Those of you who've done sashimi with me probably have never heard such a long description of kinye. And what's the difference? Because in Sashin I expect you to do it. So if I tell you too much and you can't do it, then I feel, oh, I'm with a bunch of failures. Oh, man, a whole lot of failures. But if I tell you here, I don't expect you to be able to do it. So here it's just an exercise. So have you ever heard me give such a full description? No. We've been present together 30 years.

[01:01]

This is half of the time, maybe. You see, there's some point to come to these seminars. You get some of the secrets. Okay, so... Is there anything we talked about, spoke about this morning that you'd like to bring up now for... Yeah, to acknowledge it or to... Emphasize it or go further along it? Yes. I know what shortening means, but I don't know how to shorten it. I know what making short statements means, but I don't know if I can manage this.

[02:10]

Well, I'll just cut you off. I'll just cut you off. I refer to being localized in the body. And now I understand why one client comes to me since a long time but it takes him two hours to get to me. Ah, okay. Every second week he comes and is with me for two hours. That's rather different. And I remember in Hannover, Hiroshi, you spoke about animal time. That's what happens.

[03:18]

He gets into that state. I actually am doing nothing. I'm just witnessing. All kinds of things happen. The eyes just start seeing all the archetypes are happening. And I'm impressed by the multitude of energies that are manifesting here.

[04:19]

But common sense in his environment enemy says he is not in any way changing his neurotic way of being in the world. So in some psychiatric terms, you would call him narcissistically disturbed. And he is really, to a big amazement, he's able to deal with it because he has a millionaire debt. He's arranging the world in his real smart consciousness that the world somehow works.

[05:36]

So I still have the feeling he is in his own world. There is some meeting on an energetic level, but still. Well, it's lucky he found you as a patient therapist. I don't know. quite clear about that. Somehow his colleagues, I think, tell him to tell other people that he's getting nowhere with the case, but in the end the client still is able to deal with normal sex.

[06:48]

He confronts the real difficulties that others don't really see. For example, he has a person He finds people who help. He has a person who keeps all his financial turmoil away from him. He pays for that. So he is functioning. That's a lot for some of us. Okay, that's enough of a description, thank you. That's great. I'd like to sit with you with this guy. I want the reptilian experience. Okay, but there is an animal quality to bodily time.

[07:53]

I mean, animals aren't conscious the way we are, but they're present. That's probably why people start looking like they're pets. Okay, someone else has something they'd like to say. Yes. So I have a question about the understanding of entities, which you mentioned this morning, and you mentioned it in Hannover, and you said not only things are not entities but activities, but also human beings, persons, are activities instead of entities.

[09:04]

Does that mean we're free of substance, that we're empty? Yeah. But there's some beingness existing, isn't it? Oh, dear. Beingness, yes, but not being. Wesen sein, ja, aber wesen an sich, nein. No, it depends what... Clearly, entity and activity are just two words. It depends. No, they're just two words. Entität und Aktivität sind bloß zwei Worte. I can easily say that, Jörg, you're an entity. And I've known Jörg a long time, and he's a botanist, but he doesn't look like his plants. But... In one sense, you're an entity. You're rather quite a complete person.

[10:08]

But you're always changing. All these years I've known you, you've changed. And if I tried to freeze you at any moment, you'd be dead. So there's no substance I can freeze there without changing it into death. So in a sense, you're a pattern that keeps repeating itself. It repeats itself, but slightly. Slightly different, yeah. The timing of our doing Qingyan was quite good.

[11:25]

So it's just to try to, at least in English, get people to see that things are always changing, always an activity. You need some way to remind yourself of it. And when we have a habit of thinking more that things are substantial in some way, we want to contradict that habit. This bell itself is an activity, as I said. Someone made it, etc. But it also has to rest on a cushion or the floor. So resting on a floor is an activity.

[12:31]

And for us, space itself is an activity. because if I hold it here and I let go of it it drops it doesn't just float in the air and if I hold it I can feel the weight the weight is an activity so you need to practice something which is a different kind of world view I mean, Western culture in a simplistic way is based on everything as if everything was substantial.

[13:34]

And it exists as a container. And outside this container, there's transcendence or gods or oneness or something, right? So this non-theological Buddhist point of view happens to be very close to Western phenomenology, contemporary phenomenology. And the Western philosopher who most thoroughly deals with the implicit sense of an outside realm that's higher is Derrida.

[14:36]

The Western philosopher who most explicitly deals with that there's the idea that's present in Heidegger and everybody to some extent that there's some kind of outside the situation transcendence. Just the idea of oneness, the New Age, I call it New Age, the New Age idea of oneness, is basically a theological idea, as is Jung's Collective Unconscious. As if there's one truth behind everything, holding everything together.

[15:40]

And again, Derrida tries to deconstruct this very thoroughly. But Buddhism has been ignoring it for years. I mean, they don't even have to deconstruct it. There's no transcendence, there's only incendence. I just made that up. There's no outside truth. So from the Buddhist point of view, you can't say oneness, you can say allness. So there is a sense of

[16:41]

allness, all at once-ness. But then there's all at twice-ness. So it's once and once and once. And this is really in simple things you see it in Buddhism, you don't hit the bell twice. You always hit it once and once. So it's... Anyway, I'm sorry to be so crazy. But this is a very, very persistent idea about entities, that we live in a container, and so forth.

[17:57]

And if you really want to thoroughly understand what the Khons are about or what Buddhist teachings are about, you have to get out of that framework. Peter Nick, who's a colleague of Jörg, they know each other. Peter is head of the Botanical Institute in the Department of Botany in Karlsruhe. And Peter Nick is the head of the Botanical Institute in Karlsruhe. Yeah. Right? I think so. Yeah. And he gives an example of a plant, a tobacco plant. That's Beispiel, a tobacco plant.

[18:59]

Which I can't remember all the details right now. I can remember it. Were you there? Yes. The tobacco plant needs to have its flowers pollinated. And it attracts a kind of wasp, night-flying wasp or something of it. Moth, night-flying moth. And then the moths lay their eggs in the tobacco plant. And then pretty soon the moths are eating the tobacco plant. And the tobacco plant doesn't like this. So it stops opening the flowers at night and only opens them during the day. Which then attracts wasps, I think, and hummingbirds. And they're not as effective at pollinating the flowers, but at least they don't lay larvae in the plant.

[20:30]

But they also... produces little filaments which are very sweet and smelly. the plant does. And those sweet-tasting filaments attract another kind of insect. What eats those and then reduces a terrible stink. Eat the sweet thing. Yeah, and that further protects the tobacco plant. This is one smart tobacco plant.

[21:40]

Yeah, right. Anyway, so he says, where is the tobacco plant? Where is the entity of the tobacco plant? He says, when you see the path of a rabbit through the snow, you don't see the rabbit, you just see the path. And when you look at the tobacco plant, you're seeing the path of its activity, you're not seeing the tobacco plant. Because the tobacco plant is the night moths, the larvae, the hummingbirds, etc. So all you see is the track of the plant. So it's not substantial, it's an activity.

[22:51]

And that's the basic Buddhist way of looking at everything. That's what Nagarjuna's philosophy is about. So forth. Nagarjuna is so big, there's no so forth. He's called the second Buddha. But now this sounds all kind of maybe complicated. But it's all just expressions of the fact that everything changes. Heartbeat, breath, it's all going to end. And you're always living in the midst of your ending. That can be kind of scary, but it's the way it is.

[24:19]

And it's not once you get the picture. Yeah, quoting Einstein, as I apologize for quoting Einstein. He says, once you get the validity of a way of thinking, anyone, it's all simple, anyone can understand it. He says, something like even an ordinary graduate student can understand it. That's us, ordinary graduate students. But then he says, but the years of frustration you spend in the dark before you see it is something else. So I think that particularly for psychotherapists and for psychology as a profession, research, practice, and so forth,

[25:36]

The rigor of Buddhist thinking in knowing that everything changes, that change changes, is probably common sense and helpful. Is common sense somehow reasonable and helpful? Okay, sorry. Something else, anything else? Now that we've solved the problems of the world. I find it very practical in therapy to look at everything from the activity. I find it helpful and practical to observe everything as activity in therapy.

[26:50]

And also Dogen's recommendation to step into immediacy and understand it as the whole world. Much more difficult I find the application of phenomena in therapy. What is the application of phenomena in therapy? Do you mean that the phenomena are an activity or what? It is not just that phenomena arise in my perception. It's not only that the phenomena arise in my perception.

[28:00]

I myself arise as a phenomena in the perception of phenomena. That's right. From my existential experience, the universe only exists together with me. That's right. In reverse. I'm glad. I'm very happy because I live in the same universe with you. There is in my experience no universe without me. In your experience. If everyone experiences this way, where is then the connection? Between you and me. Do we share the same universe? Do we share universe or does everyone live in their own universe?

[29:14]

So if somebody dies, the whole universe dies. Yes. That's right. In other words, I would understand it, right? Is that you live in your universe? I live in my universe, and each is different, but each is interrelated. And there's no one universe which remains the same if you die. or the moon goes away or something. But there's still a relationship, and those relationships keep changing, but there's no unitary truth to the relationship. There's maybe an edge somewhere that's always falling apart. I mean, at some level, this is like, did everything, was there a moment of creation?

[30:35]

At some level, the question is, was there a beginning? Or was there no beginning? Has things always been like this? Well we can't think either. You can't think what's the edge of the universe. No, we can't think what's before the universe and we can't think that the universe was always a multiverse or whatever. Buddhism as a teaching and as a culture has made a choice. We don't know whether there was a beginning or no beginning. How could we know really? But overall, we have a more understandable and rational world if we imagine there was no beginning.

[31:51]

So it's always been like something. And it's always chaotic and disjunctive. It's not always like fitting together. I feel like I'm delivering the bad news. Sorry, but I'm quite happy. In the middle of this pessimistic view. Yes, Dennis? I just want to check out if I understood it correctly in a minute, and I don't think this is a bad news. Okay, great, thanks. I always think felt Buddhism is pretty radical.

[33:10]

If I follow the thoughts here, then it looks to me as there is no division line, there are no borders, it's impossible to divide up. And for the here and now, this means I have to decide on that basis. Yes. So I'll just say one thing and then let's take a break. The... Buddhism is basically the teaching of interdependence.

[34:12]

That everything's changing and in that changing is interdependence. But that word interdependence in English anyway doesn't do the work. Because it makes it sound like everything is leaning against everything else. I'm dependent on you, you're dependent on me, and we make some kind of unit of completeness. So I would say we have to have interdependence. And we have to have interindependence. Because you look at a leaf of a tree and if you only understand it as interdependent you don't really understand it because it's also independent at that moment.

[35:25]

It has its own work to do to maybe individuation to establish its own individuation or independence. And it establishes its independence through its dependence. And it sounds like everything is there leaning against each other. But it's not. It's inter-emergent. A plus B is not A plus B. A plus B is something different than A plus B. Something new emerges when you put two things together.

[36:40]

So then we have to have a word like inter-emergent in addition to interdependent. And then the Hua Yen teaching emphasizes interpenetration in a different, but that means something like inter-emergence. It's something like interdependence. Interemergence. So all the permutations and the disjunction of simultaneity is present. All the permutations, including the disjunctions, what doesn't fit together, are part of the way the Buddhists would see the universe.

[38:03]

Even Einstein looked for the one equation which would unite everything, but he didn't find it. This is all happening outside any unity of truth. It all happens there? It all happens, not In a context of unity or truth. It is what? It. Well, we say it rains, but no one's ever seen that yet. Rain rains, but it doesn't rain. There's some it up there full of rain, you know. Oh, dear, we didn't expect to go here.

[39:19]

We're just talking about how you relate to a client. That's fun. Oh, it's much worse. Let's have a break.

[39:39]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.51