You know, this was originally, I thought, maybe this room should be the room for our Buddha Dharma Hall. But the columns make it sort of difficult, and the convenience of having those two rooms next to each other won out. But that would be difficult with the pillars. And then also how practical it is that the two rooms are directly next to each other. That was the convincing argument. And Dogen sometimes would wake up the whole monastery and give a tesho at two in the morning. And then he'd look for the Ino and say, Ino, would you figure this out for the rest of the day? But that's also part of the style of Zen, particularly I think, but Zoodism, which is we have a schedule, there's some kind of regulation, and then you take it away regularly.

[01:18]

Now, as you can imagine, there's no point in my doing what I'm doing unless it becomes your experience too. Because what's satisfying about this and that we've practiced together, so many of us for so long, is that we are on a path together. And we keep discovering what kind of path we're on.

[02:22]

So I would, at least now, I'd like to start with, and maybe end with, but at least start with, whatever seems most useful or interesting or essential from the discussion you've had so far. Because the more this is interactive and intersubjective even, the better. We're all doing this together and it will be whatever we do together that continues. So you all know that, so I didn't need to say it, but anyway, tell me something. Yes.

[03:38]

I think the various groups today focused a lot on the first three dharmas. And different methods and distinctions that we can use to practice with them and notice them. and it feels to me that these These first three are kind of part of the general human condition, unconscious most times. They just conflate together as three. And it seems to me that these first three are part of the very basic human condition and that these three are usually simply mixed with each other. And so I would be interested in, we didn't have much discussion moving into the, towards the fourth or fifth, and where the wisdom practices right now, the direct wisdom, are going to practice.

[04:52]

And where exactly right knowledge or wisdom is introduced into this practice? Dieter? My question is concerning discrimination. And it's, what is exactly meant, or what is the range of discrimination? So my question comes from before I can name something, there has to be some kind of distinguishing, discriminating, because I don't throw names just causally on things. And so there is already a process of distinguishing, of setting apart one thing from another in working. And then after that kind of intermediate conclusion by coming to a name and giving it,

[06:00]

Then the third one, if it's in sequence, is discrimination. So what does that add or what does that further deepen? Can you say that in German? You should have been speaking in Deutsch from the beginning. I'll forgive you. Yeah, but you have no other choice. Go ahead. My experience is that a differentiation process is already in progress, because I don't call things random, but on the basis of a differentiation process. Can you speak a little louder, excuse me, because it doesn't reach us here, or at least not with me. And then my question is, what does this third gamma add, this differentiation, the differentiation process, Well, I think I should respond to that.

[07:05]

Mostly I'd just like to listen, but let me respond to that. Ich glaube, darauf sollte ich antworten. Sonst im Großen und Ganzen möchte ich gerne auch zuhören, aber darauf werde ich mal antworten. The five dharmas are approximations. Die fünf dharmas sind Annäherungen. They're not a mathematical philosophy exactly what happens. Das ist keine mathematische Philosophie darüber, was ganz genau passiert. So you're free to change them in any order. Yeah, you may find they cook differently if you put the eggs in too soon. You can find that out. Yeah, so anyway, you can put them in any order you would like.

[08:07]

But for most of us, I would say, these point to our experience, so we notice our experience. So for most of us, naming is so habitual, we see the name before we even see appearance. So there's certainly an implicit discrimination going on in the background. But it's good to know that and feel that, but you can't really direct attention into implicit discrimination. So this is just a list of things that are useful to notice in this particular sequence, because that's a very common way to notice things.

[09:28]

There's no truth in the background of this. But it has to be true. No, to hell with truth. There's no truth in Buddhism. After 80 more years than I've got, he says no truth. All right, someone else. Yes? I'll add to what I said before.

[10:41]

The five dharmas seem quite natural to me when it comes to seeing and hearing. Because that is what the most developed parts of our brains do all the time anyhow. From my practice, I am interested in the question of whether the five dharmas are used as a surgical tool. Can you elaborate a little? So, Venerable Roshi has described the five dharmas as a surgical tool, so as a sedative, to interrupt this continuous, constant rumble. Okay. And you described the five dharmas as a surgical tool to interrupt this constant humming. How do I get this subject of embodiment, this somatic perception, and can I use the five dhanas to say, not surgical, but constructive, so to say, to let the perceiver construct a belief, or is there a better or different work to do?

[12:03]

Okay, so in my practice, what interests me is the question of embodiment. And then, with regard to the five dharmas, I wonder, is it also an instrument that allows me from appearance to not just to use it surgically, but also constructively, so that I construct names from appearance? Or are there other or better tools for this purpose? Oh, well, that's called punning. Das nennt man jetzt Wortspiel. When you construct names from appearance. Wenn du Namen aus Erscheinungen konstruierst. I'm kind of joking, but there's appearance. And then you can construct neologistic... Oh, dear. You can construct words or puns or whatever from appearance. And as soon as you start constructing how you discriminate appearance, you're one step closer to freeing yourself from the constructions.

[13:05]

Once you start constructing how you discriminate appearance, you're one step closer to freeing yourself from the constructions. For instance, the common word in Buddhism is detachment. Detachment or detachment and detachment. Detachment and detachment. But I feel, at least in English, it's more accessible to practice to speak about non-having rather than attachment or detachment.

[14:35]

Anyway, someone else. Yes, Jörg, Hans Jörg. Is that all right? Did I interrupt you? No, it's just when I have something I want to say, I have a hard time translating also. Say it. Sorry. You're next, after her. Yes, I thought about how you put it on yesterday. I took some time for a while to look at the most basic distinctions that my world is constructed from. But those I haven't chosen, those I've just taken on from those I've just, yeah, they were imprinted or something.

[15:48]

And I would like to point out one thing that has become clear to me. Dogen's Genjū Kōan begins with a sentence Indem er sagt, wenn alle Dinge Buddha Dharma sind, wenn alle Dinge, ich übersetze es für mich mal so, wenn alle Dinge im Einklang sind mit der Lehre des Buddhas. Und dann sagt er, dann gibt es. So I just, there's a contrast. Dogen's beginning in the Genjo Koan set a contrast for me that is really helpful in my practice, which is he starts the Genjo Koan by saying, when all things are Buddha Dharma, Then, and then double point. And then he says, then there is enlightenment and blinding. The distinction, he says. This is such a fundamental distinction, he says, and the path of practice. And as a third and Buddha and feeling being. And I have, when I read this, I always have the feeling that he has now described his world, when all things are Buddha Dharma, comprehensively.

[16:54]

And so he says, when all things are Buddha Dharma, then there is delusion and enlightenment. So he makes that distinction. And he says, and there is the path of practice. And there's Buddhas and sentient beings. So for me, I just took that first statement. He, of course, continues this whole text, but I do like that he opens the classical that he calls the fundamental point, actualizing the fundamental point with saying these are, in the Buddha Dharma, these are the basic distinctions. And to see how different the world is when you set that out of allness, well, these are going to be the basic distinctions I'm going to make. Okay. Are you always Hans, Jörg, or sometimes Hans and sometimes Jörg? Sometimes that. Yeah, so nameless Jörg. I have a problem with the name naming.

[18:18]

Because the first thing that happens for me is a recognition. I recognize something that appears even before I name it. There's no word there yet. There's no word there yet. And that's something I noticed when walking around and starting to name everything that I encounter or joining a name to each thing. Okay.

[19:34]

You're talking about yourself, aren't you? When I do this practice of naming, then this next step, this distinction, making distinctions, some kind of I can recognize this gap between naming and making distinctions with this practice.

[20:40]

But the step before, this what you call naming, for me is more, I would say, recognizing. And that's it. Yeah. Well, I say... Yeah, should I say something or should I listen? Anyway, when I talk to kids sometimes, I say, how many fingers are here? And they say five. And I say, how many spaces? But then they usually say, oh, well, I guess there's one, two, three, four. And I say, well, what about this one? So the five dharmas are like five fingers. And part of operating, now I started using this word in Hanover, that we operate these practices. They're processive, they're processes. So when you operate, yeah.

[21:55]

Thank you. So when you operate the five dharmas, you also then notice the spaces between them. Yeah, and I think that's what you're doing. And that's enough for now. Yes? The other Nicole? Um... What I notice is this whole process of naming, arranging and dividing. We construct the world like this and there is security.

[22:58]

I recognize something, ah, that's it, I don't have to worry about it anymore. And if you deconstruct that and hang things in a room where they are not named and arranged, then that also opens up the whole field of impermanence. schwierig oder beängstigend, weil es halt so groundless ist. Also das ist ein Prozess, der So this process of noticing, naming and then discriminating, that's a process that also gives us a kind of security. We say, oh, I know what that is, so I don't have to worry about it any further. But in deconstructing this process, what happens is it also opens the whole realm of impermanence. And I don't quite know how to handle, how to deal with what's opened up there, how there's a groundlessness, a feeling of groundlessness when that's opened up.

[24:14]

I'm so glad you've noticed that. You know, the definition of a bodhisattva in the Perfection of Wisdom in 8,000 Lines... It's in the first page of the English version of it by Herr Dr. Konze. Basically it says, if the Bodhisattva recognizes there's no ground and he or she is not frightened or any way disturbed, then we can say he or she is a Bodhisattva. She says she's super frightened. Well, that's why we're doing Zaza. Also da heißt es, dass wenn der Bodhisattva er oder sie erkennt, dass es keinen Boden gibt, And by the way, Hans-Jörg, I don't think that the discrimination after naming is about distinctions.

[25:24]

Also übrigens, Hans-Jörg, ich glaube nicht, dass die Unterscheidung... Oh dear, okay, let me think. Okay, ich muss mir Worte ausdenken. Dass die Auffächerung nach dem Benennen das Gleiche ist wie Unterscheiden. At least in English, going from appearance to naming is a distinction. Also zumindest im Englischen von... Erscheinungen zum Benennen zu gehen, das ist eine Unterscheidung. But going from naming to discrimination is an associative process. Aber vom Benennen zu dem, was jetzt im Englischen discrimination heißt, ich nenne es jetzt mal Auffächerung, so fühlt es sich halt irgendwie an für mich. So you start thinking about it. Zur Auffächerung zu gehen, das ist ein assoziativer Prozess. Und das ist der Punkt, wo du anfängst, darüber nachzudenken. Brings in memory, what you think about things, et cetera.

[26:44]

Yes. But discriminating is also, or naming it also, takes something stored back. but discrimination and also naming goes back to storage knowing. When asked in the Koran, what is that noise outside the window? When in the koan it's asked what is the noise outside, the sound outside the window. And then it's said it's the sound of rain. Then it's said you are deluded and are chasing things. Then the question is, well, how else should I name it if I am asked about it?

[27:58]

I have heard it a hundred times and have recognized it correctly a hundred times. Or when Matsu and Bai Zhang walked and Matsu asked, what's flying up there? And Bai Zhang says, it's geese. And then he gets hit on his nose. But what should Bai Zhang have answered? Because these really are geese. What kind of experience or what kind of world do the teachers aim for, who simply do not allow these answers?

[29:11]

That's more the question I would like to ask. So I'm wondering what world are these teachers who don't allow for these answers, what world are they pointing to? Who don't accept the answers, yes. This is what fascinates me about these obstacles that are being built up for me. That's what's fascinating about the hindrances that are brought up for me. They are pointing to something and I can feel it and maybe that's all for now. Yes, you're right. That doesn't help. Well, I see Japanese documentaries every now and then. And they drive me a little nuts.

[30:21]

Because nothing is anything. They were in Kobe walking along. And there's clearly a mosque. The towers, typical of mosques and everything. And the voiceover is saying, that looks like it might be a mosque. Well, it's obviously a mosque. And those look like two persons standing in front of it. And you can see them standing. And that looks like geese that might be flying over it. You think, come on, that's a mosque and those are two people sitting there.

[31:40]

But built into the culture is you never say anything definite. Everything is a probably. So they go too far. They're always talking about food. There's a big dish of obvious food. This looks like food. Das ist ein offensichtlicher Teller mit Essen. Das sieht aus wie Essen. I bet it was cooked food. Ich wette, das ist gekochtes Essen. And I wonder how it tastes. I bet it tastes good. They tried to make it taste good. Sometimes only hitting the nose helps. Okay, someone else. Yes, Dagmar. wondering about two things or want to bring in two things.

[32:46]

One is like, regarding observing the senses and working what appears and working with it. We all have usually two dominant senses that we work with. So I guess I imagine that it might be easier to work with those senses first. and then go maybe into the other senses in order to work. Maybe you should say this in German. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't recognize that. All right. You named me as an American speaker, so you started speaking English. Also, the... Normally, as a human being, you always have two dominant senses with which you work and which you perceive dominantly. And I can imagine that it is easier to work with these senses to eliminate these differences between appearance, naming, discrimination, and then only go into the senses where you are not so normal, so conscious.

[33:57]

That was one thing. And the other thing is that in languages, spaces and reference points in spaces are often described differently. And language also determines our perception to a certain extent. And therefore, I find that very interesting. And the other point is how much language determines or actually that language picks up on the relational spaces and the reference points. So languages...

[35:04]

have different ways of describing objects or two objects in a space, how they relate to each other. And so, of course, the speaker of these different languages have a different perception of that space and those objects. So I find that very interesting in relationship to our practice, since German and English is kind of similar in that way, I think. Yeah, quite similar. And the other thing I wanted to point is like I read somewhere that if you don't have a name for it, oftentimes you cannot see it. It doesn't appear in your world. So we are very much related to our world, so we can... except for the folds in our clothes that you brought up before, we can name nearly everything, but if we're in a different environment, we might not be able to name it because we just don't know these objects or things.

[36:11]

And I read in that context, like the American Indians, they didn't recognize the big ships because they didn't have wordings for them. Yeah, they sailed right... It was some sort of mirage, they thought. Yeah, unless we want to give the Eno a huge problem, we should stop soon. Oh, yes, I'll make an exception. Go ahead. The point you said about the earth, we don't have a name for it.

[37:16]

If we go into this deep groundlessness, then we get exactly there. We don't even have a name for it. So, but that very point when we don't have names anymore, the other thing we don't have anymore in this experience of groundlessness is an I. And so that is something, this experience of groundlessness, that I would like for us to speak about. How is that to be transposed into our daily lives? Well, that's a case show or two. Yeah, if I can respond. Okay. Yeah, and there's a future discussion.

[38:24]

If you'd like to invite me at some point during a seminar, I can participate because let's figure out how we can do this together. These days we have the best, most truthful way. So let me just say a couple things that relate to some of what has been spoken about. Again, the perfection of wisdom in 8,000 lines. States that it's all the way through it. Each sutra is really extreme. They're profoundly repetitive. They take one or a few insights and open it and unfold it and unfold it.

[39:31]

Like I think most of us do with our initial experiences which lead us into practice. Okay. So what's repeated over and over again in the 8,000 lines is that the three doors of deliverance Sind die drei Türen... Deliverance, I don't know how to translate.

[40:31]

Enlightenment. Oh, okay. Realization, practice. Sind die drei Türen der Erleuchtung, Verwirklichung oder Praxis. The three doors of realization, we could call it. Or the three doors which free you. are the emptiness, the signless, and the wishless. Okay, now, that's right here in the midst of what we're talking about. So we've made a distinction. Five dharmas have given us this distinction. Between appearance and naming. So I've often said, and I know various of you practice it, like you hear the tractor go by, or you hear a car, or you hear an airplane.

[41:36]

And you can experiment. as I know from Dobson and other ways, many of you do, experiment with noticing the sound and then when you add a name to it or when you can peel the name off it, that sound is the The music of the spheres. Oh no, it's a tractor. Klang einen Namen gegeben hast und wann du den Namen auch wieder abziehen kannst und dass du das spürst, wenn dieser Klang sowas ist wie Sphärenmusik und wann dieser Klang ein Trecker ist.

[42:38]

That's why we put the Zendo right next to the tractor road. Deshalb haben wir den Zendo direkt neben die Treckerstraße gebaut. Das haben wir uns ganz gründlich überlegt. So at some point the tractor is going by and you can peel off the name tractor and you begin to hear the tractor differently than when you heard it was a tractor. And while the neurological apparatus of seeing occupies is the major part of the brain. It's sound and hearing which is the emphasis in practice as an entryway through the senses. And although the visual cortex is a large part of the brain, so it takes in much more brain capacity, it is the hearing that is an access to practice.

[43:48]

This is a kind of discrimination or choice that practice has made. Entry is better through sound than through visuality. Und das ist auch eine Entscheidung oder eine Unterscheidung, die getroffen wurde, dass für die Praxis der Zugang über den Klang besser oder einfacher ist als durch das Sehen. Okay. All right. So, when you peel the name off something, a sound, a sight or whatever, or Hans Jord, and you only have a hyphen, There he is, Mr. Hyphen. He doesn't even have a hyphen. Oh, he doesn't. Wenn du den Namen von etwas abziehst, von einem Klang oder einem Objekt, das du siehst, oder was auch immer, oder von Hans Jörg, und dann bleibt nur noch ein Bindestrich stehen, und noch nicht mal den hat er. Okay. So what have you opened up right there in the midst of just this ordinary life we're leading? Was hast du dir dann da eröffnet, genau hier, inmitten dieses gewöhnlichen Lebens, das wir führen?

[44:55]

The signless. one of the three doors of deliverance. So what does the Bodhisattva do and what does the 8,000 line keeps showing how the Bodhisattva can do it? The Bodhisattva concentrates on the state of mind and being, it says, in effect, of the signless. Der Bodhisattva konzentriert sich auf den state of mind and the being. The state of the bodily mind and being that appears through concentrating on the signless. Der Bodhisattva konzentriert sich auf den Körpergeist und das Sein tatsächlich, das auftaucht, wenn du dich auf das Zeichenlose konzentrierst.

[45:56]

Okay, so then here's a challenge for all of us. To what extent can we establish a mind-bodily samadhi in the signless and not in the signed? Wie weit können wir einen Körpergeist Samadhi herstellen in der Zeichenlosigkeit und nicht im Bezeichneten? When you peel the name off the tractor sound, you're beginning to enter into the door of deliverance called the signless. Now it says over and over again in the sutra, this is the case only if the bodhisattva has no experience of a reality limit. And this is an explicit statement to distinguish the Mahayana from the Theravada or Hinayana.

[47:04]

Because, and we've been talking about time, so I can bring it in this way. Because the Hinayana, not nice to call it the Hinayana, but the lesser vehicle, the early Buddhism, Weil Hinayana, und das ist eigentlich kein netter Name, das kleinere Fahrzeug, das wäre politisch nicht korrekt, das kleinere Fahrzeug, also der frühe Buddhismus, betont, dass unsere Erfahrung die Art von Zeit ist, die zur Erleuchtung führt. And in Mahayana it says, to think of successional time as leading anywhere is a delusion.

[48:29]

Yeah, so we could talk about eschological, linear progressive time, and so forth, but let's not go there. Eschological? Eschatology means basically the Christian idea, primarily, of time, soul, heading toward heaven and so forth. Ah, yeah, yeah, I know. Salvation. I forget. Eschatology. Eschatology. No, because Mahayana particularly emphasizes just here now time, not in any cyclical context or progressive context. Cyclical, like it's repeated. Most of the world has seen cyclical time. The Christian Western world has seen progressive linear time. Mahayana is more like all time is present and that can only be known through just here now time.

[49:53]

So the reality limit means the bodhisattva is not thinking of practicing the signless in the context that he or she will die or that it leads to nirvana or realization. In Mahayana, it is said that the bodhisattva does not practice the signs within an understanding that he or she will die or that he or she wants to experience enlightenment. Now, to really absorb the difference here, that there's no reality limit, there's no end point. And so everything is multigenerational. Everything is a continuity. And to really take on this difference here, that there is no limit to reality, there is no limit to reality, everything is at the same time also generational. There is no end point. Everything is at the same time also generational and multigenerational.

[51:22]

And that's all hidden in the simple Buddhist term, from beginningless time. Okay, so let me say something that sounds different, but I find it related. And I should go into what I just spoke about in more detail and more thoroughly at some point, if you, I think we would like. Yeah. Is that the monk is is expected in our lineage to stand with his feet. I've mentioned this to two or three people in Dukesan. With your feet a fist apart. So you're not all monks and you're not all going to... So I don't worry.

[52:41]

Some of you have your feet like this and some like this. So the first thing I notice when anybody comes to Doksana, of course, is because you're way up there above me. How high is your feet? And so I say, oh, look at this place. You think you're bowing to me, but I'm in awe of you. So sometimes I kind of hint by sort of bow and I go. And only few people get the hand and move it. And I took this instruction, which I, again, you mostly notice it, you're not told it. But Sukershi specifically told us this with his fist. As I thought, well, if we're going to be aware, our awareness ought to extend to our feet at least, because sometimes we think our feet are down there.

[54:20]

Huh? Down there? Where's down there in relation to the what? I mean, that's a cultural assumption that your feet are down there. Okay. Okay, so I thought of it as developing an awareness which was from the soles of the feet to the crown chakra. But now I realize that instruction is, when you unfold it more, it's much more subtle than that. Because it's really, it is about awareness, but it's also then about the next step after you're aware of your feet and your posture at all times.

[55:27]

The next thing is that the feet represent a still point, a physical still point. So when you're spreading your raksu in service, raksu, zagu, in service, you don't, when you turn, because you turn away from the Buddha, traditionally, you don't move the foot. You keep your feet in place and you turn your body. And the embodiment teaching built into that Und die Verkörperungslehre, die da hineingebaut ist, ist, dass wenn du Stille praktizierst, dann geht das dabei nicht nur um geistige Stillen.

[56:47]

Sondern du musst sowas wie eine So the extended processive instruction, the operative instruction, As in bringing awareness to the feet and by some measure like keeping your ankles a fist apart. When Sukhirashi said that, I remember he said, we measure our body by our body.

[57:48]

And he also had us have our with our thumbs together, this feels quite different. And the tip of the fingers are more or less here. And the hands are a fist from the nose. And if you're a Westerner, it's a little farther than if you're Japanese. Or me. Okay. Okay, so once you get the feeling of a still point in your, how you stand, in your ankles and feet, You learn to move that still point around.

[59:07]

For instance, right now, the still point for me is at the beginning of my spine. I can move, but I'm moving in relationship to this still point. Ich kann mich zwar bewegen, aber wenn ich mich bewege, dann in Beziehung zu diesem stille Punkt. And when I'm in activity and talking, the still point is the point at which the exhale turns around, starts. Und wenn ich in Aktivität bin oder mich bewege, dann ist der stille Punkt der Punkt, wo die Ausatmung sich zurückwendet und in Einatmung verwandelt. Because in breathing practice, it feels like the breath is coming in from below. So where it turns before it becomes an inhale is also a still point in the midst of activity.

[60:15]

And when you do something like that, you're also sort of playing with making time. Because your successional activity, which is time, your heartbeat is time, your successional time is located in stillness and activity simultaneously. Deine ablaufende Zeit ist gleichzeitig in Stille und Aktivität verwurzelt. And the five dharmas then are a pattern laid on top of our successional experiential time.

[61:15]

And then as we begin to make operative use of this distinction, we can begin to shift our inbuilt cultural and genetic experience of personal time or experiential time. Okay. Crystal clear? Thank you very much. Are we going to chant?

[62:17]

Sure. Why not? It's half a tea show and half a discussion.

[62:21]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_79.14