist emptiness. Yes, but I don't understand that. Okay. Because I see, I want to be as strong as a ghost. So strong. It also doesn't want to be a signal, it can also be a thought, but it's strong. But something is coming towards me. Yes, something is coming towards you. I would like to be as strong as a ghost.

[15:22]

No, it can also be a thought. There was no stone or thought. But even that is fixed. Why don't we stand on the table? Otherwise I understand that it can't be. I don't understand why one has to recognize the emptiness when we already imply it as a non-dual scandal. But that doesn't say anything about emptiness or something like that. Yes, but I agree. Because as it is now defined, it is not separated from the spiritual state. And that is what I want to attribute to the non-dual. Oh, I understand. I have tomorrow in the book, Mr. Gerholtz, I'm sorry, excuse me. No problem. No, please speak.

[16:24]

In Mr. Gerholtz's book, he also writes about the Scandals, which has become a little clearer to me. He says to the informed person, the object meets the object. So that was a kind of first contact at the moment, there is something and they meet, but Otto asked about the state of mind, and I would say that it is also a feeling of ... The spirit of being open to the outside is the subject, otherwise it is not possible. The subject meets the object, otherwise the subject is already there. That fits very well with what Dr. Steinschauer said. If I now have the experience that I have with women,

[17:27]

which I would now call relatively absurd in my present state, in my conscious state, because it is not possible at all, which I do not want to talk about in detail now, but it is also very difficult to put into words, and we are so tired now to put things into words, which are actually not possible to put into words, and that is what Yes, this effort is also necessary. Yes, this object, this object, that would also be my experience. Self-sufficient, otherwise it could not be. This is a dilemma that we have been talking about all week, that we are trying to put into words here, which you basically cannot put into words at all. And it is definitely a memory, an impulse before I somehow put a word into it. And what helped me with this is a very simple sentence, and this sentence creates something like a state of mind, that is the sentence, what is it?

[18:42]

What is it? Or what appears? Or you could also say a state of mind that arises by appearing. although I do not need to mention what appears there, I just have to notice first that something appears, and therefore I keep this open mind or this open being, preferably through a sentence of, what is that? I like that very much, This very open being and the state that arises inside, arises. I have a much bigger problem with signal and when there is a signal out there that doesn't hit me, then I'm not ... then it's already a division between out there and in there.

[19:57]

The gas state, I don't know, co-merging horizon or something like that, that fits me very well. Simultaneously or simultaneously it is created, not the feeling that me, whatever, and the world, this is like one that is created at the same time. If I imagine that the snow gives me a signal, then something is sending something and something is receiving something, but when it is created together, it is not connected. And then it is not sorted out whether something is signalled or received. Yes. I mean, we are constantly busy thinking back to a state that we have experienced and to analyse it. But I don't think it works, because it just happens.

[21:01]

And when I think of myself in this constitution, I didn't think of anything, it just happened to me, it happened, it happened to me, you can call it an object, you can call it an object, or whatever you call it, it's all possible, you can call it anything, maybe everyone has their own definition of it that suits them. When you say that the snow outside gives me a signal, you already have a reading concept, you already have something that is outside, snow, and through this snow a signal is generated. But the first scandal awaits. It's actually just the remark in me, something is appearing in me, that it is triggered, maybe by snow or by a noise that comes from outside, that's somewhere right, but that's another theory behind it. It's just this state of mind where I am open and really ask, I am open, what is appearing, what kind of impulse is that? And then we might say, in order to put a name to it, we might say the hail of the snow or something like that.

[22:19]

But in the end that would be too much. It would simply be an impulse that hits me and that I notice within me. And you can keep this openness very well for yourself through this question, what is it? Because the what is it takes away all the scars. What is it simply creates a question, a questioning attitude in which something can appear. to deal with this difficult word, it best expresses itself for me in the word that has helped me a lot and has brought me closer to this concept of form, and that was Koan 92, in the Book of the Renatee, the Jewel Hidden in a Mountain of Form,

[23:27]

and this youthfulness, this tangible youthfulness, which can be experienced in this mountain. I can give an example in the context of Seychelles, which is very interesting. We are in the spring, let's say, We went to a funeral, and it was a starry sky, it was completely dark, and I go up there, and suddenly in front of me a huge dead body, and that was totally amazing. and then I sat down on my pillow, opened my bag and grabbed into this bag and suddenly I had exactly this star and experience in feeling the axis, In his writings, Simon expresses it in a way, but not so abstract, but so lyrical.

[24:57]

The state of mind is somehow, I don't know if I can get it together exactly, because I also find it difficult with the words, but Simon somehow touched me for something, where I think, yes, this has something to do with the longing and this pain, or this feeling that an experience in the being, with what is so, is painful. At home it is also painful. That is such an arrival, such an arrival, yes, without really being at home. But the longing, that touched me very much, because many years ago we did a seminar, the Enormous Request,

[25:57]

It still carries me, it is totally alive in me, and now it has been buried in the Ganges again, and that's why it doesn't seem to me that it is from Simon, because it is another language, it is more descriptive, perhaps. I find it quite difficult, because as soon as I try to speak about it from the consciousness I have the feeling that it falls into belief, into the consciousness, into the state of consciousness of the consciousness, because I am not part of it. You asked about the state of the mind, for example. Yes, the cat bites the cat's head when I try to think about it.

[27:16]

Then I can say, well, when I wake up in the morning, for example, or when I wake up, then the flow of phenomena begins. Somehow it begins to trigger stimuli in me, to send signals that I receive, Yes, more or less implemented. I have the feeling that this is a total dilemma. Trying to put this into words. Because I really have the feeling that I can sit down and let go of this and then take these backward steps in this system of scandals. And then another ghost appears, and then a superhero appears who feels it, but then the consciousness disappears again, as soon as I try to explain it.

[28:21]

I think I have a problem, because I somehow, I don't know, as if someone were to say, blow me a song on the piano. How should I do that? I think that the difficulty that we have with the discussion about scandals in such a large group is, I think, that the task is actually already in the fact that each individual in his or her experience can do, which is called this scandal. So to be able to practice this system well, I think it's this clarity where the concept translates into the experience, this translation process, which is at least what I'm dealing with. And that's where it gets difficult now, because when Jonas uses his words, then I don't know if the experience that you are now using, if I use the same words, is that my experience?

[29:28]

Probably not. This is very, very subjective. Even such approaches as, for example, this really totally central question, what is this? I notice that over the years of my practice I have also practiced it very differently, that it is not always the same field of experience that opens this question to me. And I can already see that this is a good question. and to connect with the spirit and to become transparent in the field of experience. This could also be the practice of Nu for me. I have had similar experiences with it, to separate everything that appears in me. The practice of nothing extra also has a similar component for me, to remove everything that happens.

[30:30]

And I find that a bit difficult in this conversation, so I wonder if it makes sense for us to exchange descriptions. Because I think the danger is, especially with the first skandha, for me there are even more alarm bells than with other topics, that you somehow get a feeling like, I know that, or I already know that, or something like that. In my life it is then alive when it is a totally open question. And I would really just say from myself, the first skandha, almost always my experience and my perception is somehow loaded. There is already something processed, something is already in there. For me this is still something very fragile. That's why I don't even have the feeling to go any further. Otherwise there is some kind of understanding there. I think what you said is very important with the first scanner, and that is to create at the same time.

[31:39]

so that you don't say, I'll do something with it and I'll give it to him, I'll put my attention into it, then the I is already present, doing something and then doing something with it, with what is needed, but this basic feeling of simultaneous creation is actually, so to speak, Just to stay with the vocabulary, the signal creates its own state of consciousness, and it is really quite individual, and when another signal comes, something else comes out of it, it is not the same the always the same existence, which is on this signal and on this signal, but the relationship is more important than before I set the pole, there is the signal, there I am, there is simply the relationship at that moment, and it is really present and it changes at any moment, and the consciousness cannot really grasp it, because it leads to categories,

[32:51]

and that's why the description is always a little bit behind, behind this simultaneity, we can't explain it if we don't speak directly from the moment. And that's why for me it's like this, I needed a long time to understand your question about what appears, because for me that was connected to the fact that I was looking for a definition or something like that, or that I was dividing this from something else, that this should not appear, but this, and then I would be somewhere else again, but now I have understood that that is simply, hey, I open the room, I know that it is not that, that is simply, that makes such a, as Kater Tulpo calls it in his books, a not knowingness, a state of openness to this was. I really have it as a question, I don't know. And what brought me a little closer to it in my own practice is to replace this was with a how.

[33:55]

How does it appear? How does it appear? And it depends much more on the quality of the moment than on the fact that I'm looking for something. Ah, now this is appearing. So it's more like, what is actually happening right now? I don't know what I should write down. I could write down everything, I have the feeling. But that's what we take for granted. I don't want to make the decision that was good and that wasn't good. That's why I didn't write anything down at first. You have the right to have money. Okay. I think the attempt at linguistics is very worthwhile, because in science there are also areas such as quantum physics.

[35:10]

I mean, a lot of research is going on, and people are doing the same, and language is something that you can't put into words. Or you know that you also go into areas that are beyond language. And I do feel with the contributions here that basically the experience of a form scandal also flashes. Yes, just like, for example, someone now And the word signal is free for me because it does not describe quality. It has no quality. And the quality only comes in with the receiver measurement instrument. then I can say that it is warm, cold, hot, snow and so on. And there I already have a little bit to talk about, yes, in the emergence or emergence of a process of consciousness, what then happens to the signal.

[36:26]

And first of all, of course, when a signal hits an object or an object hits an object, It's just an indeterminate field. And what comes in there, okay. I'm also really helped by two things. The first is impulse and signal. Yesterday I spoke with Bekauci and he explained it to me in a broad way. I've already said it to you. If you're on your way to somewhere, on the motorway, you drove to the parking lot and for half an hour you somehow noticed, let's call it a signal, and how does it help to call it a signal? As I see it, what the first calendar from Urupa Land is basically not easy, because we are not trained, but it is also very easy. Somewhere it is very simple, there is an infinite amount of information, as you said, you get up in the morning and everything is possible.

[37:34]

And now I come with the very, very first contact with something. This is not a color yet, this is not snow yet, this is not This is again words, it is somehow not a sound, but it is somehow, something hits my mind. Why is it not more? And do I get that with me? In the end, this is where my attention is directed. Maybe we can just see it this way, my attention is directed, that is to say, Everything appears somewhere, I think we agree on that, and everything appears within me, whether it is still outside at the same time is completely irrelevant, but everything appears somewhere within me. What I see, hear, smell, what I think, what I notice in touch, or whatever, I get the very first appearance with it, as if someone touches it for a moment and that's it.

[38:48]

I get that with me. And this is where the best scandal draws my attention. And this creates a different state of mind than if I now say, yes, this is now this or that, or then now in a non-aggressive feeling. This is already a step, a step further. And that can be something solid, it can be something liquid, it can be anything that is still of interest to you at the moment. I mean not as a quality, but simply as an object. A very simple word came to me. That's what little children say. Yes, with a time of selection. We wouldn't say, we wouldn't show it outside, but we would say, there's something in there, there's something up there.

[39:49]

Yes. And then the mother comes and says... Yes, that's... That makes the mothers proud, yes. And then we can already see the slumber. Yes, so we got the message into the picture. as a state of mind where I now feel like in a special recording device like a scene, a video camera recording device it just takes on what is in the point to translate into this state Man hört einfach nur die Aufnahme. Ich meine, darunter regelt es sich einfach.

[40:49]

Aber das wirkt ja alles auf. Und wenn du das bemerkst, was ankommt, hast du schon, glaube ich, aus dem ganzen Topf, ist es nicht alles. Es kommt ja nicht alles. Yes, yes, that's probably the prerequisite. I don't see everything that's in there either. Well, it's just the heart of the picture. Then we go to the next one, otherwise we have to extend the week. I just wanted to say for the first time Again, why are we doing this? Of course, that's because of Nicole. No, that's not true. No, you didn't say that. No, the reason why we're doing this is because we want to share our experience and explain that there's a danger involved. I wanted to say that we've already said quite a lot. And I have the feeling that we've actually established the territory. And it's more about the question, for me the most important thing is, how do I keep it alive?

[42:06]

And I have the feeling that if I hear too much, then at least in my case, the dynamic is more important, that I know at some point, and then it's less alive. So the question, that there are open questions, I think is good. That was my point. Yes, that was exactly what I wanted to say. But one thing I noticed when we were talking, I was first confronted with a question. Tell me, what is your experience with the first scandal? Then something comes up with me, what I describe and so on, and then it comes to many others. So that it is also heard by others and also partly something completely different. First of all, what I have thought about has changed. And secondly, and I think that's what helps me to keep it alive, I notice that there are many possibilities. It's not like, now I understand exactly what you said, but there are incredibly many facets in it. I don't want to say that everything is the same, that's very wrong, some hit me, some don't, but there's a chance, but I also admit, and that's what I said at the end, it's too much for me now, all of a sudden.

[43:15]

I've seen so many facets, and I don't want to say which one belongs in there and which one doesn't, but I now have a corp, Yes, where I can draw so much from that I am no longer determined what it has to be next time. And that's how I deal with it in a playful way. I play more now. I just wanted to finish this part. Yes, good. Let's go to the next one. What I find very enriching is that through all these discussions, in which we actually try, and it's not just a simple field, and everyone makes a contribution to it, it's a trial, but in talking about it, we create something like a theoretical, philosophical field. And we really have to pay attention to this, this is not the practice, this has nothing to do with practice. Practice would mean that each of us sits down this evening and says, so now I'll try it myself, on my pillow, in my posture,

[44:19]

How do I do that at all? And then something like this comes up again, that the attention is directed, but also the steering of attention in such a conversation is something different than ultimately saying, so now I'll sit down and then everyone has to say, I'll do it like this. or I experience it this way, and then we take the theory of the skandhas and put it into our practice and try to make a practical experience with it, how do I experience it, how do I experience form. Erfahrung, die auf jeden Fall bereichert wurde oder die, was mir dann geholfen hat, ist diese ganze Diskussion. Es lenkt meine Aufmerksamkeit, aber dazu braucht es eben die Praxis.

[45:22]

Und da gehen wir jetzt mal zum zweiten, zum nicht greifbaren Gefühl. Pause oder nicht? Pause. How much time do we have left? Okay, then someone will tell us the date of birth. It's 12 o'clock. Okay, then we'll take a break until 12 o'clock and then we'll have the third hour until 1 o'clock. And we can start with the second hour. Okay. What are you doing? I'm sorry, who are you?

[46:34]

I'm so sorry. Bring it. So. Do you still have crepe paper?

[47:38]

I put the roll somewhere here. I'll put it in the other room. We'll see. Thank you very much. Why? Now you hang the table over there, not over here, so that everyone can understand it. Thank you very much. It's like a L'Oreal. My wife makes a scandal, saying that when the kids are out of the house, you have something in your hand. Thank you.

[48:49]

The cards are being rewritten. It can be speculated again and now just into the pot, into the pot. I'll tell you something very disgusting, I'm not sure if that's possible, I had a lot of effort to do this, and I had to look for it, or what could that be, so as soon as I found a quality, Well, for example, it is about body perception, that there is a place that reports and there are a lot of forms and things there, and suddenly you think, oh, that's nonsense, and then something like a kind of quality comes in, but except for body perception,

[50:26]

For me it is too fine, because I already have a perception of it at that moment, when such feelings arise. You've already mentioned one thing that doesn't fit quite well. You said it's a quality. Could we still call it a quality that cannot be grasped? Maybe that's just another word, but it gives the whole school a direction. It's a kind of cloud, you could say. It's a cloud of fragrance. Well, first of all, my feeling is that it is so diffuse. The reality is already too concrete for me. And I don't want to feel it. It expresses it better. Because it is so diffuse. You can feel it, I can feel it.

[51:30]

But, yes. Well, I would say, for example, I have an unpleasant feeling in my body. I don't know if I read something about it and also tried to to think about it in the Sazen, that's wrong, I can't say that now, but I have an idea that this is this quality, but without a evaluation, so without this evaluation, I have a good feeling in my stomach or I have a bad feeling in my stomach, but rather to leave it in a neutral status.

[52:40]

So that the between, between good and bad, let's take it literally now, that it is in between, without a feeling, without evaluation, I can't call it that. So that's how I understand it. and that everything is still so defunct, but you can feel that something is coming, that you are not afraid, that you don't have too many problems, that it is already a little better than it was today, yesterday everything was fine, but the fact that everything is still open, Yes, I also don't quite understand this. I don't know exactly. I have similar experiences with the others. I have a very strong body perception and I always have perceptions for which there is no word.

[54:07]

But just because there is no word for it, it does not automatically mean that it is not tangible, because I can already grasp it. So it's just a question for me. I imagine tangible feelings as something else, and at the moment I can really separate it from just feelings for which I have no category. But there are certain feelings that we have learned. If I am not anger, then I call it anger, and I have learned that this is how it feels. But I have a lot of other feelings that have exactly the same intensity, I have the same relationship with them, but I wouldn't call them anger, it's not quite anger, it's more like ... Stinky anger or something like that. I don't know. Something that doesn't fit. I don't have a word for it. But does that automatically mean that it is not tangible? That's always a question for me. What is this not tangible? Yes, first of all I put myself on the side that is not tangible, because that comes first afterwards, and I first sat down with feelings, because what is actually meant by feeling?

[55:27]

In German, feeling and feeling are synonyms, but in English they are two words, feeling and feelings and, for example, sensation. One is a strong feeling and the other is a feeling of joy, for example. and I am not quite sure what exactly in German the feeling is meant, is it something like an emotion, good, joy, sadness, love, hatred, feelings, or is the feeling something like I feel something, it has a physical component, good, joy also has a physical component, but I can't name it exactly, that's what I'm stuck with. For me it is similar, so feeling has a lot of meaning, and typically I understand it as love, what, value, meaning, people, surprise, all of these are unknown feelings, and all of this is not meant with the non-equal feeling, but this word is used.

[56:36]

And I don't think it's meant to do that, because these feelings are separable and we all nod and try to understand what joy is. It is a clear state of mind, a tangible state of mind. And if I look at the 1 to 5 as a differentiation, For me, the second scandal is that the feelings are not yet differentiated, but rather pleasant, unpleasant, neutral, and I perceive it more as an idea. I can't grasp it. But I also take it from the theory and then go on the search. I don't discover it myself, but I search for what I should find now.

[57:43]

But that's also a pre-search, isn't it? Yes. Because the fifth, fourth, third Skanda, that works, doesn't it? And afterwards I need a blindness. And the second Skanda, I also think now, how do we speak about it, can we speak in this way, or do we try to define it, and then we are back in the fifth skanda. Only, can we find a language where this also shows itself a little, or hinders. I think we can maybe adjust that a little bit, yes, so I had the same problem with the second scanner, as in the feeling, that is, the intuition that you said, and then with this out-of-the-map development it was quite normal,

[58:49]

I haven't really been able to start with it, but after I have been able to open it up a bit, in a form of feeling that I don't try to deny in any way, or that I don't judge, because good, bad or neutral, this is already a judgment, if I leave it in this room as a solid liquid, yes, and in this liquid these sensations move and the attempt to hold them there and to let them then I also have this feeling that you have described, that I already have the feeling that I know what it is, but this is no form of knowledge, this is a feeling that tells me something, but this feeling is more comprehensive and in the end not really describable, about a whole situation, more than anything else, and this is very often the case with people or in nature, this is much more about people than what I really knew, but it is simply not really tangible, and I can't say that, and I can't ...

[60:12]

I can't really define what that is. There is also a kind of child's play where you get something in your hand and you have to feel what it is. I have a very vivid memory of playing something like that on a child's birthday. Where you feel and feel what it can be. And if you have guessed it, then the next one will come. Or you can. So I think it has to be such a kind of substance. Who was the last one? Krigor. Krigor, the dead king. He told you about... I have also always thought about how I found the term feeling, emotion or presence, which helps me to describe something that is not yet clear as a defined feeling, which has crystallized, but to describe it, it is a form of presence, you find yourself again there,

[61:44]

So that's how I manage to get there. And then I wanted to ask again about understanding, because we are already talking about it, because the second skanda I have always practiced as the instance that I like, I don't like it, The three holes can go further. We'll talk about that later. We're talking about not grasping, but I don't like that. I think we really have to differentiate here between how Baker Roshi teaches us the whole thing and how we find it in some other books. And sometimes it is explained differently, they have different approaches, they have different

[62:51]

different terms and also different definitions. And what I can say is, this is what you asked, that VTCA has no tangible feeling, has nothing to do with anger, with emotions or with anything where I normally say, this is my feeling, as Baker Roche teaches us. So let's just talk about how he would do it, otherwise it will be too complicated. He actually starts with the non-aggressive feeling, always with it, now here in space is a feeling that changes from moment to moment, that we are here ... created by our common being here and by many other factors, this feeling arises, but it is a feeling that we do not grasp at the moment when we try to grasp it. We can notice it, but noticing is something other than grasping.

[63:54]

to want to grab. We also have to be careful there. Of course, somehow we notice what is here in the space of the feeling, but the moment I grab it, it's really like I'm grabbing the air and it's running, it's running through my hand and it just doesn't stay there. So that's the definition. A mood. A mood, that is perhaps, or atmosphere, there we come closer to the thing. Mood, atmosphere, I think, fits quite well as a definition. Yes, I would also say sensuality. Sensuality? Yes, that's a little bit subjective. Yes, maybe it's a matter of values. So the next question is... Jonas and then... Manuela and then... Can I just say one thing?

[65:20]

I don't like Van Gogh's direction. I like the second one better. Pleasant and unpleasant. That's a very important difference between pleasant and unpleasant. Pleasant is not the same as I like it. It's an important difference. If you say I like it, then you already have an ego that decides. And if you say unpleasant, then it's like everyone else, less tangible. Pleasant, unpleasant is not the way that I teach it. So it doesn't matter, but it's just the way he defines it.

[66:25]

It still exists. But he specifically emphasized that he better has this not graspable. But he said to me, pleasant, unpleasant goes to the direction of the third skandha. And if you go down there, you're neutral. But it's not suppressed. Because it's not a perception yet. I said, is that the second Scandala? He said, no, it's the third. But okay, that's an adjustment. When you understand this process like that, he really talked about it again. And he said, that's the reason that I call it non-graspable. Because he wanted to make that distinction. But it's also true, Ulrike, on the other hand, I just read in the transcript today, where he didn't, so that was from earlier, where he clearly taught Classical and Unclassical in the second. He learned it through us. He taught you your story. Not someone else, but he taught you yesterday. Let's leave it at that.

[67:40]

Who was next? Jonas, wait. Jonas, please. What I mean by having a connection is, for example, when I go out into nature, I'm always at the same place. And if I find them in a different mood every day, and I will be able to adjust them, I would say, and yes, it is somehow a lyrical weather, or it is very beautiful, a shining sunset, so I can define that very briefly. But the property that I can perceive this place as in a mood, that sets this, and I thought that was mood, I don't know where it came from, quite well. The place or the situation has the property to express a mood.

[68:45]

And before it is laid out, before it is occupied with a clear feeling or thought or association, somehow, there it is this still untouchable experience. And that's exactly what I find in landscape photography or in abstract art, for example, when you look at an image there and always look around. And you don't know what's on the next page. Before you can clearly assign it, you have a feeling for it, but it is not yet clear. Especially with abstract things, it is very tangible, and that is really a tangible feeling, that is the first thing that comes to me. And then it is aligned, then it is put together into a cheerful mood or something like that. I don't think you have access to it. You have to decide, yes. Yes, because it's more difficult. Yes, you can say that it's more difficult. I would like to know, when I sit here and I feel the pillow, but I don't do it because it's pressing or it's not pressing, but I feel it, is that also the second or is it the third?

[69:53]

That's the third. Why should it only be something spiritual? Why shouldn't it also be something What you are saying is all just the spirit, or some kind of mood, or something like that. Why can it not also be connected with something, without me saying it now? I have no idea, I don't know. It is always the same third, when it is connected with something. The time is just right. Let's see if the time is just right. There I can say something, because this is with me. I can't be the first anyway, I'm already in the second. and I can only speak from my point of view, I don't know if that's the right way to put it, but from my point of view, I have already said that the first form for me is that more appears, of course not at the same time, but it comes again this and that, but in this change that then comes, my body creates this change, what comes, these different forms that appear as a signal,

[71:17]

And that is what makes me a whole body feeling. A whole one. And for me, I can create a resonant object of my body. And what I find there as resonance to what always comes alternately, that is the feeling that I call this feeling. How can I dare to change it one way or another? Unfortunately, it also changes a bit, but only gradually. And that's how it is for me. So it's not attached to one individual, but it's something that the individual almost without referring to just one of them, that's how it is with me, and that's why I like to use the term whole-body resonance as a feeling. You don't have to touch anything with it. No, I don't. It's just that this feeling does not reduce to this one touch, but it is stored in front of it, because it does not focus on this one thing, but on the exchange of feelings of the differences. You can go five millimeters above and above. Yes, but that would mean that the key is no longer there.

[72:32]

That's what I would say. Yes, that's what I also said. The key is no longer there. I don't believe that. The key, the key, that is, the key is grasping, but in the non-grabable feeling there is no grasping in that sense, but there is simply only a here-being. Or to be true fits best. Here comes the correct term for the first time, the spirit of being true. But to be true also means ... Yes, the question is whether the skin only plays into the body, because the skin is the organ with which we also feel,

[73:34]

For example, when I speak about a fabric, for example when I am in the dark and I am looking for a certain fabric or something like that, and I feel ... Yes, without living. Or without the fifth. I can also live in the fifth in the dark. You can, but not in the second. You can, but in every scandal you still have a sense. Yes. You know, sometimes you go on, sometimes you stay free, and then it's the third scandal. I don't think so. You're talking too much. Marie-Louise is the third. Marie-Louise is the third. I can't describe it, but I can imagine a direction in which I would go in this direction. There comes something like not having an attitude or having one attitude.

[74:44]

to be so open that everything that is there is there at the same time and I almost accept it, it's like being so open to everything that I can experience everything at the same time. and then nothing can be done. I've been here for a very long time, [...] I've been here for a very I want to incorporate my experience. The experience that I make, every experience I make, that is the five senses plus the thinking.

[76:06]

And from there it is potentially possible, in every sense of the word, that I can incorporate it into the five skandhas. It is perhaps more difficult to get to the first skanda through the sense of the key, When listening or seeing, in principle it is possible. It is the question of what kind of person I am, am I here visually, am I rather like that. But I don't think that you can say now, keys, that's not, that's already ripe, but then there's the picture, it's not there. It goes from the beginning to the end. I'm not talking about my experience, but about the logic in which we use it. I'm not saying that I have the experience, but I think it is potentially possible not to be accessible. What is accessible? We drive on an incompatible road. Yes, that's what I meant. It's just that we have to wait and see. Thank you. I have a feeling, a picture, a feeling.

[77:16]

First of all, as if I were bathing in the mist. I do not know what is behind it, but I am totally open. It is as you say, so open, but I am not yet in the sense that I am not yet accepting it, it is just the way it is, and it is so undefined, it can go in this direction, in that direction, in that direction, it can be a more exciting moment or a more dangerous one, all of that is not yet there, but there is this feeling that something is there, but I still don't know exactly what it is. It's a little more concrete than form, but it's this fog, sublime fog.

[78:22]

And I think you can't catch fog. But it's so comprehensive and I think sometimes you get up in the morning I have the feeling that it is changing, but underneath there is a feeling that it stays a little longer. I can't describe it, but it keeps me awake. This feeling, when I wake up with this feeling, I am totally awake, as if I were about to lose a key or make a car accident, something like that. So I am de-electrified and I am awakened through the day, or maybe not through the day, but through the next moment or a few moments. That's how it is. It's so uncertain, and I think, yes, what could happen? Yes. Yes, to what you said, I also know that very well.

[79:36]

My practice with the second skanda is to practice these experiences, these feelings that are diffuse, to try to have the intention to stay open to them, to stay open to them, because very quickly there is a rattle that I try to do something about it. Either to understand it or, as Marilis said before, that you don't really select what you are recording now. You often record the information that is related to the self, what is important to me or what I want to hear. These things are usually more sought after, the white of the walls or all these things that are still there, the way the light falls, also a lot of little things, the clock of a person or all the blinking of the eyes, you tend to erase them a bit and try to keep this openness, that it doesn't come with it, maybe what we want,

[80:41]

I would now say for myself, regardless of whether it is pleasant or unpleasant to listen to the second or rather the third skanda, I would say that my practice with the second skanda consists of stabilizing this openness, which is a certain neutrality. There is another point where one could ask, why not this gripping and not grippable and what is the difference at all? I think the expansion in the information that is coming to us. Through the second calendar there is this expansion that information is there and I am not grasping at it, I can grasp at the ground and then I notice that it is hard, soft, or as always, or uncomfortable, or I can listen and then I can say that this is it,

[81:53]

or I can look at it and then I can say, this is that. And there is a lot of information and we are used to building on this information. If we say, I want to know what this is, then I look at it, or I hear it, or I touch it. and a non-aggressive feeling expands this information that there is also information here in this room that I cannot grasp and I ultimately somehow have no sense organ. where I could say, I want to go there now, then we would go to the third, but still it is an information in this room here, we are not trained on it, but we can perceive or we can This information, which is here in the room, simply only gives a space or a spirit, and because of any such condition there is still more information, but after that I cannot grasp.

[83:05]

In the moment when I try to grasp, it rolls through my hands and there is nothing left. So how can I hold back? and can still somehow notice this information in this room here. This is also such a beautiful example that Roche once gave. You know somehow also in the group with many people at a party and suddenly you notice someone is looking to someone, it looks at you, although you don't have eyes behind you, but you notice there is somehow information, but ultimately has no sense organ behind it to pick it up, but still there is additional information, and that is the expansion of this intangible feeling. That's what it's all about, in my opinion. So, now, who is it? You too. I read one more sentence from Washington, yes. I wrote it out this morning. Feeling is a knowledge without distortion, no reaction.

[84:11]

I somehow found that to be very interesting. And without distortion, that fits back to this nail, so without distortion or contour, one could often say. and there is no reaction to it yet. The reaction to it has to be done. I would like to jump to a specific point. There was a moment when something was being put into my brain, that is known to me, or that I know, or that I associate with my history. I think that's what you meant with this openness. In the moment when I zoom somewhere and connect it with any direction, any perspective from any point of view, anything that I know, any other comparison, then this process of grasping begins. This is where openness comes in,

[85:14]

the bandwidth collapses and the whole thing is reduced to something. And I think that in the sense that it is about something, as you have also expressed it, Manu, about such an perception of a kind of totality. so that is I get the echo of my own intention. Yes, so to give the example of Begoroshi with the party in person.

[86:22]

Where you said you don't have a sense, at least no eyes, but I would, for example, further define the body sense, it doesn't matter here either. Yes, right. So if you don't limit yourself to he did not stutter at me, so what, who sees the third eye or something like that, just to accept that, yes, that the senses are also a little more and that we are at the border, then I think we also remain within the framework of the six senses that can act via the five skandhas, because there is, suddenly there appears such a sixth sense, That's why I want to see him through this body, or through the open. And so slowly I'm starting to understand what Dieter has brought in, the second scandal after the definition of Rekha Roshi, to understand.

[87:37]

I don't know, it's coming slowly. Of course, there are different contributions. Especially when you lead groups, especially when you don't know a group yet, how to get into that group. I think that has a lot to do with this intangible feeling what kind of mood is there in the group, so what comes to you, this moment when you go in there and just see what is there. In the physical therapy training we have often had situations where the trainers, for example, said that there seems to be an elephant in the room here. And that is simply when there is somehow a thick air, as she also described it, such a feeling for a thick air, what is it, what can it be, so something like that, in that area I think it is missing a little bit.

[88:48]

I would like to go away a little bit from the tangible, because I notice the attempt to grasp something, or rather not to grasp, and I see the second corner, there is something very pragmatic for me, yes, there somehow a stone plumps into the pond of my mind, and it directs something, yes, a small wave is created there, and it is perceived or there is perception before the third skandha and that is more pleasant, unpleasant or it is neutral and if you can imagine that, then it is also my favorite skandha, actually, there is an extension and often it is like this when sitting that when you go upwards in the second skandha, you somehow get there, you can feel it, and then you get the feeling that the first skandha is not far away, that it is looking around the corner, and in this respect I am not yet involved in what happens in the second skandha,

[90:14]

Yes, it is actually more perception in the sense of a feeling, there is nothing cognitive yet, it is pre-cognitive. I would like to bring in something practical, which also refers to what Marie-Louise said. What has expanded the practice of the unknown. in a situation to go into with this attitude and to feel what is there, yes, without just evaluating it, naming it and categorizing it and putting it away somewhere, but simply in this attitude, in my prison practice, the attitude of simply listening. And no matter what is coming at me, I just let it be.

[91:26]

And this is a very challenging practice, but it has incredibly expanded this feeling, this feeling of openness, this feeling of openness to a situation, just to hold on to this feeling, to learn, to embrace and to make myself aware. It is not clear to me yet, but through all the senses in which many skandhas exist, it is not yet clear to me, for example, how the second skandha separates itself from the third, so in a sense I have come to the conclusion that it is not there, that in the second skandha, for example, one feels a pain, an indescribable feeling, or one feels something, but it is, yes, where is the essence of the second? For example, if I feel something with my teeth, I can feel it.

[92:28]

Yes, Oshie also said something about pain, especially if I briefly explain that. He said that one can only take pain as information, without not knowing it. So one can say that he is sitting there when something terrible hurts him. On the one hand, one knows that this pain is not dangerous, but nevertheless it is so strong that one can hardly cover it up, and then he describes how one can neutralize it, so to speak. Because we assume that in the third it is more like this, I have a perception, but I don't name it, I only stay in the perception. What would then be in the second scanner?

[93:29]

In the third I can already name it. And then the second would be the perception without naming it. This morning we tried to capture the form, and for me, from what I have read so far, from Roshi and from Gerhard, is that a quality of feeling or a perception of feeling is added to these forms, which simply arise, and that, before it becomes a perception, That's how I imagine it, what I'm looking for. Is there such a thing?

[94:29]

And when the feeling becomes clearer and more clearly recognizable, when it becomes more familiar to me, when I also add something to it from my previous experience, then the feeling becomes much more clear. But there is also a feeling, That fits in the folk culture. That's how I understand it now, even though I don't experience it, but it's just a formative state of feeling that is not known, that is not ordained by oneself. Just on this state of feeling. That's how I understand it now. The music said pre-cognitive. Then I thought of two words when I heard in the practice period, not knowing and unpredictability.

[95:29]

That should fit in there, too. So it's... A nice sentence in the choir that fits for the second time. It's not known, the whole thing comes next. I think so, too. Now we're going to have lunch. I wanted to ask you, Gregor didn't say that you would prepare a tablet for lunch for Katrin and Ulrike will eat with Katrin upstairs, so that you can prepare it in the kitchen before the pots are carried over. We have to do that. Thank you. Thank you.

[96:28]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_57.19