When you look at someone with loving eyes, what do you see? Their beauty? lifting out from the field of ordinariness? The glow of their presence? Or is it wrong to ask what you see? What do you feel? A softness coming up? Opening up in little envelopes? And when they look back at you, your own softness is enhanced and the world is different.

[01:13]

Are we allowed to speak about feelings like that? Nothing dramatic, just everything's changed because you made your gaze into a loving gaze. And when you fall in love, maybe that's the continuous looking with loving eyes, and the whole world is alive and full of envelopes that turned into butterflies. And in Buddhism, what I think is really interesting that shift is entering into a different world. It is a different world. Like the six realms, the three worlds in traditional Buddhism, that's that kind of thing.

[02:23]

It's not that we live in one world. We live in different worlds and we can participate in making those worlds appear. And one time I thought you had to be a poet. Because if you are not a poet, how can you share this kind of world with others? This is the most terrible thing I thought, when you can't share the beauty of the world. Because you can't say it. And so this is the worst kind of loneliness. But then I discovered practice, and two things happened.

[03:28]

One, practice allows me to share this sense and this sensitivity and sensibility without talking, just through what I've been calling this mutual enfoldment, using Baker Roshi's ideas, mutual enfoldment of presence. And then secondly, that language can be used however I want it to be used. You don't have to be a poet. You can just try to touch this kind of experience with your ordinary words, put them together. In the West, it seems to me we're only allowing the poets to speak like this because it's inconsequential.

[04:32]

What they say is just, it's beautiful, but it doesn't matter. So you can touch this world through their words, but you don't have to get too serious about it because in the end, it's just poetry. And that was Plato's view, you know. All poets are liars, he said. Well, depends on where you're coming from Maybe I want to say how I think this, what this is, this Western worldview that only allows poetry to speak about these things.

[05:36]

I think there are two terms that help me understand best what's going on. Reductionism and introjection. That's not a fancy word, but they're actually quite practical for me, and I'll try to explain briefly. And what I find interesting about this is that these are things you can trace back in the history of philosophy, Western philosophy. You can trace them back directly to the 5th century in ancient Greece. 5th century before the Common Era. And... This is where the Greek philosophers made the object. There's a wonderful stanza from Rilke's Sonnets to Orpheus, one of his Sonnets to Orpheus, where he says, Rose, you on your throne,

[06:45]

To the ancients, you were a simple cup with a single rim. For us, however, you are the full, innumerable bloom. The inexhaustible object of mind rose on your throne For the ancients, you were a simple cup with a single rim. For us, however, you are the full, innumerable bloom, the inexhaustible object of mind. So he's taking the rose, you know, certainly the object in Western history that is charged with everything, those feelings, emotions, desire, love, longing, the promises of intimacy and closeness, beauty.

[07:59]

This object is on its, it's a throne itself. And for the ancients, and I'm pretty sure he means the Greek philosophers that shaped our culture, it was a simple cup with a single rim. It's reduced to shape and number. And what happens to all... But what happens to the rest of it? What happens to all the feelings, the emotions, the meanings that are folded into this object that resonate with our whole being? What happens to those?

[09:02]

They get interjected into this very special place, this very special pocket that we carry around called the soul or the self. That's where they're in now. And they're very private and very subjective and very idiosyncratic to everyone. They don't belong to the object anymore. They're now belonging to the subject, the self, whatever you want to call it. So it goes together. When you reduce the object, you end up with all the clippings of that operation, and it's in that pocket of the self. And Rilke says, for us, however, and this is, I think, his own vision, he wants to always fall in love with the world again and again and again all the time.

[10:09]

He can't stand not falling in love with the world. For us, it's his own reality and a vision for a different kind of world. For us, however, you are the rose, you are the fool. innumerable bloom. So I translated this poem. It's better in German, but what can you do? But he really literally says, innumerable bloom. Something that cannot be counted, that is immeasurably complex. the inexhaustible object of mind, the object that the mind cannot exhaust. Another poetic expression from the book of Serenity that many of you know

[11:21]

The unique breeze of reality, can you see? Creation continuously runs her loom and shuttle, weaving the ancient brocade, incorporating the forms of spring. The unique breeze of reality, can you see? the full immeasurable bloom inexhaustible by mind. Can you see? It's like, what is the world that he's talking about that can be the alternative to the reduced object and the private pocket soul? It's a world of impressions, innumerable, so many, vivid, mysterious, always changing, continuously incorporating the forms of spring, always new, just the kind of place you want to fall in love with.

[12:57]

Just the kind of place that's just right for a human being. Just made for a human being. The place that the human being is coming out of. How could it be otherwise? We're so close. It's full of beauty, moments of beauty and moments of suffering. Just the right environment for a human being. The so-called objects are not reduced to shape, size and number.

[14:04]

They're these immeasurably complex impressions that shift and change. They are, I call them in my own private practice language. I call them implexities because they're not just complexities. They're not just folded together. They're folded into each other in intricate ways you cannot follow. And they open up this intimate, immediate world I think I want to distinguish two worlds, the world of appropriation and the world of intimate immediacy. And I want to say, just like I said in the beginning, that there are really two worlds.

[15:08]

I think why appropriation is a good word here, a world of appropriation, is because when the object is reduced, And the clippings of that reduction are interjected into the soul or the self. The object and the subject, the object and the self have separated so that then the self has to come out of its pocket and get back to the object and take hold of it and do something with it. That's too appropriate. Make it The possession of the self, because how else are you going to partake in the world? If you're separated, you have to go out, come out of your pocket and take hold of it. But what if you restore the world to be the full, innumerable bloom?

[16:29]

You don't have to, then this two-fold movement of reductionism and interjection is healed at once. And each impression, each implexity, if you follow me there, can be that bloom together with your own feeling, just like the loving gaze, this softness opening up, this beauty opening up, this feeling that this is just the right place for this human being opening up. And when that worldview is there, we can still decide to reduce and interject if we so wish to make the world functional and amenable to our needs.

[17:50]

So the world of appropriation and the world of intimate immediacy. Why immediacy? Because it's right there. Right there in front of our eyes. There's nothing irrational about it. There's nothing irrational about this continuous weaving of the ancient bouquet. There's nothing irrational about this... richly textured golden fabric shot through with mystery and not knowing what's coming next, the forms of spring always changing. There's nothing irrational about it. It's right in front of our eyes. But the habits of seeing the world as reduced to shape, size, and number.

[19:05]

And to think that, you know, these feelings you have are kind of private or in you or kind of something to maybe even be ashamed of, you know. Something not to show because the world is neutral. That sort of stands in the way, doesn't it? In this intimate immediacy, what is the mind doing? Just opening up a space, hosting appearances. The space doesn't belong to the objective world anymore because it's also the mind space unfolding in the six senses, in the five senses and mind.

[20:20]

But it's also the space of the world. It's both the mind space and also the world space. It's not really separate. We can separate it, but it's not really separate. It's like all these clippings that were in the pocket of the self are also just part of the world, are just appearances of the world, of the world space that's also the mind space. And then they're so close. but they can also be mine. But they unfold from the meeting of the rows in the viewer. They're not in the rows, they're not in the viewer. They're arising from the meeting and then new new feelings, new atmospheres, new complex meanings arise from another meaning of another object with the mind.

[21:23]

I wonder how we practice this kind of thing, kind of thing, this world. How do we practice this world? I mentioned in the seminar a kind of slogan that came to me the other day in Zazen, and I was reluctant to say it because I thought it would produce this lecture and maybe another one, and I thought, keep it to myself, and I said it anyway. Cultivate sensitivity in your sense activity. Sounds silly. I told Sophie about it. She said, that's what you would teach a kid Sensitivity in your sense activity. I like it. Sensitivity in your sense activity. It's sort of a new formulation for me that came to me

[22:32]

through exposing myself to this world and to this worldview. And it's very related for me to Baker Ursch's instruction to pause for the particular. And then not just to pause for the particular, but to also pause for the pause. When he said that for the first time, he had this phrase for a long time, pause for the particular. And when he added to pause for the pause, something really opened up for me. So maybe there are two steps we have to bring in front of our eyes. First, what's already in front of our eyes, we have to bring it in front of our eyes. And then second, to let sensitivity flow into that which is in front of our eyes. It's like in pausing for the particular, when you pause for the particular, the particular comes before the eyes.

[23:36]

It's not good to say before the eyes, because it's actually, it's before all the senses, of course. And then the pause itself. So the pausing for the particular and then the pause itself. What happens in the pause? It's like, I don't know, my favorite subject. It's like attention reversing direction through breath and attention to the body opening up into a field that is nothing but sensitivity. It's like the mind settling on itself and sensitivity settling on itself.

[24:38]

It's like... I don't know, sometimes when it happens it's like, how can it be so... I don't know. Do you know how it feels? To give, I mean, to pause enough for that shift to happen so that the world of appropriation can transform itself into a world of intimate immediacy, to pause just long enough so that that movement can happen. I don't know. We need to practice it. We need to know for ourselves how long it takes for that shift to occur, to let go of

[25:44]

this twofold movement of reductionism and interjection. But we can't think ourselves to that place, so the words there don't help, but to pause and to redirect attention, oh, this sensitivity can well up and take hold of our being in the world. And then to take that sensitivity and let it flow into the sense activity. Most obviously when you sit in zazen and this happens, each sound is so close. Closer than your own skin. Much, much more intimate. Much more intimate than any outer touch.

[26:53]

Maybe we have to call it an inner touch, for the lack of a better word. And the sound can be so obvious, an inner touch. Just right in there. But is it in there? It's this mind-world space, not differentiated. Can you bring that same sense to each of the senses, each of the sense activities, to a taste? When you eat orioke, can you let this taste touch you with an inner touch? Maybe this is why orioke tastes so good. Even if the food is not so good, it tastes so good because it's the inner touch that gives it the glow. And then, as I've mentioned before, with the visual field, I find most difficult, can you let each visual impression touch you with this kind of inner touch?

[28:13]

The rose, full, innumerable blooms, inexhaustible by mind. You know, this mind-world space, this shift that we can affect with a loving gaze, with cultivating sensitivity in our sense activity, it has ethical implications.

[29:26]

Maybe this is why in certain traditions, and it seems like in Eastern traditions, wisdom traditions, particularly religion and philosophy, as I said last time, haven't been separated into two fields. Because when you enter the world of this intimate immediacy, you can't do any harm. You can't harm the bloom. You can't harm the bloom intentionally. If the bloom is what enhances your own being, how could you ever harm it? That at this level of our existence we really can't harm intentionally is fascinating, I think. We can do unintentional harm.

[30:35]

Even when we know the space and... Okay, there's knowing the space and there's actually inhabiting the space. And it needs to practice to inhabit the space. Sometimes it's just inhabited for moments and it opens a window into a new promising world and then it's a long path. to practice to establish ourselves in this space that becomes our usual space. But even, okay, so there's knowing the space and there's inhabiting the space, but even if you inhabit the space, I think there can be unintentional harm. Because the world is structured by personal and cultural habits, and we just do things like we're throwing our garbage into the garbage bin. And we just don't really know what happens to it when it ends up on the dump.

[31:44]

It's just the way we do it. And we haven't developed alternatives. So even if you, maybe you feel a little awkward when you do things like throwing it just into the garbage bin, you know, the light bulb that has some harmful poisonous stuff in it, or the battery. And you know it's kind of, it's not good, but where's the alternative? So you just have to go along. Oh, you haven't developed the personal skills to be really fully non-violent, not doing harm in a conversation because you just, I don't know, you're just not doing it. You don't know how to do it because you didn't learn.

[32:50]

Or we didn't learn as a culture or both. Anyway, But what I find more interesting than those practical problems is that actually that space, when entered, when inhabited, really you don't want to do harm. At least not that. There's a kind feeling welling up together with the softness and the beauty that the space brings with it, too. And I think this is the true source of true kindness. Not the kindness that you want to do, not the compassion that you want to do. It's the kindness and compassion that does flow from that space. That is true kindness and true compassion that you can trust. That's not the selfish kind of compassion where you want to appear as a compassionate person.

[33:56]

That is the feeling of resonating fully with this world that is not separate from your own mind, that touches you with an inner touch that can't be denied. At least I like to think of it as the source of the practice of, let's say, the four Brahmaviharas of kindness, compassion, empathetic joy, equanimity. How are we going to practice these things as something that really comes out of our own being, if not in this way? And to know and allow, be patient with yourself that this is a long path of finding out how both our cultural views, personal habits have obscured this space, this space that I now call the world of intimate immediacy for

[35:18]

2,500 years when the Greek philosophers invented the object. The unique breeze of reality, can you see? For us, you are the full, innumerable bloom, the inexhaustible object of mind. May our intention equally penetrate.

[36:24]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_91.15