It's hard to know where to start with all this. So let me start with just this. I mean, these phrases like just this, they sound so zenny. And when you look at it as a descriptive phrase, as a phrase which basically says, pay attention to the here and now, Yeah, as a description somehow of the present. It is rather Zen-ian, actually. rather meaningless.

[01:04]

But when you take it as prescriptive, in other words, it prescribes medicinally a way of behaving, and you understand that the phrase doesn't assume a fixed reality. As if I were looking at a picture and I'd say, oh, just this. But it's again more like Michelin said about putting your hand in the stream.

[02:14]

It's an intervention. An intervention in a mental or physical or mind-body continuum. Then it's, you know, it's quite a powerful practice. And if you know enough to repeat it, as I say prescriptively rather than as a description, then it actually participates in generating that very continuum.

[03:15]

But sometimes in my own mind I call it a re-momentary continuum. There's no such word as re-momentary. But there is the word return, to turn again. Or in English, remove. And in English, remove can mean to take away. It can also mean to move to a new place. I removed to the city.

[04:19]

So this continuum is is is re-momentary. Continually, Unique. And just this as a phrase. And we were missing you. I'm glad you're back. Got lost in the woods.

[05:20]

Yeah, really. That sounds like fun. is a kind of magnifying glass. And it's interesting how, you know, on the one hand, as I always, you know, you all know, Zen wants to be free of defining the world through language. And to see through language and around language and behind language. At the same time, language is extremely useful and effective in directing our attention and focusing our attention.

[06:21]

And, you know, I say, I can say, our attention. And I can play with the words, not for the sake of playing with the words. But rather for the sake of how language then directs us to, this attention is ours. Yeah, I, me, mine. Yeah, so, but yes, attention, yeah, is ours. My attention is not his attention, though it sometimes might be. But attention and awareness can sometimes escape. The BEM sign of self.

[07:47]

It can be presence in the widest sense possible. We can explore the idea that perhaps self is the biggest men's sign of all. I have my supporters in the front row. I hope a few in the back row. Yeah. So just this focuses attention.

[08:57]

And it's again a magnifying glass. Or perhaps a magnifying glance that allows us to notice. And sometimes slowing things down is Christina says. And sometimes just accepting whatever appears. And maybe the all-at-onceness at that moment is just this. Okay. But it does take a little while to explore the use of the phrase.

[10:05]

And let it direct our attention. And sometimes simply experimenting with it. Like noticing or taking up a blade of grass. Just this. And you find that just this refers not only to the blade of grass Und vielleicht merkt ihr dann auch, dass dieses Einfach-Nur-Das sich nicht nur auf den Grashalm bezieht, sondern dass dieses Just-This sich auch auf den Geist bezieht, der diesen Grashalm bemerkt. So just this, if you really notice what is included in just this, it's not only the object.

[11:11]

It's the mind that notices the object. And the self or person which intends And the self or person which disappears in the habit of just this. Yeah, I hope that responds to some of what you brought up. And I hope that answers or refers to some of what you have cut with your question. While these things are very subtle, they are very subtle.

[12:14]

You use them initially, especially very mechanically. You just say it when you have the chance. Yes. Then you see what happens. Yes. I would like to say something very simple to that. So what is the meaning or what is the sense or what is the purpose of this practice? This phrase, this practice, yes. Except that it's relieving and beautiful and exciting. For me, the meaning is that it's a chance, an opportunity to decrease attachment.

[13:39]

You more than answered your own question. You asked what is the purpose. At least that's what he translated. In that sense, you more than answered your own question. Yeah, but it was not intended as a question. Okay. I see, okay. But since we sometimes ask those questions, the answer is really always... Don't worry about the purpose until you try it. You want to know the purpose before you try it, then you make the shoe fit and then the shoe will pinch. Do you have the expression to make the shoes?

[14:59]

Yeah, somehow. Well, I'm sure somehow. Okay. Yeah. I mean, I hope that I can say just before I die, my life was, what did you say, relieving? And what were the other two words? Exciting and pleasure. And pleasurable. Beautiful. That's enough for me. Relieving, exciting and beautiful. Goodbye. I hope that I will be able to say before I die that my life was beautiful, friendly and exciting. And then I can say... Sayonara. Sayonara. So for me, yesterday was this, I mean, I don't know what that was, but it was actually a little bit like that.

[16:14]

If you want to translate it yourself, you have to give me time to translate what you said. For me, before Roshi brought up yesterday afternoon this phrase of just this, my question or my feeling was whether there is this basic ground or this ground level of being. Underlying ground. Yeah. And I have somehow the feeling that there must be something I can anchor in or where I can anchor myself. I'm really swimming with the kaitoku design, because that's the ultimate solution for me. I have really difficulties with this underlying... With its presence or absence?

[17:22]

No, no, no, with absence. Because then I have somehow the feeling of complete dissolution and don't know where to anchor. Yes. Okay, then in that moment I realized that self becomes very important for me because in this moment where I feel this dissolution, my self somehow says, oh, yeah, oh, yeah. Justice. And yesterday evening I had a feeling, well, this phrase of just this, there's somewhere I can reside or where I can be, which is a kind of livable alternative to the self.

[18:47]

It's almost, yeah. It's like a little anchor, and you throw it out, but it doesn't grab onto anything. Yeah, I understand. Your question is so important again that I want to leave it and I want you to keep asking it. And you have a supporter in the front row because he keeps shaking his head yes whenever you speak. Yeah. But you know, I'm also leaving the question open. But because these questions, if you can leave them open, and in that sense, Zazen is quite important.

[19:52]

And in this sense Zazen is very important. Because Zazen lets you sit without moving, sit through without moving. The many perturbations of life And there's really nothing more disturbing than being in the middle of the ruins of your worldview. Some people call it a controlled nervous breakdown. And yet, if you can sit in the middle of a... Almost out of control, nervous breakdown.

[21:06]

It's sometimes the prescription for enlightenment. But I'm not making any promises. But, you know, as long as we can... handle it, it allows things to underneath, obscene, obscene, reintegrate. Yeah, it's interesting that, you know, it is obscene, is the same word as obscene. What's out of sight is something wrong.

[22:08]

It's like people don't like conspiracies. But what is the Sangha? But a bunch of people breathing together. A conspiracy is to breathe together. But we will try to, by the end of the seminar, kind of give, see if we can find an anchor.

[23:17]

The anchor is partly just being here together. And it's certainly one of the things that Sangha does. Allow us to explore with mutual support the transformation of our worldviews. Well, with this issue, or with this subject, I have to say something now. I have to say something as well. Because I realize I'm not indifferent to that what you say.

[24:38]

Well, I'm very happy to find out. So ever and ever again, repeatedly, I'm hearing you saying this sentence, this phrase. And I remember quite correctly or distinctly that it was the first time in a seminar in Berlin when I heard you first saying this sentence. Resistent in the sense that it was against you? So I realized that increasingly there is a kind of resistance in myself that this, to let this phrase coming close to me.

[25:50]

What phrase? This phrase just... I might say possibly because I do not really know why I started practicing but probably one of the reasons was that I wanted to find this underlying ground of being And I think that the most inner world view I have is that there might be something like that.

[26:51]

There might exist something like this inner world, underlying ground. And I know experiences also in SARS and where I had an experience or a taste of yes, something like this might exist or exists. Something like an imperturbable mind. But then I must add that there are also experiences of that there is no ground. And in this absolute sense as you presented it as you just presented it it's hard for me to grasp

[28:08]

And also I can realize that everything are just component and there are also experiences I have verifying that or testifying that. And there is also a sentence which stuck in my mind from a koan. And I'm not sure, but I think it's from Koan 53 from the Blue Cliff Record. Und das heißt, to have no gaps at any time is called the ground of nature bright and clear.

[29:31]

Und das heißt, noch einmal, keine Zwischenräume, keine Spalten zu haben, At any time. At any time. It means? It means that the primordial nature is clear and broad. Shining. Shining. Yes, shining. And now my question is, why is a metaphor used in a choir when there is actually no such group? And therefore my question is, why is such a metaphor used in a koan when there is no such a thing as an underlying realm? I really realized this sentence really was so, I enjoyed it so much and it helped me so much and it was so modifying.

[30:37]

Okay. Okay. If we have time between now and tomorrow to respond. We have 21 minutes. Okay. So what you bring up so eloquently is so important that I think I should respond to some as well as I can. And it's certainly an inseparable part of what we mean by self, individual and so forth. So let me respond in several ways. Why would the koan say this when I say something else?

[31:46]

Well, one possibility is the koan's wrong and I'm right. Now, I say that not to, you know... That's what my little daughter used to say. We should say hero here. I mean, shero. I mean, Buddhism is a tradition related to an experience, not scripture. So we certainly want to learn from the teachings, but In the end, it's our experience, and our experience might be different than the koans.

[32:49]

But the problem there too also might be the translation. And it might also be really what's meant. Because basically the koans are best understood when you already know the experiences The koans are referred to. And the koan basically is describing samadhi. In other words, when you have an uninterrupted, without gaps is one way of saying it, Samadhi or concentration. The world appears as a field of brightness. Now let me approach it from another way. Just, is there a ground of being, or is there not?

[34:33]

How the hell do we know? You know, I mean, what kind of scientist or physicist, you know, so far, in general contemporary science, has no ground of being. Welcher heutiger Wissenschaftler würde sagen, es gibt keinen Grund, kein Zeichen, And this is not just your problem and all of our problem. It's been a problem within Buddhist history for centuries. Some schools actually imply both self and ground to be. And some commentators, brilliant commentators basically paying lip service to no ground of being, but if you read carefully, there's an implicit ground of being implied.

[35:46]

Yes. And it takes a certain rigor in one's rigor, thoroughness in one's thinking to maintain really the sense that there's no ground to be. But it's also in some ways a semantic problem. Or really not a problem, a semantic decision. Is it more useful to say, no ground of being than to say ground of being.

[36:50]

My own opinion is, in some factual sense, there's no ground of being. But I also, in a semantic sense, prefers what happens when you say no ground of being. It's the same kind of, to give you another example, Is the universe continuous, unending, or does it have a beginning? Well, us little human beings can't really know.

[37:51]

I mean, he disappeared, I hope he didn't... But I certainly prefer what happens when you think of the multiverse as unending than when you say it had a beginning. The problems of what the hell can happen before the beginning are more complicated. And whether it's unending or has a beginning, it may not fall into either of those categories. It's just those are categories in which we are capable of thinking. Okay, so what's... fruitful in practice, and I think hope fruitful for you, is the problem that's caused by no ground of being.

[39:08]

That's like Tara. If you can stay in the midst of that without trying to solve it, this is very fruitful. It is like what Tara says. If you are able to stand in the middle of this question, then it is something that is very fruitful and fruitful. Now, I think you can completely trust in practice and in yourself the need you have to find a grounded being. That need, which was instrumental, Probably among other causes.

[40:21]

In leading you into practice. So that need has been very fruitful. But whether that need will be satisfied by a grounded being, or perhaps satisfied by something else, like an imperturbable mind, which is not a ground to be, that remains an open question. And open questions are what Buddhism means and Zen means by great doubt. The great doubt, which... fuels our practice.

[41:24]

Yes, of course. When you speak like that, for me it's just that something opens up. It's good because when you're talking this way, I get the feeling that it opens up for me. Okay. And it opens up for me too. Because when I practice with you, I'm reading the book of myself. I'm reading the book of my own practice by practicing with you. And discovering the book, it's a new page. I read, I practice with you and a new page of the book of my own practice is turned over.

[42:29]

Yeah, one second, I want to say. Grounded being or no grounded being a group, Is a way of thinking. So it's a way of thinking about things. It is a way. It's a mode of thinking. In other words, do the five skandhas together Add up to a self. Okay. That kind of thinking is parallel to or another example of a grounded being.

[43:31]

Yeah. Or is self distributed among the members of your family? Is that distributed among the family members? or distributed among your tribe, or is self somehow consolidated in you as an individual. And individual, of course, means indivisible, not able to be divided. And the atom, of course, in Greek means can't be divided. But of course in my lifetime they split the atom and destroyed the world. What's the difference between thinking of the five skandhas as adding up to self?

[44:48]

Most of you know what the skandhas are, but I won't explain it to those of you who don't. You'll just have to come back next year and I won't talk about the skandhas then either. Anyway, it's because... Well, let's take the senses. Do the six senses add up to self? The six senses are, of course, the five physical senses plus mind. And it shouldn't be called senses really, it should be the six ways of knowing. And that's knowing and noticing.

[45:50]

that's another question which we don't have time to speak to right now but if we think of the six senses six ways of knowing as adding up to one world that is fully known through the senses. And we tend to think that way. Despite infrared and things like that. So basically, even though you know there's more than just your senses, the world is not fully included in the six ways of knowing however

[47:08]

Even though we know that intellectually, we actually act within the world as if it was included. That's why these restaurants, they run now here and there in the dark by blind people. Must be quite interesting experience. To find your food in the dark. Okay. Now, if you have the other emphasis, there's no ground of being, then we would tend to see the six senses as being six regions.

[48:32]

Don't add up to one region or one ground of knowing. die nicht zusammengenommen werden oder nicht resultieren darin, dass es eine einheitliche Art des Kennens gibt, dann würden wir bemerken, dass die Welt der Ohren nicht vollkommen So the kind of thinking which assumes no ground of being is throughout Buddhism. And implied The skandhas are understood and so forth.

[49:41]

Okay? Yes. All right. In the back, yeah? Oh, Rike, excuse me. you talked before you talked about the difference between the underlying ground of being and this imperturbable mind that there is a difference between those two And yesterday you talked about when we are when we are anchored in this awareness this is a kind of being

[50:56]

It's a shared kind of being. So my first question would be, where is the difference between this mind and this underlying ground of being? And whether there are different qualities of being or of existence. Yes, there are. But within a non-continuum you can experience a continuum. Okay. I really appreciate it when some of you haven't spoken.

[52:11]

Allow my ear to enjoy your voice. And even though it's lunchtime, having said that, I can't resist one person. Yeah. I think this subject is a kind of problem for the psyche. And it's connected or related to our world view, whether this ground of being, underlying ground of being. It has something to do or is related with this complete destruction or this dissolution of... So it's connected to this fear, this anxiety of the complete destruction.

[53:40]

And I myself had this experience that you start panicking, that there is panic. But also I have to experience when you go through that, when you pass through that, that there is a kind of being held. Being supported. Supported, yeah. And it opens space of the small self towards a bigger perception. And it also creates some kind of trust that you can enter into that or you can let yourself into that.

[55:02]

Yeah. Thanks. I think the question is, how helpful is it when a sentence begins and there is no reason and then it is necessary to go through this panic, this fear. Or is it also possible to My question is how helpful is it or is it necessary that you have to go through this panic or can you also take a kind of more soft track and let yourself into this being held and being supported and in this opening up of the small self towards this bigger perception? Well, there's no answer to that.

[56:04]

For some people it's sometimes softer, for some people there's more panic. And the more courageous and warrior mentality is more likely to face panic. But we need both. Some teachers emphasize inducing panic. This is good for your little panic. The daily bread. Yeah, I don't agree with that. Except perhaps occasionally in a monastic setting. But you can usually assume that if you feel panic,

[57:14]

And this I'm speaking to everyone. The panic was already there. It was just controlled or off-scene. And probably you could say much of your life has been led avoiding panic. No, no, no, be right. Okay, everything's fine, baby. But when your courage or your insight opens things up a bit, sometimes the panic, which is all sort of distributed evenly, flows together. And if you pass through that, you really do feel relieved.

[58:30]

Not just because you passed through the panic. But because the panic that was the underlying ground of being for you, the fear that it might not be, is gone. Because this panic that is perhaps the foundation of your whole being, this fear that maybe not everything is in order, that this fear And when that's such a full sense that you feel turned around in it and you won't go back, that's called enlightenment.

[59:18]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_75.77