Now, as most of you have probably discovered, we're in a somewhat different schedule today. I thought, or we thought, that Sunday to Sunday would be good to have one day that's different. Sort of parallels are. Four and nine days. Four, nine, fourteen, nineteen, etc. Every five days, what we call in Creston a monk week. And it's the day we... Yeah, shave and do the laundry and so forth. And have a little different schedule and a different kind of time together.

[01:07]

Yeah. So this afternoon we'll have what we would call a four- or nine-day meal. Yeah, where we sit at tables and have a different kind of space together. And today I won't give a tea show. Now, Yeah, this, as you can see, this week is an experiment. And I think, yeah, a sangha experiment. My original idea was that, yeah, I would meet with a few people who clearly want to be or are my students.

[02:20]

Or people who are stuck with me as the teacher because they've been practicing so long. I might as well call him my teacher. And there are also people disciples or students of this lineage as well as of me. Yeah, and have the interest and possibility in their life to really continue this teaching. But immediately there were lots of little Sangha revolts. People who felt it was elitist. If they liked it, you can just come here and everyone can participate equally. Originally it would have excluded the people living in the house for the most part.

[03:39]

Maybe then we have to go to a hotel to rent a conference room. Yeah, so I don't know. Some people were really upset that they wouldn't be included. So I just said, okay, let's see, let's then... Do it the way the Sangha wants to do it and see if it works. And if it should be smaller, let's see if there's a natural attrition. It means when things get smaller by themselves. Yeah. Well, anyway, so what I'm interested in hearing from you, and I expect to hear from you, whether this week worked for you.

[04:58]

Now, as most of you have probably discovered, we're in a somewhat different schedule today. I thought, or we thought, that Sunday to Sunday would be good to have one day that's different. It sort of parallels our four and nine days. You know, four, nine, 14, 19, etc. Every five days, what we call in Creston a monk week. And it's the day we... Yeah, shave and do the laundry and so forth. And have a little different schedule and a different kind of time together.

[06:07]

Yeah, okay. So this afternoon we'll have what we would call a four-nine-day meal. Yeah, where we sit at tables and, you know, have more different kind of space to get. And so, and today I won't give a tea show. Now, um, Yeah, this, as you can see, this week is an experiment. And I think, yeah, a sangha experiment. My original idea was that, yeah, I would meet with a few people who clearly want to be or are my students.

[07:20]

Or people who are stuck with me as the teacher because they've been practicing so long, I might as well call him my teacher. And there are also people disciples or students of this lineage as well as of me. Yeah. Yeah, and have the interest and possibility in their life to really continue this teaching. But immediately there were lots of little sangha revolts. People who felt it was elitist. If they liked it, you can just come here and everyone can participate equally. Originally it would have excluded the people living in the house for the most part.

[08:39]

Maybe then we have to go to a hotel to rent a conference room. Yeah, so I don't know. Some people were really upset that they wouldn't be included. So I just said, okay, let's see, let's then... Do it the way the sangha wants to do it and see if it works. And if it should be smaller, let's see if there's a natural attrition. It means when things get smaller by themselves. Yeah. Well, anyway, so what I'm interested in hearing from you, and I expect to hear from you,

[09:39]

Whether this week worked for you? Whether the kind of schedule we had is good? Or should it be more a Sashin schedule all morning and Teachings in the afternoon? Or should we all get on a plane together and go to Crestone? Yes. Anyway, so I want to hear, because, you know, if I'm going to continue, we've got to continue through the Sangha, not just, you know, me. Me? Is that what you're saying? Me? Okay. I think one thing we may have accomplished is, because at least I've gotten this feeling from a number of people and some older people, that the idea that some kind of serious study of Buddhism as a whole has to be part of our practice.

[11:17]

This kind of practice, at least. And it seems like the majority of you didn't really feel that, think that before you came. I started a whole school, originally called the Shunryu Suzuki Study Center, back in San Francisco, which is still going, I think, under another name, which was a kind of university program built into the center. But, you know, it's a different scale and different time. I founded a whole school, the Shunryu Suzuki School,

[12:19]

Yeah, but then to make that work, because how do people live and do that and study, you know, we had to, I had to actually produce a system of businesses which produced $4 million a year of income to support the whole operation. But then you get... then you're really running an institution, and I definitely do not want to do that. It was fun and I was idealistic and younger, but not again. Okay.

[13:31]

Some people I heard thought yesterday's talk was a little bit too intellectual. Someone said I heard not poetic. I promised to be more poetic next time. And there were a lot of complaints about the translation in German of the word wholesome. Do you have another word or was the word that Neil used okay? We translate it as heilsam and you translate it forderlich, bekömmlich. Bekömmlich is more when you have food and it's... Yeah, but it's spiritual food too.

[14:37]

Heilsam is more Yeah, that's how we translate it. There's a root between whole and healing, I think, which is similar, or there's some connection. Wholesome isn't very good in English either. It sounds kind of weird. Let's be wholesome and, you know, I don't know. Could you say that it sort of altogether doesn't work? The kind of schedule we had is good. Or should it be more a Sashin schedule all morning and... Teachings in the afternoon? Or should we all get on a plane together and go to Crestone? Or should we all get on a plane together and go to Crestone? Anyways, I want to hear, because if I'm going to continue, we've got to... continue through the Sangha, not just, you know, me. Me? Is that what you're saying? Meet me.

[15:38]

I think one thing we may have accomplished is, because at least I've gotten this feeling from a number of people and some older people, that the idea that some kind of serious study of Buddhism as a whole has to be part of our practice, this kind of practice at And it seems like the majority of you didn't really feel that, think that, before you came. Yeah, I mean, I started a whole school, originally called the Shunryu Suzuki Study Center, back in San Francisco, which is still going, I think, under another name, which was a kind of university program built into the center.

[17:08]

But, you know, it's a different scale and different time. I founded a whole school, the Shunryu Suzuki School, Yeah, but then to make that work, because how do people live and do that and study? You know, we had to, I had to actually produce a system of businesses which produced $4 million a year of income to support the whole operation. But then you get... then you're really running an institution, and I definitely do not want to do that. It was fun and I was idealistic and younger, but not again. Okay.

[18:31]

Some people I heard thought yesterday's talk was a little bit too intellectual. Someone said I heard not poetic. I promised to be more poetic next time. And there were a lot of complaints about the translation in German of the word wholesome. Do you have another word, or was the word that Neil used okay? We translate it as heilsam and you translate it as... Forderlich, bekömmlich. Bekömmlich is more when you have food and it's... Yeah, but it's spiritual food too.

[19:37]

Heilsam is more... Yeah, that's how we translate it. There's a root between whole and healing, I think, which is similar, or there's some connection. So wholesome, wholesome. Wholesome isn't very good in English either. It sounds kind of, let's be wholesome. You know, I don't know. Roshi, could you say that it sort of altogether does you good when it's wholesome? Well, wholesome means in English and in the original, whatever it's translated from, means conducive to healing, yes. But again, it's a very technical term, which means a karmically active state of mind. which reduces or dissolves your karma. So I have to choose words which can also be terms. In other words, if I just use a Sanskrit word, it has no doesn't have any feeling for us.

[20:57]

Vittaka or something. I could use Vittaka or something like that. It doesn't help. So I try to pick a word that has coined It's like a defaced coin. You can't really see what it is, but you can still spend it. But you can also give it another meaning. So wholesome, whatever word we use in English or German, has to be understood as a technical term which still has some of its spending power as it's usually used. Does that make sense? So I leave it to you guys to find a word which feels okay, and yet also you can begin to define and has a technical meaning within practice.

[22:29]

Yeah, and a phrase I offered as a... potentially a wisdom phrase or voido, practice phrase, was momentarily existent. And I believe you translated it as momentary existence, which is quite different. Momentarily existent. Momentarily existent. Momentary existence is a general statement about... For this moment, just for this moment existing. Yeah. Momentary existent. Yeah. Okay.

[23:35]

Does somebody have anything you want to bring up? Any questions from yesterday or your discussion or whatever? My gosh. Your question. I would like to say that I like the talk very much. I find it very relaxing. And especially the lectures yesterday and yesterday were very inspiring for me. I have some key sentences like I especially found the schedule very becoming and also there's enough opportunity to relax and especially from the last two days the lectures I found very good and refreshing and intellectually stimulating especially certain A sentence like mounting the house of your breath. What else?

[24:40]

And don't sacrifice your state of mind. Very helpful for me. Maybe I can ask one more concrete question. Before wisdom, Roshi spoke about the Rig Veda. I want to put a question. The day before yesterday, you talked about you're good when it's wholesome. It's becoming. Well, wholesome means in English and in the original, whatever it's translated from, means conducive to healing, yes. But again, it's a very technical term, which means a karmically active state of mind which reduces or dissolves your karma. So I have to choose words which can also be terms. In other words, if I just use a Sanskrit word, it has no It doesn't have any feeling for us.

[25:57]

Vittaka or something. I could use Vittaka or something like that. It doesn't help. So I try to pick a word that has coin. It's like a defaced coin. You can't really see what it is, but you can still spend it. But you can also give it another meaning. So wholesome, whatever word we use in English or German, has to be understood as a technical term which still has some of its spending power as it's usually used. Does that make sense? So I leave it to you guys to find a word which feels okay, and yet also you can begin to define and has a technical meaning within practice.

[27:29]

Yeah, and a phrase I offered as a... potentially a wisdom phrase or voido, practice phrase, was momentarily existent. And I believe you translated it as momentary existence, which is quite different. Momentarily existent. Momentarily existent. Momentary existence is a general statement about... For this moment, just for this moment existing. Yeah. Momentary existent. Yeah. Okay.

[28:35]

Does somebody have anything you want to bring up? Any questions from yesterday or your discussion or whatever? My gosh! Your question. I would like to say that I like the talk very much. I find it very relaxing. And especially the lectures that you gave yesterday are very inspiring for me. I have some key phrases like Do you climb the horse of breath or do you not sacrifice your healthy mental state? I find that very interesting. I especially found the schedule very becoming and also there's enough opportunity to relax. And especially from the last two days, the lectures I found very good and refreshing and intellectually stimulating. Especially certain sentences like mounting the horse of your breath. What else? And don't sacrifice your state of mind.

[29:41]

Very helpful for me. I want to put a question. Before yesterday you talked about Rig Veda. You mentioned that below all change there is an altering principle, so to say. And could you say that this sort of what we call the natural laws, laws of nature, physical laws, or is it something mysterious, this ordering principle? in this, like implied in this word RTA, you mean?

[31:03]

Well, you know, I don't really know enough about early Indian history, I think, to answer with any thoroughness, but my impression is, and certainly the way Buddhism has drawn on its pre-Buddhist Indic history, It's a pretty scientific way of looking at things. And I think that's why Buddhism can pass from culture to culture without belief. Why the laws... What we've discovered about physics and biology and so forth is botany is pretty much the same from culture to culture.

[32:24]

I say pretty much just because somebody like Edward Said, who died fairly recently, who was a British Near Eastern scholar. Edward. Edward. Edward. He spoke about Western science as a sort of white man's attempt to colonize the rest of the world. He made a good case for that, actually. And certainly science in another culture might notice different things than our culture would notice.

[33:30]

But still, again, this idea of rita seemed to be the order of things, like waves, oceans, streams, the way the natural world had an order. And since there were these basic concepts of macrocosm and microcosm being reflections of each other and as I said in his I guess Munin noticed it's a phenomenological and ontological way of looking at the world. So, in a phenomenological way of looking, it's all one stuff. We're all interrelated. It's not like that's, you know, like...

[34:32]

some kind of stuff that we're not, we're special stuff. They didn't have that idea, so there's an interfusing of the world and ourselves. Rick, again? You mentioned that below all change there is an ordering principle, so to say. And could you say that this sort of what we call the natural laws, laws of nature, physical laws, or is it something mysterious, this ordering principle?

[35:35]

Like implied in this word RTA, you mean? Well, you know, I don't really know enough about early Indian history, I think, to answer with any thoroughness. But my impression is, and certainly the way Buddhism has drawn on its pre-Buddhist Indic history, It's a very... It's a pretty scientific way of looking at things. And... and I think that's why Buddhism can pass from culture to culture without belief.

[36:57]

Why the laws, what we've discovered about physics and biology and so forth is Botany is pretty much the same from culture to culture. I say pretty much just because somebody like Edward Said, who died fairly recently, who was a British Near Eastern scholar. Edward. He spoke about Western science as a sort of white man's attempt to colonize the rest of the world.

[38:05]

He made a good case for that, actually. And certainly science in another culture might notice different things than our culture would notice. But still, again, this idea of rita seemed to be the order of things, like waves, oceans, streams, the way the natural world had an order. And since there were these basic concepts of macrocosm and microcosm being reflections of each other and as I said as I said in his I guess Munin would have noticed, it's a phenomenological and not ontological way of looking at the world.

[39:18]

So, in a phenomenological way of looking, it's all one stuff. We're all interrelated. It's not like that's, you know, like... some kind of stuff that we're not, we're special stuff. They didn't have that idea, so there's an interfusing of the world and ourselves. Having been a student at one time of the history of science, I'll try not to go on any longer. It's quite interesting to me why a culture like culture of the Far East which is so ancient and has so much continuity compared to our Western culture and is much more than our Western culture based on a scientific way of looking at the world.

[40:40]

Why didn't they develop science and we did develop science? I won't try to answer that question today. But it's something I think about a lot. Marie-Louise? Just about the schedule, I just want to say that the group discussion in our group, at least for me, is really fruitful. What's really fruitful? group discussion in at least my group, for me, is very fruitful and helpful. After the Tay Show. Yeah, because there are so many things in the Tay Show and they kind of pass by. But by talking about it with the others, each person has a little grasp of some area and it gets more accessible and you think like, yes, I can try that too. Otherwise sometimes you feel like it's not for me and it just slides by. For me, in my group, this group discussion is really fruitful.

[41:58]

Maybe the lecture had too many points that you can no longer relate to yourself and it's over with you. This arrangement of the day we have which is different from the arrangement of the practice weeks may be a little better Do you want to say something? I completely agree with the schedule because there are also breaks enough to let it sink in and ponder it. It's a quiet pace. But no gaps, really.

[43:06]

It's not ripped apart. Also, what I especially like is that in the small groups, I can add to Marie-Louise, that we stay together in one group. The groups don't change all the time. I think it's helpful. And the lectures of the last two days, I found... It's like a fresh breeze. Well, it was pretty stale before I know, yeah. About saying poetic. It doesn't have always to be poetic because after having practiced for several years and these and that experiences and not knowing exactly always where you are, now sort of it's an orientation. I think if it comes after practicing for a certain time, I think it's rather helpful because it fosters an interest in a positive way. Okay. I think the agenda is very clear, that it is quiet enough, that you have enough breaks without it falling apart and that you can let something sink in.

[44:22]

I think it's good that the groups stay together, that you can really relate well to each other. And I found these lectures, at least the last ones, also refreshing from the spirit, that after a while you have practiced, Okay, Doris? Doris? Having been a student at one time of the history of science, I'll try not to go on any longer, It's quite interesting to me why a culture like the culture of the Far East ...which is so ancient... ...and has so much continuity compared to our Western culture... ...and is much more than our Western culture based on a scientific way of looking at the world...

[45:40]

Why didn't they develop science and we did develop science? I won't try to answer that question today. But it's something I think about a lot. Marie-Louise? Just about the schedule, I just want to say that the group discussion in our group, at least for me, is really fruitful. What's really fruitful? group discussion in at least my group, for me, is very fruitful and helpful. After the Tay Show. Yeah, because there are so many things in the Tay Show and they kind of pass by. But by talking about it with the others, each person has a little grasp of some area and it gets more accessible and you think like, yes, I can try that too. Otherwise sometimes you feel like it's not for me and it just slides by. For me, in my group, this group discussion is really helpful and fruitful.

[47:01]

It is so that the lecture may have too many points that you can no longer draw on yourself and that it leads past you. But if everyone in the group has understood something a little bit, then it helps me. This arrangement of the day we have, which is different from the arrangement of the practice weeks, may be a little better Do you want to say something? I completely agree with the schedule because there are also breaks enough to let it sink in and ponder it. It's a quiet pace. but no gaps really.

[48:06]

It's not ripped apart. Also, what especially I like is that in the small groups, I can add to Marie-Louise, that we stay together in one group. The groups don't change all the time. I think it's helpful. And the lectures of the last two days I found... It's like a fresh breeze. Well, it was pretty stale before I know, yeah. About saying poetic. It doesn't have always to be poetic because after having practiced for several years and these and that experiences and not knowing exactly always where you are, now sort of it's an orientation. I think it's... if it comes after practicing for a certain time, I think it's rather helpful because it fosters an interest in a positive way. Okay. You know? I found the agenda very interesting, that it is quiet enough, that you have enough breaks without it falling apart, and that you can let something sink in.

[49:22]

I think it's good that the groups stay together, that you can really relate well to each other. And I found these lectures, at least the last ones, refreshing from the spirit, after a while of practice. Okay, Doris? Doris? It was my idea with the poetic. It came from me with the poetic. Oh, I heard it from others too. Can you say some words? I think it's also a misunderstanding. First of all, I don't agree with such source texts to make any tasteful statements. I think so too. First, it's not my position to judge upon these root texts in a sort of taste way.

[50:23]

But what I want to say is that these three and a half or two and a half pages which we read were even more complicated than other Zen texts. I picked one of the simplest ones, but yeah, go ahead. because I think I can really pick up things with my senses when I can produce images or pictures along with it. That's what Pekaroshi does in his tea shows, like a depicting commentary.

[51:24]

And that's what in Eutatius you usually do in sort of like a picturing commentary. I got a little shocked that I have to read these two huge books before I'm allowed to come back without these commentaries. Yeah, one sec. Who says they're huge? They might be small. You just have to get used to them. It's like if somebody gave you a document from the department of archaeology, which was meant only to be read by archaeologists, you'd say, what is all this?

[52:28]

But as soon as you're familiar with it, oh, it's clear. It takes a little while, and then you... Yes? I want to say two things. I think the lectures are good. I like to say two things and I think the lectures are very good. And I sometimes needed more concrete examples. I understand very much from what you say, but I need your language to translate it into my own words. That's what the small groups are good for. Yesterday we talked quite long about the five developments of mental states.

[53:36]

I need a translation into my own words and language. And after a time, when this was finished, Outsidesundle made click and I knew exactly what he wanted to say. Oh, good. I'd like to put a question. It's so simple, I hardly dare. Actually, I could answer it by myself. Yesterday you said there's no beginning and there's no end. And I tried all day to think about it and try to understand whether in Buddhism there is actually something like there is a history of origin. I thought about it the whole day, then asked myself if there is in Buddhism a history of genesis.

[54:55]

I think it's also a misunderstanding. First of all, I don't agree with such source texts, to make any slanderous statements. I think so too. First, it's not my position to judge upon these root texts in a sort of taste way. But what I want to say is that these three and a half or two and a half pages which we read were even more complicated than other Zen texts. I picked one of the simplest ones. because I think I can really pick up things with my senses when I can produce images or pictures along with it. ...

[56:14]

And that's what in Eutatius you usually do in sort of like a picturing commentary. I got a little shocked that I have to read these two huge books before I'm allowed to come back without these commentaries. Who says they're huge? They might be small. You just have to get used to them. It's like if somebody gave you a document from the... department of archaeology, which was meant only to be read by archaeologists, you'd say, what is all this?

[57:28]

But as soon as you're familiar with it, oh, it's clear. It takes a little while, and then you... Yes? I want to say two things. I think the lectures are good. I like to say two things and I think the lectures are very good. And then sometimes needed more concrete examples. I understand very much from what you say, but I need your language to translate it into my own words. That's what the small groups are good for. Yesterday we talked quite long about the five developments of mental states.

[58:36]

And I needed this translation into my own words and language. And after a time, when this was finished, Outside Sunday made click, and I knew exactly what he wanted to say. Well, good. I'd like to put a question. It's so simple, I hardly dare. Actually, I could answer it by myself. Yesterday you said there's no beginning and there's no end. And I tried all day to think about it and try to understand whether in Buddhism there is something like... There is a history of creation. I thought about it the whole day, then asked myself if there is in Buddhism a history of Genesis.

[59:55]

I grew up in a Christian Western culture. This is tried to sort of explain the story, everything is tried to be explained. Well, there is no beginning, but are there people who think about it, how it all started? Is there something like a first impulse, a first mind, and every karma must have started somewhere? Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, the problem is, yeah, of course, people thought about it.

[61:11]

But in the end, you can't think about it. There's no answer. Whether it's... whether there's a beginning or whether there's no beginning, it's not answerable. I mean, as I said, the basic philosophical question is, why does anything exist at all? And Sophia's version of that is, I mean... How can there be a first man, first person? She's asking this all the time. So you can talk about monkeys and gorillas She asked if she was born a monkey and turned into a human.

[62:21]

Well, genetics, in terms of DNA, there's a very small percentage difference between... But... Yeah, there's no answer. So because there's no answer, now within particular cultures, Japan has a creation myth for its culture. But within Buddhism as a whole, they have decided this unanswerable question will be answered by saying there's always been something, always been, there's never been nothing. Some very fundamental different ways of looking at the world followed from that. It's almost arbitrary.

[63:24]

You can choose one or the other. And you can't prove either. Like girdle, you know. There are certain mathematical things you can't prove. You know they're true, but you can't prove it. So at some point you'd have to just make a choice. And at some point, these Indian philosophers and... than later Buddhist philosophers, shows that things have always existed is more fruitful than to say that there's a beginning. Okay. If things have always existed, you don't have a creator God.

[64:24]

So you have to explain everything by what's in front of you. And if you accept that there are questions that can't be answered. I grew up in a Christian Western culture. This is tried to sort of explain the story, everything is tried to be explained. Well, there is no beginning, but are there people who think about it, how it all started? Is there something like a first impulse, a first mind, and every karma must have started somewhere?

[65:48]

Which came first, the chicken or the egg? Well, the problem is, yeah, of course, people have thought about it. But in the end, you can't think about it. There's no answer, whether it's... whether there's a beginning or whether there's no beginning, it's not answerable. I mean, as I said, the basic philosophical question is, why does anything exist at all? And Sophia's version of that is, I mean... How can there be a first man, first person?

[67:02]

She's asking this all the time. So you can talk about monkeys and gorillas and... She asked if she was born a monkey and turned into a human. Well, genetic, in terms of DNA, there's a very small percentage difference between... But... Yeah, there's no answer. So because there's no answer, now within particular cultures, Japan has a creation myth for its culture. But within Buddhism as a whole, they have decided this unanswerable question will be answered by saying there's always been something, always been, there's never been nothing. Some very fundamental different ways of looking at the world followed from that.

[68:06]

It's almost arbitrary. You can choose one or the other. And you can't prove either. It's like a girdle, you know. There are certain mathematical things you can't prove. You know they're true, but you can't prove it. So at some point you'd have to just make a choice. And at some point, these Indian philosophers and... than later Buddhist philosophers, chose that things that always existed is more fruitful than to say that there's a beginning. Okay. If things have always existed, we don't have a creator God.

[69:24]

So you have to explain everything by what's in front of you. And if you accept that there are questions that can't be answered in a way to give an answer To say there's a creator is to give an answer. To say that it's always existed, you then have, there's always something existed, then you also have the simultaneous presence of nothing. So there's form and emptiness. Suddenly there's empty space and then there's form. So that's a different way of looking at things.

[70:40]

So I just did a seminar in Boulder on the topic was, what is Buddha? And Mark Blustein's female friend, partner, sort of partner, and said the question bothers me. That's the first time she's been to a seminar of mine. And she said, this question bothers me, but I like the fact that it bothers me.

[71:41]

She said, because it can't be answered, I find it very fruitful. Although we can't say what is Buddha, yet, what is Buddha? This way of looking thing also produces the power of unanswerable questions that are part of our life. First I wanted to say that the schedule I find very good. Yesterday the Taisho was extremely nourishing for me.

[72:50]

But it may have to do with, I have dealt with it before a little bit, so I could work with it a little more. And what impressed me very much was making the connection with what you said and with the breathing practice. And I also have a specific question, which is not mentioned in the Tesha, but it came up to me, and it is also in the text somewhere, in principle, contained when we received it. And I have a question which wasn't in the Tesha, but which came up in me, not in the text. I am not quite sure what is meant by Bhavanga. I am not quite clear about what was meant by Bhavanga. It will be translated with subconsciousness, It is translated sometimes as sub-consciousness, but it is a sort of very fuzzy term.

[74:20]

And Bhavanga is in connection and relation to the sense consciousness which appears or comes up. And there are special forms of dying consciousness and rebirthing consciousness which are mentioned there. Perhaps you could say something about that please. In a way to give an answer To say there's a creator is to give an answer. To say that it's always existed, you then have, there's always something existed, then you also have the simultaneous presence of nothing. So there's form and emptiness.

[75:23]

Suddenly there's empty space and then there's form. So that's a different way of looking at things. So I just did a seminar in Boulder on the topic was, what is Buddha? And Mark Blustein's female friend, partner, sort of partner, and said the question bothers me. That's the first time she's been to a seminar of mine.

[76:34]

And she said, this question bothers me, but I like the fact that it bothers me. She said, because it can't be answered, I find it very fruitful. Yeah. So although we can't say what is Buddha, yet, what is Buddha? So this way of looking thing also produces the power of unanswerable questions that are part of our life. First I wanted to say that the schedule I find very good, like you all said before me. Yesterday the Taisho was extremely nourishing for me.

[77:50]

But it may have to do with, I have dealt with it before a little bit, so I could work with it a little more. And what impressed me very much was making the connection with what you said and with the breathing practice. And I have a question which wasn't in the text, but which came up in me, not in the text. I'm not quite clear about what was meant by Bhavanga. It is translated sometimes as sub-consciousness, but it is a sort of very fuzzy term.

[79:20]

And Bhavanga is in connection and relation to the sense consciousness which appears or comes up. And there are special forms of dying consciousness and rebirthing consciousness which are mentioned there. Perhaps you could say something about that, please. Yeah, that term's also in that little piece that I think you translated. Yeah, I thought of speaking about it. Maybe I will. We'll see. It's more than just right now. Yes? saying that there is no God, and even with a Western background of what God might be, I have the feeling it's a kind of exclude something, although I don't know what it is.

[80:26]

And it's a little bit, for me it's a little bit the feeling like, I mean, not knowing what Buddha is, but asking the question, why can't we ask the question, what is God? You can. Yeah, sure, but on the other side, Buddhism says there's no creator, so we exclude a lot what might be still in the question, but it's saying there's no God, then I don't need to ask the question, what is God? Like saying there's no Buddha, I don't need to ask the question, what is Buddha? That's more from my Catholic coming out of my Western. If you say there is no God, then I always have the feeling, especially with my Western Christian education, I exclude something that I don't want to exclude, even though I don't know what I exclude. There is something missing, and I find it a bit like this wonderful story of not knowing what Buddha is and still asking the question, what is Buddha?

[81:40]

Also to say, why don't you include this God and say, yes, what is God? And don't exclude it and say, there is nothing like a creator. It's interesting. I mean, I remember your lectures when you were were Shuso. How strongly you had to get out of your Catholic upbringing? Yet still, how you point out this question is still, for our culture, important. Maybe for you, too. Yeah, it's somehow that, I mean, after Schuster lectures and all, Well, first I'd have to say... I don't know if you should say that in Deutsch, but...

[82:57]

And I can remember these lectures, of course, and I excluded the church, so I no longer left the church in the village. Related to what he said? Go ahead. I'm not a Catholic, but I had a fleeting thought and immediately rejected it. But I thought, is this really true, this conclusion by Roshi? It could have always been something like a kind of moderator or something like that. I had a fleeting thought which I rejected right away, but what you said, and that what always existed, couldn't it be that there is, if there's not a creator, a sort of moderating being?

[84:38]

A moderating principle. Maybe a conductor. So I don't quite... Instead of being a creator, there could be what? Moderator. Moderator. Yeah, that term's also in that little piece that I think you translated. Yeah, I thought of speaking about it. Maybe I will. We'll see. It's more than just right now. Yes? saying that there is no God, and even with the Western background of what God might be, I have the feeling it's a kind of exclude something, although I don't know what it is. And it's a little bit, for me, it's a little bit the feeling like, I mean, not knowing what Buddha is, but asking the question, why can't we ask the question, what is God? You can. Yeah, sure, but on the other side, Buddhism says there's no creator, so we exclude a lot what might be still in the question, but it's saying there's no God, then I don't need to ask the question, what is God?

[85:59]

Like saying there's no Buddha, I don't need to ask the question, what is Buddha? That's more from my Catholic coming out of my Western. If you say, there is no God, then I always have the feeling, especially with my Western Christian education, I exclude something that I don't want to exclude, even though I don't know what I exclude. But it's... There is something missing, and I find it a bit like this wonderful story of not knowing what Buddha is and still asking the question, what is Buddha? Also to say, why don't you include this God and say, yes, what is God? And don't exclude it and say, there is nothing like a creator. It's interesting, I remember your lectures when you were Shusso. How strongly you had to get out of your Catholic upbringing.

[87:28]

Yet still how you point out this question is still for our culture important. And maybe for you too. Yes, I understand. Well, first I'd have to say I don't know if you should say that in German, but... Related to what he said?

[88:34]

Go ahead. I'm not a Catholic, but I had a fleeting thought and immediately rejected it. But I thought, is this really true, this conclusion by Roshi? It could have always existed, something like a kind of moderator or something like that. I had a fleeting thought which I rejected right away, but what you said, and that what always existed, couldn't it be that there is, if there's not a creator, a sort of moderating being?

[89:39]

A moderating principle. Maybe a conductor. So I don't quite... Instead of being a creator, there could be what? A moderator. Well, that assumes then some other level of being separate from this. I guess it does. It seems to me it does. Yes. At one point, when I was still working in the Catholic Church, I said to my father, I am God.

[90:44]

And he found it very blasphemous. And that explained to me the world that I am creating it. And that made sense to me. one time formerly when I was really active within the church I say to the priest I am God and he found that rather blasphemic but for me it made sense in so far as it was I that created the word and that made it explainable for me right? yes ok You've both spoken already. All right, go ahead. Yes. I put myself or I deal with the same questions like Luna.

[92:09]

When we work within, when we move within Christianity, it has very much to do with belief and you can't really discuss beliefs or belief. Contrary to that, what you said, that Buddhism deals with experiences and not with beliefs, and that's a fundamental difference. That's true. Yes, Gerhard? It all depends on how you define it. It all is sort of dependent on how you define God. When I define the Creator, a sort of personal being, I can exclude that. But how is it when I understand God as rather a Godhead or everything that's around me?

[93:24]

Then it's different. Then at once the extra definition as a Godhead would be superfluous. And just to say there is no God, it has just to do with how I define God. Nothing else. Well, on the surface of what you've said, I don't agree. Yes, Nico? I also deal with the question of God, but not in the way of a creator.

[94:34]

but something out of which I come and to which I return. Well, that assumes then some other level of being separate from this. I guess it does. It seems to me it does. Yeah, and... Help! Yes. At one point, when I was still working in the Catholic Church, I said to my father, I am God. And he found it very blasphemous. And that explained to me the world that I am creating it. And that made sense to me.

[95:56]

One time formerly when I was really active within the church, I said to the priest, I am God. And he found that rather blasphemous. But for me it made sense insofar as it was I that created the world and that made it explainable for me. Right? Yes. Okay. Okay. You've both spoken already. All right, go ahead. Yes. I put myself or I deal with the same questions like Luna when we work within when we move within Christianity it has very much to do with belief and you can't really discuss beliefs or belief

[97:25]

And then, contrary to that, what you said, that Buddhism deals with experiences and not with beliefs, and that's a fundamental difference. That's true. Yes, Gerhard? It all is sort of dependent on how you define God. When I define the Creator, a sort of personal being, I can exclude that. But how is it when I understand God as rather a Godhead or everything that's around me? Then it's different.

[98:26]

Then at once the extra definition as a Godhead would be superfluous. And just to say there is no God, it has just to do with how I define God. Nothing else. Well, on the surface of what you've said, I don't agree, but... Yes, Nico? I also deal with the question of God, but not in the way of a creator. but something out of which I come and to which I return.

[99:59]

So more like the ocean and the wave. Okay. Okay, well... Yeah, I think that if you're part of this culture and you grew up in this kind of culture, it's built into you. I mean, I... I have been, since I was born, practically, I guess, an aggressive atheist.

[101:00]

When I was little, I mean, Sophia, you know, she told the local kids here that there was no God, and they said, they got a little upset about it. And she said, but I've been up above the clouds in airplanes, and there's no God there. Okay. Anyway, I would go into churches, and at the time I was four or five years old, and I would say in a loud voice, if there's a God, strike me dead now. God is too smart. God was just too smart to listen to my arrogance. And my mother would say, God is goodness. And I'd say, why do you add the O? So, you know, I don't, I really don't have much problems with these things.

[102:17]

But I do remember, you know, when I'd be under a lot of pressure and all kinds of things are going wrong and I'm, you know, I would be in my bed and I'd say, oh, I pray that I think... Stop that! It was kind of built into me, and I had to train myself. I can't say that. You're stuck with no recourse. Yeah, and I was wondering if I state this really clearly, if this will be a problem for the winter branches. So let me try to answer and respond to this in several ways. One is, Manjushri, the bodhisattva of wisdom, carries a sword.

[103:23]

And if you're going to have wisdom, if you're going to be clear, you have to cut things off. Some things have to be cut off. Sometimes you cut, in order to practice, you have to cut some things off and that's just it. It's too bad. My experience is, if you're clear and you do cut off, often that comes back in a new, more integrated form. But you can't cut off thinking, I'm going to wait for it to come back in a more integrated form. That doesn't work. You actually have to cut. Okay. Buddhism, I would say, has taken the position, which I think includes reincarnation.

[104:28]

Strictly speaking, in Buddhism there's no reincarnation. And if you want to go back to the Buddha's words himself, he very clearly makes statements as if there's no reincarnation, but there's also statements that sound like reincarnation. So more like the ocean and the wave. Okay. Okay, well... Yeah, I think that if you're part of this culture and you grew up in this kind of culture, it's built into you.

[105:35]

I mean, I... I have been, since I was born, practically, I guess, an aggressive atheist. When I was little, I mean, Sophia, you know, she told the local kids here that there was no God, and they said they got a little upset about it. And she said, But I've been up above the clouds in airplanes and there's no God there. Okay. Anyway, I would go into churches, and at the time I was four or five years old, and I would say in a loud voice, if there's a God, strike me dead now.

[106:37]

The God is too smart. The God was just too smart to listen to my arrogance. I went to church at the age of four or five and said loudly, if there's a God, strike me dead now. And my mother would say, God is goodness. And I'd say, why do you add the O? So, you know, I don't, I really don't have much problems with these things. But, I do remember, you know, when I'd be under a lot of pressure and all kinds of things are going wrong and I'm, you know, I would be in my bed and I'd say, oh, I pray that I think... Stop that! It was kind of built into me, and I had to train myself. I can't say that. You're stuck with no recourse. Yeah, and I was wondering if I state this really clearly, if this will be a problem for the winter branches.

[107:40]

So let me try to answer and respond to this in several ways. One is... Manjushri, the bodhisattva of wisdom, carries a sword. And if you're going to have wisdom, if you're going to be clear, you have to cut things off. Some things have to be cut off. Sometimes you cut, in order to practice, you have to cut some things off and that's just it. It's too bad. My experience is, if you're clear and you do cut off, often that comes back in a new, more integrated form. But you can't cut off thinking, I'm going to wait for it to come back in a more integrated form.

[109:04]

That doesn't work. You actually have to cut. Okay. Buddhism, I would say, has taken the position, which I think includes reincarnation. Strictly speaking, in Buddhism there's no reincarnation. And if you want to go back to the Buddha's words himself, he very clearly makes statements as if there's no reincarnation, but there's also statements that sound like reincarnation. Now, this does not mean that there's no reincarnation. And I have been meeting once a year for seven or eight years with a group of people, the in Esalen, which is the leading researchers in the West on survival after bodily death.

[110:31]

And I am simply not convinced by the research. But what I am convinced of is there is some kind of awareness that is, for instance, There's lots of, I know some very convincing cases with films, etc., where there's a bodily, the person is bodily dead, brain dead, frozen. For something like 30 minutes. And then they report later, why did the doctor have this toothbrush, electric toothbrush on my head, but actually it was cutting the skull open.

[111:50]

And it was seen from up there somewhere. And there's films of this happening, so you can see what she's seeing. During the 30 minutes where she was completely, seemingly, could not be conscious by any measure we have. quite a lot of instances like that that I've seen enough research that I'm convinced that kind of thing exists and I've had experiences like that. Now, does that mean That there's a God? I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Does that mean there's reincarnation?

[112:53]

That there's survival after bodily death because this woman was able to observe herself when she was, by all unknown means, not able to perceive? Well, I don't draw that conclusion. Okay. And again, the Dalai Lama said to me, I have no, they say I'm a reincarnation of the dog, you know, Avalokiteshvara, I guess it is. He said, I have no experience of previous lives. Yeah. And I'm committed as a Buddhist to only teach my experience, not any level of belief, and that's what I do.

[113:56]

Okay, so I would say, responding to what you said, Atmar, That Buddhism says strictly the question, is there a God, is out of the question. So, certainly, is there a creator God? The answer is no. Now, that question comes back in the form of what is Buddha. And then what is all kinds of things that kind of come back in that in our Western culture might be proofs of God or grace or something like that?

[114:57]

Now, this does not mean that there's no reincarnation. And I have been meeting once a year for seven or eight years with a group of people in Esalen, which is the leading researchers in the West on survival after bodily death. I met a group of people in Esalen for seven or eight years, which is the leading research center for survival after death. And I am simply not convinced by the research. But what I am convinced of is there is some kind of awareness that is, for instance... There's lots of, I know some very convincing cases with films, etc., where there's a bodily, the person is bodily dead, brain dead, frozen.

[116:25]

For something like 30 minutes. And then they report later, why did the doctor have this toothbrush, electric toothbrush on my head, but actually it was cutting the skull open. And it was seen from up there somewhere. And there's films of this happening, so you can see what she's seeing. During the 30 minutes where she was completely, seemingly, could not be conscious by any measure we have. It was quite a lot of instances like that that I've seen enough research that I'm convinced that that kind of thing exists, and I've had experiences like that. Now, does that mean that there's a God?

[117:36]

I wouldn't jump to that conclusion. Does that mean there's reincarnation? That there's survival after bodily death? Because this woman was able to observe herself when she was by all means are known means not able to perceive. Well, I don't draw that conclusion. Okay. And again, the Dalai Lama said to me, they say I'm a reincarnation of the dog, you know, Avalokiteshvara, I guess it is. He said, I have no experience of previous lives.

[118:37]

Yeah. And I'm committed as a Buddhist to only teach my experience, not any level of belief, and that's what I do. Okay, so I would say, responding to what you said, Atmar, That Buddhism says strictly the question, is there a God, is out of the question. So, certainly, is there a creator God? The answer is no. Now, that question comes back in the form of what is Buddha. And then what is all kinds of things that kind of come back in

[119:45]

that in our Western culture might be proofs of God or grace or something like that. The same feelings of, I mean, whatever culture you're in, if you're a human being, there's feelings of faith, maybe some feeling of God, etc. But I would say that in the strict context of Buddhism, of what I'd call transmission Buddhism, you answer the questions differently. And there's a whole category called the intermediate world, which is a kind of catch-all. Catch-all? A catchall is where you put things which you don't know what to do with.

[121:11]

A kind of catchall for all kinds of mysterious things that happen in this world. Anomalous things. Anomalous things. And the tradition in Buddhism is you don't make theories about them. You leave them being mysterious without trying to build a theory. Well, if that exists, then this must be... But you just leave it. There's anomalous experiences. And you can imagine over 45 years now, or I don't know, something like that, of seeing witches and people, probably some thousands, 10,000, 20,000 people I've seen in various kinds of doksan-type situations.

[122:12]

Sorry to say so, but, you know. Yeah, and so I've heard lots of things. And, you know, so I just listen and I think, whoa. And, I mean, just a very simple one. I mean, I won't tell you a more far-out one, but just a simple one. A guy tells me he had a dream that he was riding, taking on a bicycle ride with his father. This was in Japan. And as they're riding, his father wasn't keeping up. And he would look back and his father was kind of disappearing into the mist.

[123:26]

And he would look back, he started to slow down. His father said, no, go on ahead, go on ahead. And when he woke up, the dream so struck him, he called it home and his father had died. Does that prove to me God exists? No. It's an enormous experience that I don't try to make a theory about. Well, we've overshot, but today we have a more flexible day. We can move the schedule up a little. I have much... Why? Well, I think we don't enjoy...

[124:26]

Oh, then I'll stop talking right now. No. Don't. It's our Eno. The Eno wants a day. She has to say that. Because I had a little tissue I was going to give right now, but I'm not going to. Oh, no. She's on her way back to Holland. The same feelings of, I mean, whatever culture you're in, if you're a human being, there's feelings of faith, maybe some feeling of God, etc. But I would say that in the strict context of Buddhism, of what I'd call transmission Buddhism, you answer the questions differently. And there's a whole category called the intermediate world, which is a kind of catch-all.

[125:49]

Catch-all? A catch-all is where you put things which you don't know what to do with. A kind of catch-all for all kinds of mysterious things that happen in this world. Anomalous things. And the tradition in Buddhism is you don't make theories about them. You leave them being mysterious without trying to build a theory. Well, if that exists, then this must be... But you just leave it. There's anomalous experiences. And you can imagine over... 45 years now, or I don't know, something like that, of seeing witches and people, probably some thousands, 10,000, 20,000 people I've seen in various kinds of doksan-type situations.

[127:13]

Sorry to say so, but, you know. You could imagine, for about 40, 45 years, thousands to maybe 10,000 people in situations like doksan. Yeah, and I've heard lots of things. And, you know, so I just listen and I think, whoa. And I mean, just a very simple one. I mean, I won't tell you a more far out one, but just a simple one. A guy tells me he had a dream that he was... riding, taking on a bicycle ride with his father. This was in Japan. And as they're riding, his father wasn't keeping up. And he would look back and his father was kind of disappearing into the mist.

[128:18]

And he would look back, he started to slow down. His father said, no, go on ahead, go on ahead. And when he woke up, the dream so struck him, he called it home, and his father had died. Does that prove to me God exists? No. It's an anomalous experience that I don't try to make a theory about. Okay. Well, we've overshot, but today we have a more flexible day.

[129:20]

We can move the schedule up a little. I have much... Why? Well, I think we don't enjoy... Oh, then I'll stop talking right now. No, don't. She has to say that. Because I had a little tissue I was going to give right now, but I'm not going to give it back. She's on her way back to Holland. Well, well, well. The Eno Rebellion. Okay. You fight it out with her. Yeah, go ahead.

[130:20]

It's just a short question. Yeah, but they're all short. The answer is the problem. Go ahead. I was wondering if what you just said last, that you don't make a theory on experiences, anomalous experiences, would you say that this is an integral part of our way of practicing? German, please. I'm interested in whether this pure theory about, so to speak, manufacturing such paranormal perceptions or abnormal experiences, whether Roshi would say that this is, so to speak, an integral component or an essential component of our way of practicing. Yes, I would. And there's an advantage to doing that.

[131:23]

I mean, there's disadvantages probably too, but there's an advantage. Which is that if your practice is rooted in your actual experience, not in belief, Not in beliefs in Buddhism. Just your actual experience. And Buddhism and Zen can open up your actual experience. It's still rooted in your actual experience. I always think of Dogen. Dogen said, I don't agree with what this sutra says. And I'm sure it should be this, and he wrote it differently. From my experience, it should be like this.

[132:24]

Recent scholarship has found earlier texts, and the earlier texts are what Dogen said. Okay, so it's rooted in our experience, though our experience may be refined and opened up by practice. Then there's a certain percentage of anomalous experiences. Paranormal, metanormal, I don't care what you call it. If you just accept them without making theories... You're open to accepting a whole lot of things that you wouldn't accept if you started making theories about some. You know, I have lots of contacts with scientists. And I remember an argument I had with Carl Sagan, who was pretty famous, did all of those programs, Cosmos, etc.

[133:47]

And there's things I know I'm convinced are true. He, as a scientist, could only His whole foundation of science falls apart, and many scientists, if they take something outside the framework. So they can't accept anomalous experiences. Once you make a theory, it excludes other things that don't fit into that theory. So scientists have a terrible problem with accepting things outside their range. Okay. So I wanted to speak about, maybe I will later, Well, well, well.

[135:08]

The Eno Rebellion. Okay. You fight it out with her. Yeah, go ahead. It's just a short question. Yeah, but they're all short. The answer is the problem. Go ahead. I was wondering if what you just said last, that you don't make a theory on experiences, anomalous experiences, would you say that this is an integral part of our way of practicing? German, please. I'm interested in whether this pure theory about, so to speak, manufacturing such paranormal perceptions or abnormal experiences, whether Roshi would say that this is, so to speak, an integral or necessary component of our way of practicing.

[136:14]

Yes, I would. And there's an advantage to doing that. I mean, there's disadvantages probably too, but there's an advantage. Which is that if your practice is rooted in your actual experience, not in belief, And not in beliefs in Buddhism. Just your actual experience. And Buddhism and Zen can open up your actual experience, but still rooted in your actual experience. I always think of Dogen. Dogen said, I don't agree with what this sutra says. And I'm sure it should be this, and he wrote it differently. From my experience, it should be like this.

[137:24]

Recent scholarship has found earlier texts, and the earlier texts are what Dogen said. So it's rooted in our experience, though our experience may be refined and opened up by practice. But then there's a certain percentage of anomalous experiences. Paranormal, metanormal, I don't care what you call it. If you just accept them without making theories... You're open to accepting a whole lot of things that you wouldn't accept if you started making theories about some. You know, I have lots of contacts with scientists somehow in my life.

[138:40]

And I remember an argument I had with Carl Sagan, who's pretty famous, did all of those programs, Cosmos, etc., And there's things I know I'm convinced are true. He, as a scientist, could only His whole foundation of science falls apart, and many scientists, if they take something outside the framework. So they can't accept anomalous experiences. The trouble is, once you make a theory, it excludes other things that don't fit into that theory. So scientists have a terrible problem with accepting things outside their range. Okay. So I wanted to speak about, maybe I will later,

[139:40]

How we notice experiences and come back to them intentionally without being caught in the problem of no gaining ideas. And I also want to talk about how the I think I ought to talk about how the Abhidharma developed the idea of Dharma units. In other words, of trying to take the teachings of the Buddha and the sutras and turn them into our actual experience. They created the idea of Dharma as a kind of unit of experience. A unit which has various dimensions. A sphere. A unit of experience. and then how Zen in particular tried to build that into the details of the life as a dynamic which breaks up our cultural habits, our psychological habits

[141:30]

and our societal habits. It's this analysis, putting it in parts, and then letting in your experience analysis, and then letting it come together at another dimension. And how rooted this idea, which really doesn't come from Buddha, comes from the Sangha. and how it's at the center of all Zen practice. Okay. Yes? One little question. How do you see the essential difference between an idea and a theory? Well, just a little question.

[142:46]

To be continued. Okay. Thanks. How we notice experiences and come back to them intentionally without being caught in the problem of no gaining ideas. I also want to talk about how the... I think I have to talk about how the Abhidharma developed the idea of Dharma units. In other words, I'm trying to take the teachings of the Buddha and the sutras and turn them into our actual experience.

[143:51]

They created the idea of Dharma as a kind of unit of experience. A unit which has various dimensions. A sphere. A unit of experience. and then how Zen in particular tried to build that into the details of the life as a dynamic which breaks up our cultural habits, our psychological habits and our societal habits. It's this analysis, putting it apart, and then letting, in your experience, analysis... and then letting it come together at another dimension.

[144:58]

And how rooted this idea, which really doesn't come from Buddha, comes from the Sangha. And how it's at the center of all Zen practice. Okay. Yes? One little question. Yeah. How do you see the essential difference between an idea and a theory? Well, just a little question. To be continued. To be continued. Okay. But, yeah, it's a good question.

[145:52]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.29