Now I asked Hannah and Nicole, as Hannah was driving us here from Wien a little earlier today, what should What would you recommend that I speak about starting out this evening? And what would you recommend that I bring into this seminar from the previous? And Andreas, you might have some ideas too, and other people, and Christina, and everyone who were here in the previous seminar. Yeah, you know, and as I'm

[01:01]

I've been doing this a long time. Recently, last year or so especially, I've been looking again at the most basic teachings. And I find when I look at them again, I look at them in a more detailed way. And I'm always trying to look at things in a practicable way. And some things I speak about, really, it can only make sense to talk about people whose primary practice is Zen practice itself.

[02:44]

And other things are make sense for people who are Primarily lay people are primarily having another profession, like most of you are psychotherapists. And other things make the most sense if, for example, mainly for lay practitioners or practitioners who practice another profession, like you, for example, mainly work in psychotherapeutic or therapeutic professions. So consciousness itself, whatever that is, has to be of interest to psychotherapists as well as practitioners. And since Niho has been speaking

[03:46]

about actually seeing, experiencing consciousness for the last, I don't know, couple of months in various ways? And so I was rather surprised that she said something like, in this last seminar you finally gave you the clue to have a feeling for consciousness as a construct. And that surprised me a bit because You know, she has translated a number of times now my exploration of how to speak about consciousness.

[05:21]

And it made me think of, I may have the story mixed up, but I think that when the Portuguese ships first arrived on the shores of Japan, local people I've never seen ships that looked like that. And they couldn't believe it. They thought it was, you know, supposedly quite a few people saw it, and they just couldn't, they didn't know what it was. They didn't even think it was anything. They didn't see it. And until these funny-looking Portuguese guys came ashore, then they recognized something was happening. It was actually the North American ship. the North American shore, with the Indian, Native Americans, okay.

[06:47]

I knew it. But let's pretend it wasn't Japanese. The translator isn't supposed to correct me in front of everyone. Oh yeah, that's the case. But it was somewhat similar to Japan. But anyway, that's the case. I remembered, I knew I wasn't quite right. But my point is that somehow in this last seminar, Nicole came ashore. And for me too, this whole process of trying to find ways to speak about things becomes a way of coming ashore. It really is something like that, coming ashore in the actuality of something.

[07:57]

And for me it's the same, this whole process of searching for how I can talk about something, is something like a feeling, reaching the beach, the beach of the reality of something. Now, related to this, and I'm still trying to find a way to speak about it, and in the last seminar, initially I planned to speak about what I call a chasm between the West and the Eastern way of thinking. It's like a gap? A chasm. A chasm. Yeah, like a gap.

[09:10]

But a chasm is a biggest gap possible. Like Grand Canyon is a chasm. Yeah, and actually, I spent some time kind of wondering how to speak about it and I actually ended up not speaking about it in the last seminar because I couldn't figure out a way to say it. So I may, I hope to, find a way to speak about this chasm between Chinese East Asian way of thinking and Buddhist way of thinking, not exactly the same, and Western way of thinking.

[10:12]

And I'd like to see... Oh, excuse me. You said East Asian Buddhism, right? Chinese East Asian. Yeah. and Buddhism, which aren't the same, but in many ways the same, and Western. This has always been a fruitful area thinking and observation for me, even before I went to live in Japan for four years, and off and on for 35.

[11:16]

Yeah, I read a long article a few Well, some months ago this year in New York Times by a Near Eastern person, sociologist or historian, I can't remember. And he made the point that there really isn't a real difference between Western way of thinking and East Asian way of thinking. And I have a long article about him in the New York Times by an East Asian sociologist, or I don't know exactly what he is. Anyway, I read a long article about him. And his point was that there is basically no difference between East Asian thinking and Western thinking.

[12:21]

He made the point completely valid that these are various cultures and peoples and they all mix together and the various mixes don't end up to be that different. But that's not my experience. And in fact, over now 55 years or so of practicing, it's only clearer that it's different. And I'm mentioning it because the difference makes it difficult for us to understand really what's going on in this other modality of intelligence.

[13:35]

And And also, it's a fruitful distinction because we can really make use of it to, in antidotal ways and contrapuntal ways, see our own way of thinking. We're genetically extremely similar. But our thinking is actually pretty different.

[14:42]

And the person I've discovered recently, only half a year ago, who I most agree with, He's a French sinologist named François Julien. And he's much more capable than I am to notice the differences because he's a really thoroughly brilliant sinologist. But the points he makes are pretty much exactly what I think. His are somewhat more informed. But they're very similar, too, to how Suzuki Rishon felt. So this is, I think, exciting for all of us because it means, although we're genetically pretty much one big human race, but our thinking can be pretty airtight, compartmentalized.

[16:24]

Okay. And I think that's pretty exciting or interesting for all of us, because what that means is that although we are genetically very similar, our thinking is pretty... shuffled, or no, not shuffled, but divided. In boxes. In boxes, yes. Incompatible. Yes, okay, so it can be divided. You came all the way from Berlin? Yes. Three o'clock getting up today. Driving or flying? Flying. Yeah, I hope so. I drove last time. I remember you drove last time. I've driven across the United States a few times and said, day after day. Because I'll never get here. Now this kind of emphasis, this distinction is probably not the reason it should be so important to you.

[17:37]

But it's an inseparable part for me of trying to make sense of the relationship of practice in the West for us. Okay, so I will try to explore this. a little more and in a way that I hope can be fruitful later during our days together. Okay, so let me just introduce this looking at consciousness as a construct. Now, as recently as, to start out with, as recently as the philosopher G.E.

[18:59]

Moore, who is a contemporary of Wittgenstein and Bertrand Russell, a British philosopher, He died in 1958, which is during my lifetime. So for me, quite recently. And he made the point, emphasized that consciousness is invisible. Which also his contemporary Wittgenstein at some lecture said, there's nothing in this information, in this situation that tells me my mind is seeing it. Now, we've spoken about this before. And but not as thoroughly ever as I'm trying to speak about it this evening and this week.

[20:30]

Okay. So, because for Zen practice, and I think probably for psychotherapy, At least for Zen practice, it's important to actually be able to feel the experience of consciousness functioning. Of course, we always do. I mean, how could we not? But we don't really notice it. And one thing I've emphasized is a very basic practice in present. For many years I've been mentioning to notice that mind appears on every appearance.

[21:46]

Mind is part of accompanies inseparable from every appearance. Conceptually, this is easy to understand. It is the basis of phenomenology, practice of phenomenology. But knowing it means almost nothing. It kind of means something, but not too much. You have to actually... Make it your habit.

[23:06]

And that takes first the concept, the fully grasped concept that mind is a part of every appearance. And somehow it has to get into us, under our skin, into our mind, that it makes a difference whether we notice it or not. We have a tendency to believe in understanding. And our whole educational system assumes that understanding is the main point. But from the point of view of yogic engagement with the world, understanding is kind of like knowing a map or something, but not knowing the city.

[24:31]

The best word I can use, as I did the other day, is incubation. Sometimes people have reservations about the idea of incubation, but their reservations are based on understanding. I think what we don't get is that not only is consciousness a construct, When I say we don't get, I mean that for many years I keep noticing that I don't get it.

[25:45]

So that makes me able to speak about it, because I notice that I don't get it. And because understanding assumes that knowing something is primarily Mentation is mental thinking. And although it's commonplace now, almost everyone thinks that mind and body are related or mind and body are inseparable or we want to embody a teaching, but

[26:48]

Really, we still tend to think of it in terms of understanding. So the difference between incubation and Understanding is physiological. Yeah, so Dogen can say that the lived realm of those who practice meditation regularly is simply significantly or completely different than those who don't practice.

[27:53]

Yeah, it's a... And I hate to say things like that actually. Because I completely respect and love any of you who don't practice regularly. I'm not trying to encourage you to practice. But I have to face the facts. Because practice changes you neurologically, physically, chemically, etc.

[29:09]

So when I say something, and I've been saying it recently, and sometimes she gives me a little bit of a hard time about it, because I say something like... If you don't do this, certain things in practice will never happen. Thank you. Then certain things make no sense in practice. Like if you don't really neurologically get it, that mind and feel, that mind appears on every appearance, lots of practices just inaccessible to you. So then my own feeling is, I should say that because that's been the conclusions I've come to over many years.

[30:10]

And not just conclusions drawn on my own experience, but from practicing with many hundreds of people actually. So what I mean is not so much that, hey, this excludes you because you don't do that, whatever it is. But I mean, if that is the case, if we put ourselves in some orientation to it, just the orientation to it, even if you... I don't know, I mean something by that, but I won't say it any more specifically than that. Just the orientation to it makes a big difference. And the only way you

[31:26]

Shift from understanding to incubation is by repetition. And this isn't about practicing zazen. It's about bringing the concept of mind appearing on every appearance on every appearance. So you kind of have to trick yourself into it. Find little ways to... I mean, like this glass is sitting on that. So, and seeing things as interdependent, the physicist Rovelli says that nothing, things are only interactions.

[32:56]

They don't exist except as interactions. And that's basically the Buddhist, that is the Buddhist position. So you, as I've said now from several years here, emphasized to see things as activities and not as entities. And seeing things as interactions or activities is also part of seeing mind on each appearance.

[33:56]

So what we're trying to get to here is that we get to the experience that we experience consciousness itself separate from the experience of mind, and we experience that we can deconstruct consciousness, and through that we can then reconstruct consciousness. Okay, now one of the things, so I'm leaving that sort of, in midst of a number of things that maybe I'll come back to next year. Just so you all come again next year.

[35:25]

Well, probably tomorrow. I mentioned in this last seminar that Thich Nhat Hanh, one of the most famous Buddhist logicians, an Indian philosopher, a Buddhist philosopher. Before Dignara's time and in Vasubandhu, his teacher's time, It was thought that truth was established by perception, by logical inference, and by corroboration through the scriptures.

[36:28]

But Dignaga said, different schools have different ways of understanding the scriptures, so he cut Buddhism loose from the scriptures. So from then on Buddhism implicitly became a kind of science. The scriptures or sutras are not the source of truth. They may be the source of wisdom or observations, but they don't establish, they don't corroborate, they're not corroboration for evidential experience.

[37:37]

You have to explain to me again, corroboration. It means that you establish the truth of something through, it's corroborated by the... Yeah. Well, I don't want it to. Well, you establish the truth of something is clear, but then it's corroborated through, I don't understand. Through, the scripture says it's true. Okay. Supposedly. Okay. Okay. It's funny, it's a very common word in English.

[38:41]

Yeah? Okay. It's like, did this, did such and such happen? And somebody says, yes, I saw it with my own eyes and et cetera. So it was corroborated. Okay. Yeah, yeah, yeah. For instance, if Trump had made tapes and they exactly supported Comey's, that would be corroboration. In other words, Comey said such and such, right? In his testimony. You don't have to believe him. But if there's a tape of it, it's corroborated.

[39:43]

There must be an equivalent word in German. Can we say, is it different from confirm, that it's confirmed as truth? It's, it's, it's, it confirmed has a much weaker meaning. Oh, yeah, okay. The corroboration in itself, it creates the proof, it establishes the proof. Yeah, yeah. Is it used in court, this word? Yeah, it could be, sure. Yeah. So somebody might say, he confirmed that was true, but that's still not as strong as saying it was corroborated by the facts, you know, something like that. Anyway, not important. We all understand. Okay, yeah. You did it. But I want your understanding corroborated.

[40:45]

Also, das Wörterbuch soll bekräftigen, bestätigen, erwerben, unterlauern. Okay. Beweisführung. Okay, so now I'm going to end soon. And I will corroborate that by actually ending. Okay, so another thing I want to bring up in our days together is what I'm calling the four potentials or criteria for a Buddhist teaching.

[41:52]

And none of them require corroboration by the suttas or the suttas. Buddhist teaching or Buddhist worldview assumes that awakening, transformation is possible. The Buddhist worldview or the criteria for teaching assumes that mental and emotional suffering, we can be free of mental and emotional suffering. Eine buddhistische Weltsicht oder eine buddhistische Lehre geht davon aus, dass es möglich ist, frei zu sein von geistigem oder emotionalem Leid.

[42:56]

And third, that a teaching is beneficial to the practitioner and to others. Beneficial to oneself and to others. And fourth is in accord with how we actually exist. Now, if one of you came up with, you or all of you came up with a psychological school of practice which assumed awakening is possible, which assumed you could be free of mental suffering, which was beneficent to others and to yourself, and which was in accord with how we actually exist,

[44:01]

this would be undeniably a Buddhist teaching. Yeah. Okay, now... I think for many psychotherapists and in actual practice with people who have a lot of mental and physical and emotional suffering, that even in yourself, various compulsive thoughts or problems or habits, etc., we tend to have.

[45:20]

We may not be completely free of mental and emotional suffering, dann sind wir vielleicht nicht vollständig von geistigem und emotionalem Leid befreit. But if we assume that it is possible That's a big step to assume it actually is possible. But if you don't actually assume it's possible, Buddhist teachings don't really affect us thoroughly. The example I gave, which is important to me, is that democracy depends on the idea of progress.

[46:34]

If you don't think it's possible for society to change and get improved, uh, democracy, you wouldn't do the laws, you wouldn't have health care and so forth. If one did not assume that it is actually possible for a society to change and to develop and to become better, then there would be laws or there would be no laws and there would be no health insurance and so on, health insurance and so on. It's interesting that it's a Western idea. Traditionally in Buddhism, there was no idea of progress. Society would always be governed by greed, hate, and delusion. Each person could be awakened, but not society.

[47:35]

So a belief that it's possible that society can change has to be there if democracy is going to function. And I believe that it's possible. That progress is possible, or positive change is possible, has to be, if it's there, then it affects how you govern, what laws you make, etc., So in a similar way, Buddhist teachings assume that awakening is possible. And they're all designed to Realize these four potentials.

[49:01]

Okay, and the freedom to be free of mental and emotional suffering assumes that consciousness is a construct. And consciousness can be reconstructed. All right. So then the challenge for the Buddhist or the psychotherapist who's interested in Buddhism is, how do I experience my own consciousness enough to make my client experience their consciousness? And then how do we mutually deconstruct If it's a construction, it can be deconstructed. And if it can be deconstructed, it can be reconstructed. They're all contractors, architects.

[50:05]

Then the challenge for the Buddhists or for those or the psychotherapists who are interested in practice is to find out how I experience my own consciousness as constructed. So being free of mental and emotional suffering isn't dependent only on reconstructing consciousness. But in the most fundamental sense, it is part of reconstructing consciousness. And then how to establish conscious continuums

[51:07]

that you've constructed and know that you've constructed. And that's where I'd like to get to during these four days. So that we can sow the seeds of these possibilities into our own living. And are living with others. So there we are. Thank you very much.

[51:54]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_76.86