I feel a little lousy today. I mean, lousy enough that if I did a head to toe examination, you know, with my mind and my body, I don't know, I find too many areas in my body that feel not so great. If I didn't have a schedule, I think I would opt to not give the lecture, but this is the great thing about a schedule. When you have a schedule, what you don't feel like you might do anyway, and it may not be so bad. I spoke with somebody about this recently, and I really think that's a dynamic in the schedule, you know. Until you see that the schedule invites you to do things you think you're not up to, it feels like an obstacle. But then it can, when it's the other way around, it's the greatest support because you're like, well, if I feel lousy, what the heck? Do it anyway.

[01:01]

Anyway, that's just a... Maybe that feeling lousy gave me a topic for the lecture today, which is great. Otherwise, where do they come from, these topics? So I thought I could start with this, with divergence and convergence, this concept that Beka Rashi has been talking about last year quite a bit. see where that leads me. And so divergence-convergence as a kind of, you know, way to find a way how we constitute our worldview. Baker Rashi, to summarize and to make it, you know, simple and easy, kind of, as an entry, said, you know, in Buddhism, we assume divergence.

[02:04]

And that's divergence, you know, things falling apart all the time. And our practice is like making an effort in the midst of divergence, everything falling apart all the time, an effort to bring things together, to make them converge to the degree that that's possible in this particular moment. I don't know. You try out a worldview like this sometimes and see what happens. Is it in contrast to worldviews that you hold? I think a worldview like this, when you actually hold it in front of you, say, is this my worldview? It brings up the worldviews that you actually hold. Maybe you already hold this worldview, but as Baker Rush has pointed out, and I think he's right, in the West, the worldviews that we typically entertain and hold are more based on conversions.

[03:13]

Maybe a physicist thinking about entropy would be closer to diversion. Entropy being this principle of everything is decomposing at all times, degrading. And you have to put energy into the system to keep it up. But all religious worldviews, I think, assume some sort of convergence. You know, for us in our society, God can be a placeholder for an ultimate convergence. Somebody who's all loving and It's hard, you know, this is a big problem, I think, theological problem. I'm looking forward to discussing it with Shell as a theologian, but it's a big problem to say, well, if God is all loving and made this world, why did he build all these difficulties into it? Was he so dumb?

[04:16]

I mean, he could have set it up as paradise and left it there. Almighty. Yeah. Right. So anyway, that's a problem, a theological problem. But this is, I mean, I think it gives us an entry into this idea that there's ultimate convergence. You know, things are basically set up to be good. But I think what it also brings about is that what's our role in this? If things are not so good for us, we end up as sinners, or at least as bad people or bad practitioners. I mean, you know, look, if things are basically set up to work out well, and they don't work out well for us, you end up with self-blame. It's like, I'm doing something wrong, right? Anyway. Some of you have told me that they found my lectures to be rather practical and practicable.

[05:22]

That's a great compliment. I like that. So I thought maybe I have to counteract that and be philosophical. But it's like, you know, I hope that being philosophical can be practical. That would be great. But what is being philosophical? I asked myself that question today. And when Buddhism is philosophical, I think we're in the territory of worldviews. And we're in the territory of right views, what's called right views in Buddhism. So what is right here? Is it the right as opposed to wrong? as if there could be views that are right and views that are wrong. When you look at this conceptual pair of divergence and convergence, maybe you can see immediately it's not about right and wrong in that simple sense because, you know, it's not really wrong to entertain an idea of a worldview of ultimate convergence because the world supports that view too.

[06:30]

It's almost like a strategic choice, and it's a little bit more than strategic. It's not arbitrary. It's not like, well, you can do this or that, and it really doesn't matter. Because the Buddha supposedly said, I teach only suffering and the end of suffering. summing up the teaching like this, I teach only suffering and the end of suffering. So whether a view is right or wrong in Buddhism is always mixed up with whether it contributes to the end of suffering or not. And this is something that's also different in the West from the East, is that in Eastern philosophy, religion and philosophy have never really parted ways. Whereas in the West, it's like you can, the truth is separated from how it affects us. But is it really? So you're making a choice between a worldview that is based on divergence or convergence, you know.

[07:42]

Okay, if you make a choice on basing your worldview on divergence, I mean, I don't know, how do we notice? It's like with everything, with every form that appears, a feeling is associated. How does the world feel when you base it on the idea of divergence compared to convergence? Everything's always drifting apart. And you put your energy into the situation to make it come together. Well, if that's the case, and if we entertain a worldview like this, it's surprising that anything would converge at all.

[08:45]

And it's a reason to be grateful. I mean, if it's the opposite, this is how I'm simple-mindedly, you know, make sense of this. If it's the other way around, it's like things are supposed to conversion when they don't. It's like, oh God, again, you know, and it's my fault. And here it's the other way around. It's like everything's assumed to fall apart and then it doesn't. That's great. you're doing something right. This may be also the difference between rising mind and sinking mind. I mean, this is where you could place, philosophically place, something like saying, just to be alive is enough. Because just to be alive means, from moment to moment, something's converging to keep us alive. Something's done right. But it's also when the worldview is based on divergence, death is woven into the fabric of existence at every moment.

[10:02]

We don't have to exclude death in the same way as we tend to, usually. I mean, how do you make this practical? If you feel your heartbeat, it's like boom, And then there's this little seeming silence, stillness. Will the heart come back? Maybe not. Maybe it's all drifting apart, and then it comes back, and that's... Conditions coalesce again to make the heart beat. Or do you observe the same thing in your breath, with each in-breath? There's a pause and it continues with an out-breath and there's another still point and then there's another in-breath. I don't know, I think maybe we have to practice on this very basic existential level with heartbeat and breath to really feel that there is

[11:15]

the possibility of it all ending at every moment woven into the fabric of existence. It's so easily overlooked. It's so easily to slide from heartbeat to heartbeat and assume it's normal. Unless something's wrong, you don't notice it. And somehow our practice is to notice the moments where it could all just stop. And each relationship is like that too. Meeting a person and then departing. And while you are apart, something can happen. The relationship may not continue. Or even while you're meeting, there is a pulse of consensus and dissensus, agreeing with each other and not agreeing.

[12:20]

And when you're not agreeing, it's a kind of divergence. It's drifting apart. I mean, little things have, little things, little ways of not agreeing have torn relationships apart, right? You can exaggerate them endlessly until you're like, I don't want to see that person anymore. But when you feel how this drifting apart, you can only exaggerate divergence in view so much if you want to keep the relationship. Sometimes I think living the relationship in what I'm calling for myself, the horizon of separation, is a very healthy thing. Because when you live it in the horizon of separation, we could just separate here. then you feel all the reasons why you are together.

[13:23]

That's great. Sometimes I think people stay together and they don't know why. And they can't bear the thought of separating. But when you know that you could separate at any moment because there's, you know, the principle of divergence, there's... the horizon of separation that could happen to you, then you have good reason to stay together and you can act that way. It's like not jeopardizing the relationship and the possibility of being together. with this worldview of divergence, death is always around the corner. But, and this is really, this is very basic Buddhism, the idea that from moment to moment conditions coalesce to make, to bring forth this moment of existence.

[14:29]

And then again, and when the conditions don't come together anymore, then death and disintegration occur. Speaking from moment to moment, maybe I should digress a little bit and just mention the idea of dharma. You know, maybe we're all familiar with it, maybe not. But dharma, the way Beka Roshi defines it, is a unit of experience. And we could say the world appears to us in these units of experience, and that, we could say, is maybe the subjective side of the world. It appears this way. And then you look away, and it disappears. So there's units of experience. And maybe the objective side is this thing appearing. as it appears right now.

[15:33]

When the light changes, the thing appears differently. That's an objective side. It's not what I bring to the situation. It's actually conditions changing, and the wood has this kind of color and this light, and if we turn up the light, it has a different kind of light. And we can separate this objective and subjective side, but it's really not, is it necessary? to separate it into object and subject. Is it necessary? We could just say, oh, at the base of it is just units of experience, units of appearance. It's useful to separate it into subjective and objective because then you can have science and opinions. You can differentiate between these things. I mean, things persist. There's regularity that allows science for science. But our study is different because we don't separate. objective existence from the truth of exact the truth of objective existence from the fact of our suffering we i don't know we don't have to separate into objective and subjective aspects but you can't there's nothing wrong

[16:50]

So dharmas are these units of experience and they're dependent on coalescing conditions that converge or diverge. When they converge, this thing appears. And if they continue to converge, it appears again. But if they don't, the thing vanishes. And it's hard for us to see that because we have built our idea of thing or object on the basis of very persistent stuff. But when you look at the objective side of this wood changing in the light, the light conditions change all the time. So actually, this is something that's pretty easy to observe. even within an hour, you can see how the light conditions change on an object. It's one of the ways, it's quite useful when you observe light changes, it's a way to enter into this idea of impermanence that is so, I want to say so prominent, is at the very basis of Buddhism.

[17:57]

Okay, how to come back? You know, I think one way to... So we have big grand ideas of ultimate conversions, maybe God, maybe even Einstein's scientific worldview of God's not playing dice, famous quote. that really there's a rationality behind the universe that we, with our human mind, we can uncover and put together and understand. It's another grand convergence. But even if we don't get involved with this stuff, we still have the self. And I have wondered for many, many years, really, believe me, what is this funny idea of the self? I couldn't quite wrap my mind around the self.

[19:04]

The no self, the self, what is this stuff? So now I'm just trying something out here, but just reduce the sense of self to the narrative of the self, the self-narrative. I think the self-narrative is actually a kind of convergence that we create for ourselves. You can see if you agree with that as I'm speaking. It's like... Maybe let me say, one of the questions that come up in life, I think, is, what should I do with my life? It's a great question. I wonder, if you have a narrative, you would expect from that narrative that it at least answers that question.

[20:11]

And then it doesn't. I mean, that's really disappointing. What kind of crappy narrative is that? When you have a basic question like, what should I do with my life? And not even the darn narrative has an answer for it. I mean, what is it good for if it doesn't even answer that question? But maybe it's because there is no such thing as a life. This is the point of the Diamond Sutra. No person, no living being, no self, no person, no living being, no lifespan. It basically denies all ideas of having a life. Well, But we do entertain these narratives.

[21:16]

If you have a narrative, I'm just going to try a few basic ones. If you have a narrative that what is in front of you right now is not grand enough, that you really should be doing something better, you may have a problem. But in contrast, if you feel like everything I do is a failure, nothing really comes together for me, you have a problem too. Or if you feel like I'm always the victim of my circumstances and I should really, because I'm such a victim, because this is so difficult for me, others should really help me and I shouldn't have to make my own effort. Then you also have a problem. I mean, we don't see these narratives because they're so built into who we are that we think this is just how life is, right? Until somebody says, you have this victim attitude and then you're like, what?

[22:21]

Or somebody says, you know, you're, I don't know, whatever, you can put it together. Anyway, we're shocked, you know, other people observe these things and we're like, I don't know, really? I thought this is just how life is. Anyway, I'm thinking the narrative as a convergence is it sets up a framework For how to act. Because this is a real problem, right? Not problem. I don't want to say that. I want to say this is a real... This is real. What to do? What to do next? What do I do with my life? Well, if you cross out the life there, the question that remains is... Well, what should I do? Because this is really, I mean, when you're alive, you have to do something. You do the basic things because that makes sense.

[23:23]

You eat, you sleep, you stay warm. That helps for conditions to continue to coalesce, to maintain life. We usually are smart enough to do that. Well, sometimes people jeopardize that intentionally. You know, they climb mountains. Okay, so anyway. So, but you do that. But then on the basis of that, what do you do? That's exactly the point. What do you do now with this situation? Well, if you have a narrative, the narrative tells you what to do, like not making an effort because really it's not worth it. If your narrative is like that, the narrative tells you what to do. So you continue with that, which is like, or, you know, you really should be doing something better than what's in front of you.

[24:25]

That also gives you something to do. You're running after grand ideas and they never come to fruition. Okay, whatever it is. But what's the alternative? The alternative is when you take the question seriously, what to do? And maybe actual not knowing what to do. What makes sense to do it? I don't know, when you know what you're supposed to do, having that question may be a useful disturbance too. to put ourselves at the edge of the moment that has the question what to do and you don't know how to answer it.

[25:45]

And what I find more interesting than, you know, finding out what to do is that this moment in which the question arises what to do and taken seriously brings up an invitation to participate in the coalescing of conditions that bring forth the next moment. You can have a philosophical debate about free will and determinism. You know, is everything already set up, or are we actually having a free will to participate? But I think when you bring yourself to the moment of asking, so what to do now? There's no question about free will, because it really feels different when you respond to the invitation of participating compared to not responding to the invitation. When you respond to the invitation, you feel more alive. It's a question of being dead or alive.

[26:48]

If you find that you can respond with a sense of aliveness to the invitation to participate in that moment, it's almost like now conditions can come together with a sense of aliveness that's enhancing just, you know, sleeping, eating, staying warm, although these things are very enjoyable too. then it enhances it, and then you want to go and go from one moment to the next moment with a continued sense of aliveness. It's like the path, understood in this way, reinforces itself. The path reinforces the path. The path walks itself. When you choose that participation, There can be, I grant, there can be moments of confusion. I know them pretty well.

[27:54]

You really don't know. It takes a while. I mean, it takes a while. It takes years, maybe, to search for that sense of aliveness that really gives you the confidence that this is the kind of participation that you want to bring to the world. Dogen has this wonderful phrase of the total exertion of a single Dharma. What does it mean? Philosophically, it's his way of expressing Wayan philosophy. Wayan philosophy, the main tenet of Wayan philosophy is interpenetration. What does that mean? It's like in each thing, each dharma, each appearance in a moment,

[29:01]

Everything is folded in because everything is coming together to bring forth this moment of this thing, this dharma. When this dharma is actualized, exerting itself, it... I don't know, you can't say contains, but you could say brings up with it everything else. And this is true for this thing in this dharma and this thing in this dharma. And so it's like everything is folded into this appearance because everything's coming together to make it possible. Everything's folded into this appearance. Everything's folded into this. And then this, this, and this also helps to bring forth this, and so everything is related with everything, and everything is in everything. And Dogen wouldn't be Dogen if he didn't ask us to find a way to practice this philosophy. If it's just like, yeah, you know, everything is in everything.

[30:08]

Okay. But how do you practice that? How do you practice the total exertion of a single dharma, including this dharma? You have to kind of, I don't know, I'm thinking out loud with you, but it feels like you have to come sort of inside of the Dharma. This is what meditation and mindfulness practice is about. Because the Dharma is a unit of experience. You can be inside of your experience, at the edge of that moment, asking what to do next with it. Can you sense the difference between being outside, thinking about your life, thinking with this and that?

[31:21]

I'm calling outside of the Dharma, inside of the Dharma, You know, we have these stereotypes that are, you know, you can bear this Zen cliche, you're washing the dishes and you get, you know, you become one with the dishes. But it's like you're doing the dishes and you're not thinking about whether you're doing something relevant or not because that's what's in front of you. And if washing the dishes gives you aliveness and you cultivate the sense of aliveness, anything that comes in front of you, you approach with the same attitude. You make it. the most relevant thing. And in making it the most relevant thing, the moment of participation arises, and you can actually do things this way or this way, but you can't complete your whole life in that moment. You can only complete that one moment, but that one moment is your life, and if you complete it this way, it'll lead to the next moment in a different way than if you don't complete it.

[32:25]

I think it's quite hard to really trust that coming into this moment is the decision that makes your life continue differently. Because we always want to figure out the life, not the moment. Exaggerating maybe, but it's something like that. So it's also the question stays present with me. Earhart brought up in the seminar of how do you make practice continuous? Continuous practice. Okay. I said it's not worth really asking why. Now I'm going to try to say something about it. Because I do find it interesting. It's also my problem. So Dogen says about continuous practice, continuous practice which actualizes itself is no other than your continuous practice right now.

[33:39]

And this, and the now of this continuous practice is not originally possessed by the self. Continuous practice which actualizes itself is no other than your continuous practice right now. The now of this continuous practice is not originally possessed by the self. So I want to paraphrase continuous practice as our attempt and realization and actualization of redirecting attention to presence. I'm just saying that in the context of our discussion and the terms that I brought forth. And you could do it differently, but that's what I do right now. is our attempt, our practice attempt, to redirect attention to presence rather than thinking, and maybe we could say self-narrative.

[34:55]

Continuous practice, the continuous attempt to redirect and anchor presence is no other than your presence. This is your presence. That's how you're doing it. Just to do it. And the now, the present moment of this presence, the present moment of this presence is not originally possessed by the self. Maybe I could say now, in the context of this talk, it's not governed by your self-narrative. It's not decided where this moment is going to go.

[35:59]

This is inviting participation, because if participation is not open to novelty, if it's just repeating the storyline that's already set up, it is not the now of this, of what Dogen's talking about. So this is kind of putting yourself inside the Dharma or the edge of the moment. And it's a little scary because you know what's going to happen. You don't know. And so now to the question, why is it so hard to be there? Why do we slip back into narrative thinking, self-referencing, discursive thinking, whatever name you want to use for it? I wonder, the question, how interesting is it to be at the edge of that moment with your presence and your not knowing?

[37:04]

How interesting is that? Maybe it is more interesting to think of schemes to fulfill the self-narrative, including the practice narrative. If you make practice into a narrative of wanting to be a good practitioner, always staying with your breath, for example, it's like you set up a self-narrative and you can't be at the edge of each moment what it takes to actually be there. Because at each moment where you can't be there, while you're having the intention to be there, you're trying to figure out how to be there. Does that make sense? It's too weird. It's like, that's enough to say. It's like when you try to figure out your life all at once, you can't figure it out, although it's really enticing to try to do so.

[38:10]

If you're trying to figure out how to be with your breath at all moments, that'd be really nice, but actually you have to be in each moment, figuring out in each moment, one after another, how it is to be with the breath. Thank you. Oh, we're really at the edge of the unknown because it's like we're extending for each moment our frontier into the unknown future.

[39:32]

And with full participation, we can do extraordinary things. We can find truly different novel ways to relate to ourselves and others and the world. This is a big vision. It's not already set up. Things are always falling apart and we are bringing them together. And when we figure out experientially how to be present in this moment, we are facing this open question of what to do. This is why Dogen can say, this now in your continuous practice is the seed of all Buddhas. this continuous practice actualizes and sustains all Buddhas of all time because Buddha is this kind of vision to meet the world with this kind of courage to face this uncharted territory which is

[41:03]

the movement from this moment to the unknown of the next moment and I don't and to make it practical again you know this is the grand vision to make it practical we don't have to force ourselves to think and you know this little unit moving to that unit how do I get in there if you make your units bigger that will do but to feel the edge, how to proceed from one situation to the next, or how to find the open field of each situation that you can unfold it with your full presence and practice intention. That's good enough. We don't have to think of these moments as abstract, imperceptible units. Okay?

[42:10]

Thank you very much.

[42:16]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_89.11