No, I would like to find out if we're on the same page or if this makes sense to you and what you think about what I've said so far. Who's going to be second? Two images came up. The first self has something to do with drawing a border. So there is self and there is non-self or not-self.

[01:02]

And this is a conscious thing, it's connected to consciousness. And the other thing is that And the other thing is, awareness is also a kind of self. The experience of awareness. Okay. But this experience, this awareness self is expandable. Expansive. Sounds good. Yeah, I understand.

[02:02]

So, I don't want to comment much on what you say, but in general, right now. But if we do notice that there are various ways in which we experience self, that we could call the word self somehow, which one is the problematic self, the self that Buddhism thinks causes a problem? Welches davon ist das problematische Selbst, das von dem der Buddhismus glaubt, dass es das Problem hervorruft? Okay, someone else? Yes? Du hast in den Winterzeiten gesagt, dass der Buddhismus keinen Ursprung des Weins gibt. At the winter branches you said in Zen Buddhism there is no origin of being.

[03:09]

And this posed a big problem for me because I asked myself somehow, where does it, what's the direction, where does it go? Where does it come from or where does it go? Okay. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. What I'm afraid of is where's my point of orientation or reference. I need an anchor point.

[04:29]

Either it's the self, or if it's not the self, I need another way to anchor myself. And this was my feeling that I got when you said this, like being afraid. Okay, would you keep asking me that question? And maybe by the end of the seminar really ask me kind of again? And I'll see what I can do, yeah. You had your hand up. Also eine Definition des Selbst, oder was für mich eine Definition des Selbst ist, ist eine Art von... What would be a definition of self for me is a kind of selecting, selection, which is constantly going on.

[05:40]

And from that background, I also understand what you said about this accumulated nature. This selection is a kind of history. Okay, thanks. Volker? I have a practical question. A practical question. A what? A practical question. I have a practical question or a question of art, craft. If I want to strengthen the power of percept, I have to interrupt the giving meaning to...

[06:53]

And is it correct, what comes to my mind, is this practice of naming? Or are there other ways of interrupting this? There's many ways. But naming is one of the most basic ways. Okay, someone else? Yes? When I look back If I go back in memory, what I find is a different self, a self which is changing all the time at 20, 30 and so on. It's quite easy to see that. And it's also easy to see that my feeling at each of these points was a valid self-feeling.

[08:36]

And this is only possible if behind those different selves, behind there is something which is somehow mixed with this self which is in the foreground. It's mixed to the self we identified with. Or there is something common to all these different selves. Like that. Okay. So let me just... From the one point of view, you're saying that you have the experience of different selves at different times in your life.

[10:01]

And yet there's some commonality among those selves. I think that's without question. Yeah. But you also said maybe one could see it as there's foreground selves and there's some sort of fundamental self you're assuming behind the foreground selves. Are those two contrasting theories or is that your experience that there's some kind of fundamental self behind the foreground self? Is this your experience or are these contrasting experiences? Is there a fundamental self that lies behind the foreground self?

[11:02]

My experience is that the experience that there is something in the back, this stays the same. So you have two theories or experiences. One is that the foreground selves change, but they have a commonality or continuity of sorts. And behind the foreground selves, there's a kind of fundamental or basic self that is not the same as the commonality that joins or the continuity of the foreground self. Okay. Now, that may be most of our experiences or some of our experiences, but it's also a theory. In other words, it's a theory added to our experience.

[12:20]

Now the theory may correctly reflect our experience or it may actually distort our experience. And this theory is something we should examine. Actually, I don't know whether what I feel as the background always feels the same. I only feel that there is a background. Okay, that's good. So the background itself may change. I had this funny experience.

[13:35]

You know, I know you pretty well, all of you. And here I know Gerhard quite well. And then this funny language comes out of your mouth. This Austrian-German, I think. Yeah. Anyway. Okay, someone else? Yeah. I mean, I know it's not a funny language, but to me it's a funny language. It is. Why? Because I had one experience. I was in a foreign country and It actually works quite the same.

[14:37]

For example, I think it's more or less the same, but it still feels awkward because it works quite different. And also people, I mean, people look the same, but when you're talking, you don't get a feeling for them because it's so, it's as if there would be a glass between, you don't get the real feeling. And what I was thinking about when you say something, they think about the future. How does this machine work? How can you get a ticket for the trade from this machine, which somehow works? So we have some of the experience that our world is quite always the same. but you only have to move into a modernized country, not Austria-Germany and Switzerland, but Belgium, for example.

[15:46]

Suddenly, you feel so awkward because the world doesn't function in a way anymore as it used to. And that's why I was so curious, because what I suppose is that you think you're learning very well on a certain level, but when you're talking in this strange language, you feel somehow alienated from your experience. Okay. Which is a memorized experience, which is how you constantly construct your work. But then there's this interference of this strange language. Yes, I understand that. It's not quite what I feel, but I can understand that for sure. Yes? I want to say something. I speak English. I have the experience I go quite often to Greece and I don't speak the language except for a few words and a few phrases and I have very close friends in Greece and I'm very familiar with Greece and there I have the experience of being completely in the situation without understanding you know I can use everything, I can move freely I meet with the people when they talk it

[17:00]

I don't get the meaning of what they say, but it's a sound that can be followed by feeling. So that's without the tags, the name tags. Maybe because you computed that, you were there often, and he's... Yeah, it's a matter of seeking in and then... something familiar is always more approachable. Well, what I meant, yeah, I understand. Anybody want to speak in Deutsch here? Well, have we finished this? It doesn't have to be translated? Okay. Well, let me just say, for me, it's like Gerhard and I are two pine trees. And we're standing in the forest together. And then he opens his mouth and palm leaves come out. And I think, what are palm leaves coming out of a pine tree for?

[18:05]

I think he's next unless you're in the same theme. Okay, yes. He's the same man. I'm still on the page. Okay, we're on the page, right. It's a palm leaf, actually. Two aspects of the self are on my page. The first is the handle. Which is the hand is helpful to have orientation. But it's only a help. And the other thing that is on my page is the self really is a flowing process.

[19:05]

But it's not so easy to act within that flowing process, interaction with that. And it's also not so easy to know what oneself is. The identity also drawing a border is not so easy. So you always come back to needing this handle. So maybe the aspect of self which is not so helpful is the attachment part, the attaching part. I haven't been there this morning when you talked about Sophia, but I have two small boys myself.

[20:31]

And this question, when raising children, they always have a lot of ideas, maybe a thousand, what would be right and what would be wrong to teach them. And at the same time there is this, so to speak, death in Buddhism, the pick and choose, the distinction between good and bad in every way. But in this respect, not only that I don't know, at least I have a lot of doubts about what is good now, which direction to take or which values ​​to convey, etc., etc., what is good or bad, but to be magnified by the individual behavioral measures. At the same time in Buddhism there is the message, just forget picking and choosing and leave that aside.

[21:54]

But when raising children it's a real problem for me because it's not so easy to let go of picking and choosing. You have somehow to come up with something. No, the Buddha never recommended give up picking and choosing as a parent. Okay. Yes. Yes. I don't understand. I still don't understand. To imagine a handle on a volition and on these intentions, this is a bit too strong for me, the picture.

[23:18]

So I feel more comfortable with taking it at hand. This kind of... Taking a hand. Taking it by the hand. Taking your child by the hand, you mean? Like my child. to take this maybe intuition, instincts, and whatever is more so clear, and to join it somehow with maybe the ability to realize. This is for me, at the moment, but also this Christian for self, which winds a bit.

[24:21]

And another aspect... Can you bring everybody up to date in Deutsch first? For me, the image of myself, this desire to grab the grip, to grab the handle, is almost too strong for me as a woman. I feel more and more that it is hard for me to live. To live with a child alone. Not that I feel like a child, Now if you do translate yourself, I prefer you to speak in Deutsch first. The second thing that comes to my mind or that I now feel is that the seminar is set up in such a way that cohesion is also an important topic for me at the moment.

[25:41]

Cohesion is more important than any form of... I notice that the person I'm talking to makes a difference, whether I can accept something as non-contact or whether I understand a connection. Also, the second part that came in my mind, which arose from this story sheet work, is that... Incoherence? Incoherence? Incoherence. Incoherence is important for me at the moment.

[26:42]

inter-coherence, inter-religion, yes, that things have no relationship to myself, but they happen just because they happen. I noticed in myself the strong will to construct a relationship to myself and to do this. This is the point where the question causing what I'm responsible for acting with other people in their life and so on, if this incoherence, this zusammenhangslosigkeit takes more place.

[27:49]

So, yeah. So things just happen, and you decide whether you want to establish a relationship or not, or maybe... That would be ideal, yeah. I notice sometimes, maybe it goes in that direction, but... I noticed that even the feeling of belonging is for me a... belongs to me in this stream. The feeling of belonging, to want to have, that nourishes, belongs to me in this stream. So a connection. Even this feeling of belonging, connected to the social sense, is the same stream for me.

[29:03]

Okay, thank you. Someone else? Yes. Yes. So the picture I got is the self comes into existence from a mixture of memory and experience memory and perception immediacy and where I actually have this question is whether this is really sufficient to

[30:14]

And where there is a big question mark is whether this is really enough to explain my specific self. leads to the fact that there are obviously cultures where the self is seen in a completely different way. For example, where the self is no longer just him, but a whole family. And I arrive at this question because there are cultures where the self is seen quite differently, where the self is the whole family, for example. So the self is also shaped by cultural understanding or gifts.

[31:28]

Yeah. I was in Oman recently and I listened to a lecture. Where? In Oman. Oh, okay. There was a lecture by an Omani. Yeah. And he explained that in their culture they don't feel something like guilt. But what they see as central part of their self is shame. That's true in Buddhism too.

[32:30]

That's true for Buddhism as well. The question I'm still wondering about is this difference between this kind of very basic different views, which comes neither from memory nor from reality. I didn't understand that. The difference between this fundamental kind of Personal perception between shame and guilt neither comes from experience nor from memory. So that is the question I'm still living with. What is there else besides perception and memory that kind of creates this part of myself? Okay. I think I have that in mind. Someone else? Okay.

[33:31]

What I, where I disagree or where I, is that in your presentation you somehow put it in such a, that's the way I understood it, the fact that you named it this way, is that when you teach to fear, It's not such an explicit, it's not conscious. You know, you don't take Marie-Louise Webb, let's put some, let's teach her some sharing about eating, you know. It's unconscious, it's taking it with my voice, I cannot tell the way of eating. This is a common experience. You say the same thing. They are much worse. Do you suppose this is universal in all cultures?

[35:00]

Except for barbarians. Except for barbarians? No, barbarians. Okay. Be careful, we have some Bavarians here. Yeah, yeah, okay. Yeah. that it's not existing, we are over-roasted, this disease is actually over-roasted. And also the self, I mean, the first problem with the self is that we have, well, you mentioned so many things which could be the self, but I think primarily it's we have an experience, experience of many things, but we cannot call all this experience our self, there are many things.

[36:13]

which I don't see. Where is this? When you put your ovulate in your mouth. Yeah. And then you see that they are clean. Mm-hmm. There is some thinking in this group. It's like with all the good practice, when you take the chopsticks with the tips of your fingers, it's more rational thinking and more consciousness than if you put it this way. So what do you want to say? I don't know. you know, when you say the same, because it's so much mixed with all the other experiences we have. So we have to sort things out.

[37:18]

But in reality I don't like the story about anger, because then it's just a concept. You can experience it somehow. Did you translate everything you said? No. No. I would like to start with myself, because the big problem is what we often say, I myself or myself. But it's something completely different for me. For example, the feeling. The feeling has nothing to do with with itself, but it can slip into itself very quickly. So, if you eat the stews with the fingers, it is easier to chew and it is easier to suck, than if you just take it like that, with the hand.

[38:19]

My experience, I think, is that you have to be very precise that it is already a conscious act, or that there are a lot of senses in the brain when you notice that you now have three real mouths. It's already something with the teeth and that has more to do with thinking than with the birds. So it's so easy to mix and it changes. But, yes. And that, yes, last thing. Then when you start to think about it, you put immediately all the experiences you have, which are on quite different levels, you immediately come into concepts and then you are completely in set. And when you think about it, you try to break it down into things like the sea, you go to the sea, you go to an apartment, you go to the stars.

[39:25]

There are probably different versions of the concept that you have, and that is what you want to let people know about. Well, I'm just trying to, at this stage, try to stir things up. And, you know, yeah. And I'm not trying to define self. I'm just trying to... unavoidably speak in a ways which implies definitions of self. And partly to get all of us to notice ways in which we act with the assumption of a self. At this point, you know, there's nothing, you know, I don't mind being disagreed with.

[40:42]

It's quite interesting when I am disagreed with. But right now, I think we're mostly just adding to the soup. And eventually we have to stir the soup or make it into something that's nourishing. But since we tend to think in categories and through habits, I think we have to start with such a familiar and yet big topic by stirring up, stirring around in the ways we assume that we function as a self. Yes.

[41:54]

After Erich just spoke, I thought, maybe we feel something like a duty to have a self, that we always want to return to ourselves in our experiences. When Eric talked, I got the feeling maybe we're feeling also a kind of obligation to come back to a sense of self, that in our different experiences somehow we have to have the sense there is myself again. Great. Yeah, the sense of self can be wonderful. Yes. to some feeling maybe of my childhood. And the experiences can be very painful to have as well.

[42:58]

Or maybe that's one of the first experiences to have to accept that there is a difference, and there is a step-border, and it's coming. I cannot help but think there is also some experience, or there were some experiences very painful connected to the first awareness of... Differentiation. Yeah. Yes. Yes. Deutsch. Oh, Deutsch, did you... Yeah. Yeah, I think you said three. The common... I would also like to remember how I came back very late and how we had to deal with this first warning of ourselves, this warning of being different. That is also a painful warning.

[44:00]

I am more connected to the latter than to the previous one, namely that the self is something sophisticated, I think, not self-evident, something difficult. Would you like to add something to that? A self is somewhat difficult, it doesn't go without saying. It's so sophisticated, only yourself. My perception is closer to me, to myself, than self. And when I listened to the talk, I asked myself, what is the connection or the path between perception and the self and back? And the self is difficult and it's extremely demanding to have the self.

[45:30]

And I ask myself, if it's like that, why bother? Why having yourself? So I'm asking myself, if it takes so much energy and strength to have the self, why am I doing it? What's the alternative? And I ask myself different self. Would that be interesting? It's no option to take another one. So I asked myself, but I don't have an answer.

[46:47]

Would it be possible to have no self? Would it be thinkable? Maybe. The next thing, what is nature? So perception has something to do with nature. And I believe my nature is closer to myself than self. So if I pick that up... It's getting good here.

[47:48]

We're warming up. Yes? Yes? All my life I was searching or looking for relatedness, relation. I didn't find any. I only found differentness, otherness. I couldn't accept this for a long time, but I can accept this now. I arrive at the question and sometimes I think I have the answer to it that there is no background self at all I dare ask it

[48:58]

Well, these are the questions we should be asking. And I don't think we're ready to try to answer them yet. So, Christa, why don't you be the last, and then maybe I'll try to say a few words. I wanted to connect with Egon. Why are we doing this? It's just so exhausting. So I wanted to agree with Eva. Why are we doing this to ourselves? Because it's so demanding, this self. And Eva asked, how could it be if there wouldn't be any self at all? Yes, and it just struck me that the only place where there is really an experience is just in the sustainment, where I sometimes, when the thoughts are gone, where it just goes well.

[50:15]

And what immediately came to my mind is in sasen, when thoughts are gone and you're feeling fine. And there is less self present. So for me, that's the only possibility. Okay. Thanks a lot. I appreciate it. You know, I read some time ago about, or they took films of people walking in the street to prisoners in prison. And they asked these prisoners who were muggers, you know what a mugger is? Somebody who hits you over the head and steals from you or assaults you or something.

[51:24]

I know you don't have them in Austria but in America we have them. They asked the prisoners who were people who would mug somebody. In these films who would you choose to mug? and invariably if the person looked like he had a strong sense of self and he or she walked with confidence and they didn't rush they wouldn't mug them. They would pick, inevitably, in every prison across, this was done in prisons across the United States,

[52:42]

And there was a universal agreement, oh, that guy we'd mug, that woman we'd go after. And there were all ones who looked unsure of themselves, didn't have a strong sense of self, etc. So a strong sense of self may protect you in Central Park in New York. Now with Sophia, going back to that, I clearly feel when I'm talking to her, I am creating a sense of shame. Ich fühle ganz klar, wenn ich mit ihr spreche, ich bin dabei, ein Empfinden von Scham hervorzubringen. And I clearly realize I'm creating a door, I mean creating a handle which other people can take hold of. Und ich realisiere ganz klar, ich schaffe einen Griff, den auch andere Leute ergreifen können. But really what I want to do is create a door for her, not a handle.

[53:56]

A door that lets her go into restaurants. but isn't necessarily a door that turns into a handle, if I can stretch this metaphor. But I also know I want it partly to be a handle. Intentionally. Because I want to be able to say to her, Sophia, we don't behave that way. Because when she's a teenager, for example, I don't want her to be involved with drugs and all kinds of things. Yes. Who is this we? certain standards I have.

[55:02]

Yes, of course. Please, Deutsch. In the sentence there is this connection, you know, this connection between You as a being. That's right. And this connection, which is also, I try to refer to that because it's so, makes sometimes conscious, but also unconscious. We do this really humanely, I say to you, Tristan, when you talk this about the humanes, that they create this kind of change, and not give. And we create, give, or we create, we behave this way, or we don't behave this way. Sorry? Deutsch? It's a way how we are connected to each other.

[56:04]

So it's not an individual decision. We need to communicate with each other. It's not only an individual decision. Yes, but that's what I'm saying. So it's not about having individual decisions, but it's about the way we communicate with each other. Okay. So I'm saying we in our family, we who I identify with, don't behave that way or do behave this way. And this is a way of ordering the generations and ordering your relationship to society. I mean, as we were talking in the car coming, my grandson is very involved with fashion. Teenage fashion. What shoes you wear, etc. And I'm a little shocked. Because nobody in my family, immediate family, or my two daughters, one who's 44 and one who's 30 in a few days,

[57:08]

None of them are identified with fashion, though they participate in it as a role. So I'm quite shocked by my grandson. He doesn't belong to the we that I identify with. I know it's okay. But my son-in-law said, the reason you're annoyed with your grandson is because he wasn't as cool as you. Well, so far he's not adding a new aspect to me, but we'll see. But yes, but this is what I'm saying.

[58:40]

I'm not just... No, no, I'm not... Okay. Yes? Yes? I have to ask a silly question. We like it. So I understand it from what we're talking that self comes into existence from our experience, our memory, our cultural upbringing. That's what we're saying, yes. I don't know if it's true, but that's what we're saying. In that case... So in the Zen tradition, what am I doing here?

[59:46]

Am I creating a new self, another kind of self? Or is it something different? Okay, yes, well, good question, yes. At the beginning today you said there are these two components, memory and percept. Yeah. I didn't say that it's part of self, I just said there are these two things.

[60:48]

Yes. What I missed somehow was concepts because what we are doing is we are talking about concepts. I hear that you have concepts how you are behaving and your family is behaving. Yes, that's true. So in the first part there was this more like what am I experiencing and the concept part was somehow missing which is so important for talking about the self. Because a lot of suffering arises from these concepts.

[62:00]

If I'm not coming up to myself, image or... So suffering doesn't arise from experience, but from concepts or images. Well, that's one place it arises from. Okay, we're going to have to stop, but... But... Yes. I didn't understand what you presented this afternoon. As your definition of the self, it was just entering the field, and it was not exhausting the topic. of the self.

[63:03]

Memory and concept. It goes without saying that conception and greed and everything comes in. They are all part of the self. You had your hand up a couple of times. I would have a practical question. Why is it a necessary ingredient in raising children to have guilt or shame? Couldn't you work somehow with, these are the rules of the game, if you want to play, join the game, you have to see to the rules. I don't like the handles. Who is making the rules?

[64:13]

Volker was asking, and Eva says, that's not a question for me. Well, what I'm saying is that whether you like it or not, you end up creating handles. And it's better if you can make your child, in this case, realize the handle is actually a door. It's a door into the rules of the game. But you don't have to be identified by the rules of the game. Very few people, maybe only Buddhas, cannot be identified by the rules of the game. We imagine our future in terms of the future we see in other people and so forth. Yes. Okay.

[65:27]

But, I mean, my feeling is that... Anyway, I think that's clear enough. The implications are clear enough. Okay. Now I want to add one more thing. We can think of... We can change the theater of memory. Okay. I think that when you do zazen, if zazen becomes a physical habit, let you do regularly, your body does it, etc. Actually, when you do zazen, the kinds of memories that arise are different than the memories that arise in ordinary experience. Now I can also use an example of intuition. Intuition is, I would say, an insight or thought

[66:29]

based on a which has a wider base than consciousness. So I think those people who meditate regularly notice they would make different decisions in meditation than they would in ordinary circumstances. And often you have a sense of Well, in meditation it was very clear this is the choice I should make. But in the practical circumstances, when I thought it through rationally, I should make a different decision. And then you have a choice between these two choices. The practical and what feels like a deeper intuition. And then you have to kind of make a practical decision related to those two decisions, those two possibilities.

[67:57]

And I would say that when a person meditates regularly, their thinking is actually what would be best called a flow of intuition. And a flow of intuition or what I mean by a different theater of memory that our ordinary circumstances are a kind of theater which calls forth a certain script or play or memory, etc. in the theater of Zazen the script is there's several scripts going on simultaneously and none of them necessarily have to go anywhere and so it calls forth things you hadn't thought of before hadn't thought of for years and I would say a regular meditator

[69:09]

If you really meditate, scrupulous. Now, I'm putting this down. I don't mean to say you have to do this, but I want to say that something happens when you do do this. Now, what am I trying to say? So let me say that when you meditate regularly, Once or twice a day, 365 days a year for five years. During that time, much of what happens is almost like past lives, though I'm not interested in past lives. The flow of mem signs, which have made your narrative, the flow of mem signs, which have made your narrative, the narrative you believe in and project your future through and so forth, and are supported by your families, friends and culture, that narrative becomes

[70:34]

thinner and thinner. And other narrative possibilities come up. And one of them is the possibility of being a Buddha. or being a person that just exists in the world in an entirely different way without a narrative, without a life span. And then after two or three or five years of this flow and reconstituting all of the mem signs that they interrelate newly, And mem signs that weren't included in your narrative. It's like drawing where you connect the dots. So you've connected the dots and made your life. And if you sit regularly, suddenly lots of those dots fade and other dots come into...

[71:55]

prominence and there's a whole range of dots that weren't there before or were there before but not in focus and you begin to connect or something begins to connect now Dharma Kirti, Chandra Kirti, etc., all the Kirtis, they assume that what I'm talking about is only possible for monastics. To actually articulate the mind stream or the being stream. so that you moment by moment feel the point of appearance.

[73:05]

And in that point of appearance in the depth of the everyday you can enter a wisdom phrase enter a sankalpa intention. Unless you have a dharmic schedule in your life or dharmic definition of the territory of your life, you can't do it. Okay. Now maybe they're wrong. I'm betting my life on, I'm betting the time, the duration of my life on, that maybe they're partly wrong. But the example I use is like, if you want to be a physicist, you have to study physics.

[74:16]

You need a certain education. You can be a self-taught physicist but you still have to know physics. Or a mathematician. You're not born knowing mathematics. Unless you're autistic. Okay, so, and we assume that a physicist has the education of a physicist. So Dharmakirti also says, unless you've developed your engaged mindfulness, mindful attention, In a certain way, you can't do these things. As Koan 20 says in the book of Sunanti, hold to the moment before thought arises. that's a certain dharmic skill and my point of bringing up this holding your hand in the stream of blah blah blah

[75:43]

It's just to give an example of the craft. It's a craft, a dharmic craft. Which you're not born with. It's something like being a physicist of the mind. Okay, does that mean everybody has to be a monk? I'm assuming not so. And I'm assuming that my experience with the Dharma Sangha in Europe is if we, enough of us, stay with this and practice together and develop an engaged mindful attention And we have the intention to do that. And we have that intention stronger than any other intention.

[76:54]

Then we can create the conditions for transforming our accumulated nature into Buddha nature. Well, what do I mean by Buddha nature? It's just a code now, a sign for something. Now, if you do get to the point where you experience moment after moment the mem sign and the percept, You're articulating the stream of mind and being. And through articulating it, you can participate in it. And that is the point of these two terms, sankalpa and vikalpa.

[78:08]

Can you articulate your experience sufficiently that you can transform your nature? What do you mean by articulate? Make clear. Articulate? What do you say? You must have the word. But it's not expressing. No, not express. It's to articulate. It's not like to speak. To articulate is to speak clearly. To shape, to see the structure. No. Bring it to life.

[79:09]

Oh, that's interesting. Marie-Louise is an architect. And she just built a house. And one thing she did which is quite good in this house is every square inch is articulated. Exactly how this corner is in relationship to that corner. That's not a concept. I mean, you can call it a concept, but it's not a concept. So to articulate means to make the ingredients clear. So you can see them, feel them. It's like perhaps when you read a recipe, it says, here are all the ingredients.

[80:13]

Now you do something. It articulates the moment-by-moment experience so you can see into it. And one of the experiences of that is when you can see into it, you have a feeling of certainty, sureness. And you, anyway, maybe I should stop there because tomorrow is another day. This evening is also an evening. Yeah. We continue in the evening. No, we don't. Yes. Friday evening, I'm sorry to say. Oh. Tomorrow evening. No, I don't... Okay, well, this is a mistake on my part. Because I've given up doing anything Friday evening.

[81:16]

Not jet lag, no. No, no, just I do, if I do the prologue day, I don't want to do any kind of introduction Friday evening. I didn't know that. Yeah, that's everywhere but Austria. I just haven't told you. No, it wasn't articulated. It was not articulated. Is some people coming tonight who are expecting? Really? I'll meet with them privately. Oh dear. Well, this evening is another day.

[82:21]

I don't know, we'll see. Anyway, thank you for your patience and your translation. Translate it. So what I will speak about tomorrow for sure is what happens when you do articulate your experience. And you come to this point appearance. of each moment.

[83:27]

And can we find a taste of that or enough experience of it that it allows us to enter into our experience and our continuous process and reaffirmation and reification of the process of self-formation. Yeah, so that there's continuity and transformation. Okay, thank you very much.

[84:00]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_79.13