Yes, your last sentence, where you said that it is first of all the experience and the concepts, and then you can equate them. But in my experience, the concept that there are five Ghatas, does he also live? Why? Well, I can't ask, because he has seven, and the Buddha has forgotten one. So far, he is open to it. He says, it's like that, but it's not over yet. As long as we don't discover the seventh, there is no sixth. But that our experience, simply without this foreknowledge, I would not be able to do that, because no one would tell me that there is no such thing.

[01:02]

Then I would say that in this field I would not build up an experience at all. Yes, that is also a bit of a long story. I understood that you were saying, first of all, it is the experience. and then we'll see which corns fit. So I think it's variable. That's also important. The concept leads us to experience. The concept tells us, look, This is what is offered, this is the concept, this is the philosophy behind it. Where does your experience lie? And through the concept, the experience is already being guided. I don't think any of us would have come up with the idea and say, there must be something going on, I'll call it a scandal now, because my experience, I would say, there is 2500 years of practice behind it.

[02:04]

I would like to say that we are dealing with brain research. very intensively in this area, looking around and researching. This, of course, is described in a completely different vocabulary or in a different terminology, but they are also on the way. Yes, that's right, and that's what I find interesting about it, because of these new scientists who have come there to similar or the same knowledge, but they came there without practice, without even perhaps, if the word can be used, to have heard it somehow.

[03:18]

They have developed from a completely different direction there and that is of course interesting to say, well, that's what the very old doctrine has been saying for centuries, only they come from a different direction. And then to look again, what is this, how could one look at it from the point of view of the Scandals, what have the scientists discovered, that's another field. I find that very interesting. And they usually don't know what they're talking about. They're talking about subjective personal experience. They know a lot more objectively than you do, but there are exceptions, because you don't really practice it. I also find it exciting, it is fashionable. For me personally, it will be interesting first if I can talk about it. Confirmed for a long time, I think. For me it is more practical.

[04:18]

It will be exciting if I say that it is not possible at all what I am talking about. But that is a completely different discussion. Sorry, I take it all back, we are on the same page. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, [...] no. I had a short e-mail conversation with Mrs. Silner. Anja Silner is very involved in this research. She is also very involved in this research. She is also very involved in this research. She is a Max Planck Institute and has driven this research strongly. She did her own study last year with different meditation techniques and the brain. No, in any case, her physicality ends with, what did she say, what she has to do, and her blood values have to be reduced.

[05:31]

So that's kind of, yes. But Wollsner has already done 16. Wollsner has already done 16. No, no, she also practices, I think she's a student from BK, so that's a question we can talk about. So it was an exception, it's great when someone practices and researches, isn't it? And that's wonderful. Yes, I heard her at the Freiburg lecture and she said, I have already found great phenomena that are based on meditation. They have researched what is with the island and how the hemispheres work. And that is actually very positive. Yes, but it always stops there. She is full of enthusiasm and she has a lot of contact with the animals, she is not completely in a sterile box. That's why I always say, we have our own laboratory here, and they make their experiences and research in another laboratory, and they have our laboratory on the KISS.

[06:45]

Yes, I mean, the KISS laboratory. I just wanted to say, let's go back. Yes, there is already a warning. Yes, a warning. You? Yes, I would like to say something. What concerns me is, can we talk about this scandal in normal everyday life? So now we are sitting here, all five of us. Or can I only experience the first two in sitting, in the state of a half-samadhi or something like that? Or are they still experienceable? And I think with the form, it's still experienceable. The signal comes from everywhere. I can go out on the street, I can be here, the signal comes. It's experienceable. The second one, I have the impression, is more like sixth sense. which is only possible in very rare cases. So I'm thinking, sitting here now, can I experience it now? If it's too loud. You mean with a push of a button now?

[07:48]

No, not with a push of a button, but I'm sitting here now I feel the pillow now, it could be a signal, I don't have to name it, I can just let it go back, what I feel, pain, whatever, just bring it back to the feeling, is that possible here? I think so, because we are here in a protected space, As soon as you're outside, you're forced to survive. You have to learn to control yourself. Berlin! [...] New York has set a record, I read it on the internet this morning, since 11 days no murder.

[09:01]

Wow! You don't know why? Because we are dealing with the five skandhas here. No, I know that. I can't tell you that. I only have it as an inscription. I haven't read it further in, so I can't perceive it. Yes, but I think the question is great. Yes, but also to perceive, very good. Well, my assessment of what I am experiencing is that I am together with people in the clinic every day, and in the therapy group or in direct contact with people I often feel a kind of impregnable feeling, and because of this impregnable and rough situation Or in the individual contact, this to hold, and there is really the mental attitude and this non-aggressive to hold, is the attitude, this to be able to hold what is important and then to be able to wait what comes next.

[10:21]

And then I say, yes, of course. We just had a seminar with Gerhard, he also has the pause method. I think somehow the mind has to be calmer, at least something easier. So there is a pause, or I have to be able to hold it, to probably have it, to be able to feel it. If I have it, then I can also do it in Berlin with you. But that was also a small intervention with the request to take a break from time to time between the individual lectures, and I also had such an idea that maybe if we do this more often in this form where the whole group is together, if you don't have someone who is not so, I could imagine how Dieter would do it, that he would simply put a small block in between and then move it to the side again. That would be too much for me. For half a minute or so, where you just go inside, pause before the practice.

[11:24]

Because of course, here it sometimes runs completely out of our control. But I find the form in which we sit together and are together very beautiful. So I like it very much. With the big group. With the big group and also the way the seating arrangement is. I think that's really very, very good. Good. I would like to come and talk to you. Yes. For me, of course, at the beginning of my daily life it was incredibly difficult to observe this, and when Friedemann started talking about his work, I don't know exactly what he was talking about, but I made the experience that practicing therapists are of course much easier with their work,

[12:32]

to notice this, to take these breaks, because they are in such a form of space of being, when they practice it and bring it in, and I know very, very many, especially body therapists, who do this, and then this is possible in this space of being, and I have had the experience that through my activities in prison I have been able to create a kind of monastery space where I can pause also much easier to bring together, or rather this space of awareness is much higher, and also above all, what is there and also the expectations from the outside are different. So I come there and I am practically the Buddhist seeker, yes, because I am a priest, and that opens up a completely different room for me, as if I were there as a freight train coming down and opening the door, yes, and to create such rooms yourself, that is .... What I do not understand is that what you have as examples are such moods and such atmospheres and so on, but when I sit here concretely and I feel something now, I feel in my brain what I feel,

[13:46]

Can I bring this down to the second level? Or is it the third one? Or what is the first one? What is the second one? And what is the third one? I don't really know. Who is sitting there? One of my colleagues. Yes. That's what I thought the paper was supposed to be called. I had the impression that there was a lot going on in the form. A lot of things and they are constantly changing and it's a movement. And now you want to call it a form. You want to call it a form if you don't do anything about it. and this is how I have tried it myself with this non-attractive feeling, and how does it come about, how do I make such a kind of unsharp cloud out of these many impulses, which also has a quality of feeling, that is, whether it is pleasant, unpleasant or neutral, and that also changes,

[15:19]

while sitting with me, and this is a physical feeling, but it is a feeling, and then you can do something, then you know something, or you name it, or you feel it, how do you say it, the sit-up or something, To pause for the particular. Or is it only about kissing, or do you always manage to do that in everyday life, to keep the special, and I believe that we can do that. And also to experience these levels, so now the second one can now start here.

[16:23]

So now to this specific topic. I have the feeling that I know questions or different experiences in Zazen that maybe fit in there, that fit in as a major category, not if I feel my back like this or like that, and then I can just ... Zazen in this physical sensation that belongs to this skandha. For me, I am totally overwhelmed to throw all sorts of things into some houses. I feel myself in, now to use another word from Roshi, in the viscosity of a certain basket and when I'm in there,

[17:29]

I get the feedback from this function of the basket and not that I am now standing above this basket and constantly sort or sort, but I sit in there and everything that happens is now the basket and then I snap out and am mostly I have a certain state, It belongs to you, it gets X, so it gets feedback, it fits in. I think the viscosity fits well. And as soon as I try to do it consciously, it goes away.

[18:35]

I think you can also look at it the other way around. These five curves, at least 2500 years old, aren't they five by chance? That means they were consciously made five and they are very clearly defined for those who have created them. That means for me, I am an old man. I assume that if I am in such a state that it is pregnant enough, that I then notice that there is something wrong. I can recognize it immediately. There is no problem for me. And when I'm really in the first wave, I don't know that, so I feel it too.

[19:37]

And when I'm in the third wave, the solar plexus, I notice that in the fifth, fourth, third, there is no problem. And when it's the second wave, I'm sure he feels it too. So it's great for now, but for everyday life, I'm lucky with the three upper ones. If I go to the second cell, the first one will hit me. Then you still have such a house. Let us now go to the perception, otherwise it really takes us a little time. Who would like to say something about the perception? To notice, to name, etc. The first time I got a little access to it, it was so impregnable. I was good at drawing, and sometimes I had to draw three pieces.

[20:41]

It was too boring for me. And then I thought, I'll get you a silver pen, and then you'll draw the silver pen. And then I looked at her and thought, oh my God, the whole class is in the mirror. I'm sitting on one side, upside down, I have a frog face, my legs are very thin and I come back down because I'm totally overwhelmed. There was so much going on on this stage. And then I went to her and said, I can't do that. Should I do the carnival or should I do what I see? and this fantastic woman said, do what you see, and that was like the beginning that I was totally interested in reflection, that is such a difference to see and to see what is really to be seen, and now through meditation I learn that I am in such a

[21:52]

to build up a body feeling that is bigger than me, in which it is very easily possible that I see that something is moving, there is a shadow, there is light, and someone is breathing, then the sound gets bigger, and so on, so that what is really there and the more I see of it, the more it comes, it does not stop, it becomes more and more and it is a totally fantastic feeling. And this is the most common in the Sesshin, where nothing is going on, you are sitting in front of your three bowls of food and yet a lot is happening there, sees what is there. For me, I know that it is easier with the eyes, but many people say that it is easier with the ears. But that was not the case. What I find interesting in the third corner is that I feel that what I have already experienced plays a role, that there is somehow already a structure there that I have already felt, for example,

[23:30]

and the perception feels fresher when it is a completely new body feeling that I do not yet know. And that would not be quite clear to me, but I would share this scandal again. what is so well known, what I simply attribute to it, for example, the bird's whistle, so when a bird whistles, then I don't think about the bird, but I just hear the whistle, but there are also sounds that I don't know at all, and then there is no name for it, and it is a bit different, because I see it as something new, with my experience.

[24:38]

The other will be equated, or the bird will be... I know so many birds that it is relatively easy. Sometimes it is a bird or a bird or nothing at all. That's right. Yes, well, I think there are differences for me in this scale, depending on how familiar something is to me, But what I hear now is, if you hear something and you already know that it is familiar to you, then it actually goes even faster that you say, aha, this is this or this is that. If something is not familiar to you, then you just don't have any information about what it is and you just stay there longer or it is easier to stay with what now appears in that sense. Yes, and I have now understood from Roshi's performance that this is actually up to the recognition or naming of the Vajrayana, only when I make associations with it, then it is the next thing, but there are also many different qualities, so if it is something new, then it is so, wow, then it goes on,

[26:04]

It feels like such a mere perception of the spirit. Yes, it is a spirit. I want to go on. Yes, there. I don't know if that's even part of it, but recently I've been eating muesli with different kinds of nuts, cashew, all kinds of nuts. And then I was surprised. Actually, I have the whole world in my mouth. Cashew nuts, I saw the tree, or the walnut tree. I don't know, is that something that you... The perception, can you put that in there? Or is it more of an association, that you become aware of it now? On the one hand I have the taste in my mouth, on the other hand I have the feeling or an idea or a perception of where it all comes from, what I have there.

[27:22]

Where could that come from? The perception, I simply understand the moment when I focus a little from the feeling. Because I am, yes, I just look. No. That is, that is really the perception. I take that into account and everything else not. Then it is not the second, but the third. what you have to focus on, [...] In the last session, Mr. Roshi talked a lot about perception without naming it. But I don't remember whether he said that this is the third Khandra or whether he perceived it as an exercise without naming it.

[28:27]

And I'm not sure if he did that, but he talked a lot about it and always pointed out how it remains in perception without recognizing it. Yes, that's what we're talking about. That's [...] what we're talking about. Yes, yes. We live in the first block in Rien in a small street and we sit in the morning in the morning and every day, almost every day, a million people come, yes, we have different types of people, and they actually always come to see us, that is, exactly when we are sitting, and that was at the beginning, terrible for me, yes, because I have connected this noise, the waste disposal, with this whole story of loud, unbearable, and then these are also very, very, very harsh noises, yes, but over time I started to get rid of this perception of noise, as I say, and in the meantime the sound body

[29:51]

who come there and make great music in front of our windows and nothing bothers them at all. So I would say that this is the third Khanda and as soon as all these feelings, stories and so on come along, then it is the fourth. But he also said that as soon as you can name something, it is the third Khanda. Yes, I think that's part of it, because Maria-Lise gave the example, and I think that shouldn't be named, because naming shouldn't be a blur. You don't take it seriously, but you have an idea of the concept of naming. If I just say I see the same pot as the pot, I don't even see what's real there. That's how I understood an example. If I look closely, then there are mirrors in there. If there are mirrors in there, I, with a squinted face, on the other side, the other. And that's why...

[30:57]

If I don't get rid of them, then I'm open to what I can really perceive. I have a picture in my desk, it's actually a wooden stick, but it's so big that I don't even know the concept of a wooden stick anymore, but porous material and other things, but it's still a perception. And of course I can finally name it again, but I should first name it, because I'm confused. That's how I would say it works. I think there is a distinction whether you are on the way back or on the way up. And I think if he says, as soon as you can name something, it goes into the third skanda, then you come from the direction of the form skanda. Because that happens very quickly, if you perceive something in the form as a signal, so to speak, Often the name of what you see comes immediately. So the naming actually comes first. And I think if, as you say, it falls into the fourth standard, then you are already on the way back, that he tells us that we should take it away from him.

[32:16]

Peel the name off. To stay in the perception scandal, to peel the name off, and then you stay in what is there in your perception, and then you don't hear anything. not an airplane, but rather you hear the noise, you don't hear a garbage dump, but rather you hear the noises that are being made. But that's also a form, isn't it? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, [...] no. or, shortly before that, the concentration of perception.

[33:22]

So, in the end, everything comes together. So, from the first to the third, it is insanely difficult to really split it up. And what does it mean? As soon as I notice something, I am very awake. So, that is so ... In the perceptions, the information jumps into the body. they jump to the information and a lot of information is there. Now there is a difference whether I have this information, what is there, cold, loud, noise, that's why we have to give the whole name, whether I say now, but I already know what that is, or can I just stay with the flow of the information and that is the third scandal. And what would be with the plane until two o'clock? That's the question.

[34:23]

Yes, that's the question. [...] And I think your reference from the direction is really important. So I don't know how it works, but I'm going to the litmus test. 95% or 99% is forbidden. And one of them is the damage to the aircraft. And then I come from the verbal, or I do something with the association, and then I really feel that physically, when I wake up, my body feels softer, more open, and I am there. I notice it physically when I wake up. I notice this physically and I notice that we have also learned to play with the foreground and the background, if I am really aware, I can switch, but I can also go back again, and when I move, I am in associations or in concepts and in thinking, but I normally come with a lot of concepts and then I share, and there is a difference whether I have the concept, then I am out again, or whether I can keep it without

[36:00]

And for me, that was my first encounter with Buddhism, when I realized that there is a difference between a plane as a concept, as an association, and the experience, there is a concept and I don't have to stick to it, I am with myself. I often write observation protocols about children in which I basically only write what the child is doing. without the situation or without adding something or without any of my opinions, associations, thoughts, feelings, and I think this is a very good exercise.

[37:08]

Because I think that certain discolourations and interpretations can come in in order to see a child or a person, or whatever, in a completely different way than he or she is. Let's take it this way, I go for a walk, I look at the landscape, and I have a lot of visual impressions, and then a tree comes, and then there is just a tree, so I see a tree, that is still perception for me, except that I start to say, what kind of tree is that, I have never seen it, and then it goes into the fourth, but as long as I am just from this

[38:15]

from the background, let's say from the figure's background, it is still a tree for me. I have to take something to perceive it, to take it out of a reason, and whether I take it out of a tree or not does not matter at all, I take out this figure. What is the second point? Now, in this tree, I'd like to say something about this distinction. I've just tried to refute it with this film. And I think it's more of a field of probability and not with extreme strokes in between.

[39:20]

If I do that with extreme strokes, either one stroke, [...] I don't get my experience over, but rather I experience it like this. My hands feel better when I say it. Yes, that works. When I am in perception, I know perception, I can perceive with the name, and I can know my perception, including that I know what it is, but without naming and without name. So behind it is a ... is it correct what you say? I'm not sure, but there is a ... And the reason for this is this thing that is standing there.

[40:25]

And it is in the perception. And it is like a spectrum. And the other thing is that I can deal with it more easily when I see it as a spectrum, as a cloud, as a field and not with these crazy lines in between. I have to push something in there, which is alive, I don't know, who said that, with the crevices that come together, or is that a picture I had, the crevices that come together, when the crevices come together, yes, that's how it was, I mean, so I don't think it's so clear that everything is separable, first, third, fourth, fifth, third, fifth, but that, exactly, I don't know about the content of the scandal, I don't know about the content of the scandal, but for me it is very clear what is happening here.

[41:35]

Yes, yes, yes. Could we have a little more communication culture, I'll just say that now, not just talking in between, because in the meantime there are a lot of people I would like to say something from my experience. I work on the Kappa, I work with Kappa, with people who, when they come to me, usually have a very difficult History mostly has to do with violence, and I do that. They then come to me, to my bodywork, and there are often people who don't like to be touched because of history, but they want to experience touch in a different way than what they have experienced. And I have noticed that when I touch people,

[42:37]

I get a lot of warnings, a lot of information. When I would start to call this information to do something with it, the communication with body and body collapses, then it doesn't work, then the body or the human body or whatever closes, The communication or coherence is then interrupted. If I manage to stay with my perception without naming it, a lot happens with the body and with me too. And then a field is created. And then I often experience the body as a failure and not as So, at work. And that's really exciting. In the moment when I start to want to do something with it, or have associations with it, that could be a bit like this, that's because, boom, the whole thing collides. And that's really exciting for me.

[43:47]

And that doesn't happen on the normal level either. So, I mean, what you just said about building. Building is a container, building is a concept. That doesn't fit in Bani Mobile for me. I'm sorry, but naming doesn't fit in there for me, in my experience. Yes, but naming doesn't fit in there for me. but really this experience, as you said, for example, you are standing somewhere and I have no concept of near and far, I am standing there and I just let that come in, without a concept, without near, without far, without tree, without this and that and up and down, there is a connection somewhere and as soon as something comes out,

[44:47]

and express myself, then there is impulse, then there is association, then I slip out of it. And I have the feeling that when I enter this field of perception, I think it's a very impressive thing. And then, of course, it happens very quickly that this bird sings, and I notice the bird, and then I say no. And then I still hear it, but it's not the bird anymore. Then it's really like I'm in my head for a moment, it feels like a gallerist, and then it's out again, and then I'm back in it again. That's how it feels to me. But the noticing, naming, that doesn't fit at all for me at all. That turns, I don't think it's right.

[45:51]

I'm very short-sighted. Yes, I think it's very irritating, the urn, to be named. Oh, that's okay. That's okay. I just realized that we can talk about the third. It's a pity to talk about it, because we already said it before. The second, first, second, the third, we are moving there. And a lot of what we are talking about here is for me the first and the second. I feel at peace, but I can't describe it. So what you describe with this field is for me the first. And the picture is still very short.

[46:53]

I'm just surprised that in my practice I can't talk from consciousness to the third skandal and to be able to understand it. I can somehow understand it, I can experience it, what goes down there, sorry, I can't remember. And then I'm like, yes, I'm in the second and in the first skandal, and the next thing I think, Yes, that's right. I just wanted to say that I don't really perceive it that way. The Gander is already defined with confessing, noting, naming, drawing. When you look at it in the book, it is then added as words. And to express it as the following way, I mean it in the way that one should understand it as what I perceive is nameable and markable.

[47:55]

There it becomes to perceive, where I can name it, where I can mark it. But the other question is whether the designation that I immediately have in my head, whether I want to take it more than there is, because it imposes my perception. And that's why I would say, of course, the designated bird will come right away, but what I can perceive is more than the designated bird, and that's why I want to get out of the designated bird, not to come out of the perception, but to make the perception broader than the term allows birds. And if I do that, then I can also call it theoretically. Maybe it doesn't mean birds anymore, maybe it also means birds, but even if it is called birds again, it is a different bird than the one I first called. And that's what I mean, it still belongs in there. What helped me there, It is simply the realization that a tree is a wonderful example.

[48:56]

We see, we are satisfied with it, when I say, what is this? And someone says, it's a tree. Then I can make it a little bit more precise and can say a larch or whatever. Then we are satisfied with it and we think we have then We see what is there, but it is only a copy of what we imagine, what is now a tree. But we actually don't see a tree. We don't see a tree. We see, I don't know, bark, leaves, green, color, gray. We may smell something. These are the real Negroes. These are the pure perceptions, and this is what the third skanda is about. This is what we perceive. We do not perceive a tree.

[49:58]

We put the big concept of a tree on top of it and are satisfied with it and say, this is a tree. But the individual perceptions, what we smell, what we really see, how it feels, the gray of the bark, all of this somehow falls under the table. We renounce these perceptions and say, yes, this is a tree. then we are satisfied with it, and somewhere it is only a copy. But this is a further development, that you say, we are very satisfied, we make a concept, it can also be that you practice in the awareness of the sea, and there such forms appear, In any case, this is my experience, these forms that I already know, they occur to me, just as I move in the field of hearing, that something occurs there and then it goes very quickly, so that I know, and I think that what Dirk said, that it is such a kind of movement between field perception and individuality,

[51:10]

That this is happening and that focusing on this and then continuing again, that is all that belongs to me. There is a very beautiful story, I can't remember the name of it, I haven't found it yet, where Buddha gives an example and says that if you put the foot of an elephant then one might say, that's a tree trunk, and the other might say, that's this, or that's that, or that's that, because this concept simply falls away. And then it can be this, and this, and this, and this, because of the information that arises from the contact of this object with me, without the concept. of the finished picture, that is now the foot of the elephant, the leg of the elephant.

[52:26]

I think there are two different things. this core, what belongs in there, and then what is our experience, or how do we practice with it, or how do we find access to it, and I think, so I will stay for myself now, that these three belong in there, mark, name, grasp, or? That is to describe. To describe, I think also to grasp, he once said, that is to grasp, yes, And then I think it's really like Friedemann said, the perception is simply a very broad field and either there is a perception based on very, yes, how do you say, collective and conscious.

[53:30]

We simply inherit certain experiences and knowledge and then we live with something because we simply have it in us culturally. Then we take something with us because we live directly with it and then we take something with us because we deal with it. I mean, if I want to buy a bike, then I deal with the bike and not with the bike. with the concept or with the thing there and then I see in the city suddenly a dozen bikes and then I put the one in racing bikes and the other in mountain bikes and the third in, they have a great design. because I deal with it. So I think there is no such thing as only this or only that. But as far as practice is concerned, or as I understand Dirk, I also experience it, that I, or you, from above or from below, rather I come from the lower, then I don't have the naming and then I hold it maybe longer and when I come from above, the naming is perhaps such a moment of inner holding and then not to hit back, so for me it is not like that when I name it that I am then in fourth place, but then I am in third place, I have named it and with that I actually stop the whole upper story and then I have the decision, then I can say for me

[54:57]

Do I look at it, do I stay on it or not? One example is when I have a strong feeling. It used to be incredibly difficult for me to deal with feelings. And now, also with a silent feeling, with anger or fear, does the feeling come now? Is it a perception, did I understand correctly, when it comes to an emotion, is it a perception? Yes, I can often not stick to it, because it really throws me into the association, I know that, I have experienced that already, and then comes a consciousness, and then the whole mess comes with it, and then I can not keep it in my perception. If I think about it, I say, this is good now, I am the good, or they come from there and there and you can't get rid of them again, but if I just say, this is good, This is fear. Suddenly I can be with the fear, suddenly I can be with the fear.

[56:01]

Then the concept goes away again, at some point, but then a physical feeling expands and then I have a kind of new environment with it, then I can endure it. And it's actually in the head, and I am not in the past and I am in my childhood and in that experience and there, but then I realize, man, wonderful, it's just anger, and then I can separate it from the person who practically dissolved it in me, now currently, and that is for me, that is for me, that is for me, there is Zen and this practice of Roshi, that is healing for me, healing, really healing, or switching, or whatever you call it. Switching. Yes, just briefly, for you, so to conclude, Now the terms are shining, I notice them, I name them, I name them, I understand them and so on.

[57:07]

They fit now, because it is simply, as I understand it now, a writing of separation. Suddenly you create a distance. You are no longer the good, but the good. The other two, which were against Skandhas before, do not have this quality yet. First of all, the body is fully in it, and in the third comes this shift. For me, these names are then logical. They are also different, the thought, the thought is named, the eye is named, the body is noticed, so maybe you can divide it. One, two, three. You have three. One, four. Do you remember what you wrote? For me the main meaning of this dance story is the first movement of the heart.

[58:09]

that everything that is empty can be of its own. What you have just described is the dissociation of the root and this step back where a piece frees itself. And yet you give the root a lot of space. If I had the I, I wouldn't give it any space, because then I would fight it again, and then I wouldn't want it, and then I would say, it's old shit, and I like it in the room, and it's aggression, or... You know, then comes the whole story of how good it is to be evaluated, if you explain well, and so I give her space and am actually my own therapist, in which I give it to the woman.

[59:23]

Only that is what you suggested, because at some point you said radical, acceptance. This also happens, but this is very drastic, the experience with this feeling, because for me this is the most difficult thing. Ego. I think what you have described now is the third element from below and you name the physical experience that you experience with anger. But you are in this physical form. That is when you come from below. Before with the tree. So that was a name. Someone came from below, someone from above. Exactly. And what is common is that the tree is a term, that is the fifth khanda. What Roshi says, he is not talking about the tree,

[60:26]

from Heidegger's head, but from trees. So he makes an activity out of the entity. And that is possible if you go down from above. And I would not be able to name even the griffins or the griffins. naming and naming is something different, it is a concept that belongs to the concept, and you have shown wonderfully how, actually, when you cut down a tree, you can no longer see the real tree, that is, what makes up the tree. And this is a Platonic idea of a table. Everyone knows what a table is. There is no one standing there. And if everyone was a table, then it would be the perception. And I think that's the goal.

[61:30]

If you can come from below, then it is called a help to be able to stay there. And if you come from above, it is a help to be able to switch off the term, the term. What? Yes, but I just took it as a help to cut myself off from the associations, because these associations would bring me back up. Yes, exactly. So you can start with the name, right? So it's true, as long as the concept speaks for itself, we are in the third world. I don't think so, Dr. Wegers. Well, maybe I should just add that the term tree or wood, in the end, these are cultural coincidences, yes, which then make up the term, yes, and in this respect it is already more in the fourth scale, and I think what we are talking about, these are perhaps also a little linguistic differences, because when we say perception, that is, we take it from the origin,

[62:44]

And actual perception is practically to perceive what is true. And for me, perception is really to perceive what is there, and not to grasp it, but rather to... What she says specifically, to grasp or to hold, or she says, for example, in this example of the song, what she always brings back, of this song that you hear. I'm not saying everything, but then he says that you don't even know it's a song yet or an airplane, but you sort of have a feeling that it's arising. And then you say, oh yes, that's such and such a song. When you know it's such and such a song, that's the first song. That's from below. And that's what I mean, that it simply belongs from the concept, as he taught it, it belongs up to there.

[63:52]

Yes. No, that's a term and not a concept. Are the two directions good for me to think about? Do you mind if I say that it is ... I have a pretty big problem now, because ... First of all, I don't know where the top and bottom are for you. I don't know if the form scandal is up there and the conscience is down there. That's not quite clear to me. And besides, I think we have to... The book is now going very far, because in every single scandal there are all senses and we are now, for example, with the Buddha, we are in the physical, the Buddha is expressed through the physical, and with the table we are

[64:56]

or in the imagination, so we have eye consciousness, we have ear consciousness, and all these consciousnesses are now also in this scandal, and I find that very difficult now. At the moment I am very confused, I have to say. I have to follow up with you, Dagmar. I'm just getting completely out of it, I don't know it at all anymore. Since your three, four little heads, as you are now talking about it, I can no longer follow it. I'm totally confused and I don't know anything anymore and I don't know it anymore. I have one more question. This is a very simple question. For example, what Rochelle often does, this cup, or that he raises his staff. Or, no, just say the cup. And I see the cup and name it.

[66:00]

I know, aha, that's a cup. And you drink from a cup. Ist das jetzt das dritte Skandal oder das vierte? Denn ich schon sagen kann, aus der Tasse trinkt man. This is not mine, it's the third one. Agata has brought it and I try to practice it and soon it will start again. And I don't just know the difference between spats and cranes, but I know all the birds that will soon sing here in the morning. I know them all by name, I know how they look. because I listened to CDs for a long time and so on. And it makes a difference when I sit in the studio in the morning and I hear a bird singing. And when I say, this is now the garden red tail, then that's right.

[67:04]

But if I try to let it go and stay only with what I hear, then the singing is more alive and one another. Yes, but somewhere it is so simple. No, that is the perception. Wait a minute, wait [...] a minute, from my ears, and that is a lot of information that comes to me. And to stay only with the information that my ears give me somewhere in my brain or in my mind, where I ultimately perceive it, that is what makes the hearing or what I hear about something else.

[68:21]

And you could add a little bit to that now. Then Ossi also said, yes, what is hearing now? Hearing. That means I hear my own hearing from this bird. And I create a state of mind that hears. A field is created in which what I hear now appears. by giving it a lot of space and by listening to it in a very satisfying way, without me saying now, but I know what it is. That makes a difference. But when you name it, it is already a knowledge of what it is. I don't want to name it. But the bird, I mean, the naming is part of it. Let the bird, let the bird name it. Yes, but I think that the name belongs to the British flag. Yes, the British flag belongs to the British flag. Yes, it is simply just a consideration of what kind of difference it makes whether I give the whole thing a name and am satisfied with it, I give it something over and say,

[69:55]

If I am 100% sure that this is the case, then I am satisfied with a concept or I am satisfied with a picture. In the end, I am satisfied with a copy, because I have saved the euro, which is now there. but it is fresher and more alive when I let go of all that and just hear what I hear. And that is the third character. I have the impression that many people have similar questions. So what belongs where and now especially with the name and so on. And I would very much like to suggest that again. That's what I actually wanted to say and I didn't say it very clearly. But I think these are exactly these questions that have happened Becker-Roschi is very clearly devoted to it.

[71:05]

You don't have to speculate too much about it. He clearly said how he teaches it. And I think that would be me in the first place, especially under the aspect that we are doing the room of the abbey here, I would be particularly interested in how you practice it for yourself, how you incorporate your own experiences in the most meaningful way. You can separate that again, but for us as a concept, how Roshi teaches it. And he gave very clear instructions to this thing. I don't know if you all have that, but he has the skandhas in Hannover, there is a transcript, there he once taught them from the front in the direction of consciousness and then the other way around from consciousness in the direction of the front. There it is. There it is in every skandha, there is simply a section. Yes, I can express it. It would be better if you could do it again. Yes, you can do it again. So there is, there is just, he just has, he has his own certain way, how he has now shot himself into it, how he wants to teach it.

[72:14]

And what I would especially like to see tomorrow, if we could work this out a little more clearly in the dialogue, because sometimes it is already quite clear, but I would like to see it a little more clearly, how do we actually practice with each individual skander? So if I now talk about what I have talked about today in this perception skander, for me especially the aspects of how I practice with perception, I can say this figure ground. Particular field. That is my understanding of how I really practice with the third scandal. And then, what was also discussed, to put names on it, which is also very much in line with my experience, to put names on it in order to separate associations and to remove names in order to set the experience free. These are the two aspects of all that I have heard now, where I would really say, this is how I practiced back then. And that was my intention beforehand.

[73:26]

I'm sorry if it's a bit critical, but that was my intention beforehand when I said we don't have to reinvent the wheel. The Vashi has a teaching on it. And I would actually wish that instead of speculating what belongs where now, that instead we come more to it and of course clearly talk about it. How do I practice this and what does my practice do with my experience? And that is partly very, very present and then sometimes it goes down a bit and Yes, but that's for everyone to practice, if I don't know where it is. Exactly, that's why we really have to see the concept first, that's the basis, that's right. First you really have to see clearly how Roshi says it, and then there are probably still uncertainties, because not every question can be automatically covered. But that you really take that as a basis, how he taught it. And you have it, yes. I can email it to you. At least this one transcript I could send to the people, if they are interested. When you come to Germany, is it also a great experience?

[74:32]

No, I don't think so. I just say what I do. I don't want to hurt anyone or anything. I notice that what is confusing, I hope that in the end it is a constructive feeling at the end of the day. That can be so. It is true that it is often part of the process. There are also the questions, of course. It is good so. Yes. Yes, I would like to say a few words about the garden brood. It is something different than a corn. When I try to draw the name from it, then you said that it somehow becomes more original, more alive. My experience is then that at that moment it becomes more alive and I have the feeling that the world is coming to me.

[75:35]

At the moment when I name it, whether it is an anvil or a gardener's tail, the world comes to me and I find that very exciting. And it is the world outside, I would say. Exactly, exactly. It is the world outside, but when I approach it, it is the world inside of me, and it is the cardboard that is created inside of me. I find it difficult to describe what is happening there. Wiesela, Fredor and then Agnes. I like to listen to what Lucia said, I can confirm that. I practice it very often with the bell, with the big bell in his office. Of course, I say bell, but where can I easily separate myself from it and still take the vibrations? Then I can now name it in upper tones and deep vibrations, I don't have to do that here now. I can bathe in it, and I bathe as long as the deep vibrations remain in the room, and they remain inexhaustible.

[76:46]

I can't always get to the end with it, it doesn't always work, but it's fascinating, it opens up a wide and large space, which is wonderful, and my experience is also that the more often I practice it, the things come back to me. I also practice it with the church tower, for a short time in the morning. And also with these bells I connect. And even if I don't go to the bells, the bells come to me somehow. I somehow came into connection with these bells now after a long time. And yes, it is the experience that you can lift this separation. That's great. Yes, I see what we both have noticed. The third skanda is the shift between the first two, where we were one, where there was no separation.

[77:51]

And then in the fourth one, where the separation begins, then we come into an inner being and there we become a super-object. But what I cannot, according to my experience, classify is that what you have written, Ottmar, that when the names of the birds are subtracted, for me it is simply from the third to the first and second place, so it does not create separation. But for me it is not in the perception that the third remains without a name. Then for me the first two can also simply be disputed. And at the beginning of the perception.

[78:53]

So I don't agree with that. Yes, yes, that's what I meant when I said that I would play every evening. That's [...] what I meant when I said that I would play every evening. I wish you all the best for tomorrow, as you wish.

[79:31]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_43.76