Feeling located in your breath, body, phenomenon and so forth. Which allows you to release without fear. And it helps to break the habit of permanence and create a new habit. Again, as I mentioned earlier, like releasing yourself into your exhale. As if you're going to die on your exhale. And then the inhale appears. And if you get used to that after a while, the feeling of disappearing isn't scary. And you're not likely to have a loss of self-meaning or self-relevance.

[01:04]

And then it is not likely that you have such a loss of self and self-reliance. Yes. Anything else? Anyone else? Yes? Yes. Could one say that consciousness is the activity that Would I say that consciousness is this kind of activity which creates the appearance? Through appearance and naming and discrimination the objects and the self.

[02:18]

Yes, exactly. Generate or create, sure. It's such a habit and we're so identified with it We don't feel it as creation. We feel it as perhaps reification. But in actual fact it's a creation. Yes, go ahead. I would like the word shaping or modeling to be referred to as creation. Do you like that better? But I think that is like a basic decision whether there is something out there or it's just our own creating.

[03:34]

No, that's going too far. So let's hold back a moment. But if you can shape, it means it's creation. You can shape because it's not permanent. So practically speaking, you're shaping. Enlightenment is to have the experience of its creation, not shaping. it remains shaping because the ingredients are there you don't end up with entirely new ingredients so you can shape because of emptiness

[04:38]

And if you shape, you can also then experience emptiness. And the experience of emptiness means it's creation. Or I would say you generate emptiness. Okay. But you can stick to modeling if you like. I'm not handsome enough. What? To be a model. Stick to modeling. But Eric, now he could... Oh, excuse me. A terrible anniversary. That sounds depressing. I can tell you. I thought he was angry at me. Yeah, just... And then we get also that Jones... That's what spouses are for.

[06:20]

And she said, the topic of her presentation was after, is sociology more of a science or is it a discrete object? And she tried to convince us that it's objective, but it's not okay. And it's really impossible to get there. And that... And it's hard to explain what I mean by that. I think I understand it, because normative is equivalent to modeling. Yeah. One of the big discoveries of this last century intellectual discoveries let's say is Heisenberg and Einstein and others pointing out that observation changes what you observe.

[07:39]

And this penetrated the intellectual and cultural world very rapidly. Because at least people thought machines could be objective. But this meant that even with machines, you're looking at something and the molecules or light atoms change it. So it means there's no such thing as objectivity. However, we do certainly have the experience of being objective. Yeah, and it means in the dictionary, you're objective when you don't bring personal prejudices and likes and dislikes to the object being observed.

[08:45]

I think in medical terms, an objective diagnosis is one not done by the patient. The patient says, I have this, and that's a subjective diagnosis, not an objective diagnosis. And James Joyce, he seems to have taken this to heart. And in Ulysses, he tries to present his characters simultaneously, objectively and subjectively. I mean, I can't remember exactly, but like he says, something like, his hands were

[09:47]

Patrick's hands were in his lap. And he felt the pain, but he still felt the pain going up his arm. And Michael's, Michael in Ireland, face twitched. It must have been mirroring his own twitch. So you'd have a sentence which just didn't say who was feeling these things, but you suddenly realize this is from inside the person, this is a nearby person, this is seen from the outside, it's all one thing. So he tried to join so-called subjectivity and objectivity in one description, simultaneous description. Which in a way is a practice of non-duality.

[11:19]

But maybe we should talk more about subjectivity and objectivity, probably we will. Because I think the activity of subjectivity also is a kind of I or self. Okay. Anyone else? Yes, Ulrike. If you practice this... Is that what you talked about yesterday as the separating of the observing self from the observing mind? Yes, this would be a practice of the observing mind, not of the observing self. Now I think one of the major confusions in trying to talk about self and selflessness and non-self and so forth is the implicit identification we make with the observer as a self.

[12:34]

A self. so we ask who when we should ask what because the observing mind isn't necessarily a who it's only a what a who we could call it a what now I think that needs a little more explication But it took me many years to see that. It's just a simple once I say it, once I notice it, it's simple. But it took me a long time to see the confusion.

[13:42]

People ask, who's doing this or who's observing this? If I held a mirror up, you wouldn't say, who's mirroring? So, The observing mind is just the capacity of the mind to observe itself. It's not a person, a who. But one of the functions of is observation. And it uses the capacity of the mind to observe itself to become an observing self and a who which accumulates personal history. Anyway, that's how I understand it. So there's no who which sees this appearance.

[15:00]

But a who can appear. Krista? Yes, a little earlier... I have to put effort or work in imagining impermanence. And I think if you talk about impermanence, you mean impermanence in any, in any, every moment. Hmm. I don't know how to do it, and I would be interested in how one can do it, but I try to do it the other way around.

[16:17]

I look at the flower, the rose, and I look at it as like what a miracle it is that it appears every moment. Mm-hmm. Yeah, it is. Mm-hmm. I don't know where it comes from, but my feeling is like in every moment it had to collapse and totally disappear. No. and out of that it's like a miracle that it's there again and again it's touching how it says again and again here I am yes it is I understand it that way too feel that way

[17:43]

But to enter into the practice of impermanence, it's true everything's changing. Stones are worn down from mountains. But if you look at a stone, you don't see much impermanence. So you can think of the stone as impermanent, but you don't experience it as impermanent. And much of the world is that way. And the stone is out there, it's not just mine. Whatever we mean by out there... Okay, but so the best way to enter the experience of impermanence is to see your relationship to the stone as impermanent.

[19:04]

Because all you know is your perception of it. And that perception, that noticing, is always changing. Okay, so once you get really into the habit of that, That begins to open up impermanence in a wider sense. Of course, these flowers, if you look carefully at them, they are actually moving slightly. And we... And petals will fall off, of course. I have a question. If I'm walking in vipassana meditation and I'm walking very, very slowly,

[20:16]

And I also name my steps. It seems to be an illusion to be able to name the beginning of the step and the end of the step. Yeah, it's arbitrary. But it's a naming as a practice which stops thinking. So if I name everything, my stepping, etc., this is another way to look at this second step. If the naming doesn't lead to discrimination then the naming leads back to appearance or thusness. If I just name sitting breathe it dissolves into a kind of space. And there's no beginning or ending to the naming.

[21:41]

Yes? But then also self and identity is a what and not a who. Yeah, if you're pretty detached. But I think who is useful. You do have a personal history that we call who. I think it's psychology to ask who am I. It's more Buddhist to ask, what am I? But both are okay. Who is a little more entangling than what? If I say, who am I? I don't know, actually. What am I? I have some experience. Can you speak a little more slowly, please?

[23:05]

Even in English I have trouble. So they see the physical mirror and not their face. Exactly. And it seems to me that those who have You know that some people cannot see this form of war. My question is, who suddenly mirrored that, and really stopped it?

[24:07]

I mean, if you have this war sense of self-absorption, self-absorption also affects the mind. As I said, in Egypt, with the dead people, the people, it's kind of that pathological thing. I would like to speak to you about a particular point, where you have the feeling that you are allowed to be persecuted by politicians, who look at you and do not come to you, but in fact you have the right to be persecuted. This is one of the most important pathologies. And the position of the opposition, which is being played, will be the same as that of the right-wing. And that made me very optimistic, to say the least. Because I thought that I would never be able to do it.

[25:22]

And my question is, how should I be able to do it myself? I'm very optimistic, even with the observation that I can't do it. It's a bit difficult, but I'll try. Yes. Yeah, I believe that some anorexic, rail-thin anorexic people look in the mirror and see themselves as fat. What? Not only. Normal Western people. Oh, I know, I know, yeah, ordinary people. Some people look in the mirror and they see themselves as ugly, and others as beautiful, and you know, et cetera. Yeah, so I, at least in Zen, Zen issues, issues, refuses to use the image of a mirror.

[26:35]

Sometimes it's used, but really, if you look at the whole story of the sixth patriarch, there's no mirror, there's no wiping the mirror, and so forth. Though sometimes the mirror is a useful but not as a metaphor of realization. So I used it just now, like holding up a mirror, just to say there's a difference between an observing mind and an observing self. But if the observing mind is so distorted, it's an observing self. So then we can ask, is it possible to have an undistorted observing mind? Strictly speaking, no.

[27:44]

There's always some distortion. But in the range of practice between an observing self, which is really only in terms of self, is very different from an observing mind. And how do we get there? So that we can try to talk about it. Try to talk about it. Not right now. It's about... Oh, yes, okay. So this confusion of the observing self with the observing mind, could this be an explanation in psychotherapy of schizophrenia?

[28:55]

I don't know. The people I know who have been are schizophrenic. It seems almost genetic more than simply psychological. Whatever I mean by that. I don't mean it's not, you can't do anything about it. But to work with a serious mental illness through practice... You have to have a strong will and intention. Just in my experience, if you don't, there's not much hope. My experience is you can be a little sick without will and you can't get better. But you can be quite mentally ill and have willpower and you might be able to get better if you practice or if you do some kind of something.

[30:56]

But certainly Zen practice, Buddhist practice, is not a cure-all. It takes intelligence and effort and actually a strong sense of self in order to practice. Okay, anything else? So let's sit a few moments and then have our meal. Right here before you. And nowhere else. It is ready made for you. Now Yuan Wu is one of the major creators of Zen Buddhism.

[32:28]

He's the compiler, as I said yesterday, of the Blue Cliff Records. Shuedo collected the stories, but Yuan Wu, through a series of lectures and annotations, made it into what it is now, compiled it as these hundred cases, colons. And it is a great act of compassion and brilliance. And one of the most creating, putting together one of the most extraordinary documents in world literature and religious literature.

[33:34]

So if there's any Zen Buddhist we can trust, I think he's certainly one we can trust. So let's take seriously what he says. Whole, essential being. Yeah, you'd have to spend some time with yourself on what is whole, essential being. And what does he mean? Is right here before you. And nowhere else. That shifts the level. There's no comparison then. And it is ready-made for you.

[34:49]

You can think of this ready-made for you and catch the feeling of it. If you think of a baby emerging into a human baby or any baby emerging into this world from the mother. Everything that we know, everything that exists, makes this baby possible. Change the temperature of the planet slightly and there'd be no babies. So the whole world is ready-made for this baby.

[35:50]

At least the whole world has made this baby. Calling this all-at-onceness the world is a little funny, but we don't have another word. So in a way you could say the path, the way, the path, is the whole world makes the baby possible. And the path is to discover that the whole world is ready made for you.

[36:50]

Doesn't mean there isn't danger and things like that. And betrayal and all kinds of things. And... But these are unpleasant footnotes. Fundamentally, the whole world is ready-made for us. Eleven square feet of dirt, I believe, if you plant it carefully, can support a person all year round. We can't necessarily say that our society is completely ready-made for us. It's perhaps ready-made for itself. And it might be seriously outdated. So then we have the idea that Siegfried put forth earlier by implication, is there something else like a true nature?

[38:24]

This is not exactly Buddhism let's say it's a surface of Buddhism but you can't penetrate the surface until you have some yeah, you felt for yourself the possibility of a true nature, separate from our societal or cultural nature. If you don't have sense of this possibility, practice doesn't make much sense in the long run. Practice which is transformed and comes alive through your views and intentions.

[39:42]

So this whole essential being appears before you, right here before you, and nowhere else. And the whole world is ready-made for you. Okay, that's the first statement of Yuan Wuzh I want to introduce. Okay, the second statement. Realize Buddhism right where you stand. Okay. Come into a mind where there is no before and after.

[41:06]

And no here or there. Okay. So this is a prescriptive statement. Because it's asking you to realize a mind where there is no Before and after. No here and there. No, that means to step out of the structure of mind that we certainly need. Das bedeutet, aus der Struktur des Geistes herauszusteigen, die wir ganz bestimmt brauchen. That creates here and there, before and after. Die hier und dort und vorher und nachher hervorbringt. So I offer you from Yuan Wu those two statements.

[42:11]

Also bitte ich euch von Yuan Wu diese zwei Aussagen an. Now, I want to say that I think the two most important things we've discussed in this seminar, I mean, I don't know what's most important, but they're probably the least examined so far by us. And somehow, sometimes the least examined brought into our attention, held in our... I have a power the already examined doesn't have. So I would like to say one of them is the sense that my understanding that there's a difference between the observing self and the observing mind.

[43:36]

Now let me say, deferring to Dharu here, that, you know, that we can say it's a reflecting mind, but if we say that, we have to then say a reflecting and observing mind. While it's not an observing self, It has the dynamic of observing. So it's an observing self. I mean an observing mind. So what I mean by observing is there's definitely an intelligence and a kind of discrimination going on.

[44:37]

A kind of thinking, non-thinking, as Dogen says, which is not the karmic self. So I think to proceed we have to absorb these two things this one thing and to and the second not so examined thing by us is to the nature in serious practice of examination itself.

[45:54]

Okay, so that I would, you could call the, you know, it's hard to bring the, bring words really into life. The dynamic of stillness. The word dynamic helps a little. It means it's a relationship, a transformative relationship. Buddhism is restorative and transformative. It restores us and it transforms us. And we can think of practice as divided into a restorative phase and a transformative phase. Restore like a blueprint.

[47:06]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_72.74