As I've pointed, I think in other contexts I've pointed this out before, a scholar might know 20 or 30 thousand characters. It takes a long, much longer to learn all this than to learn our language. Even with the brilliancy of children who learn so fast. Okay. So we structure consciousness. And when Yuan Wu says, establish a mind which knows neither here nor there, nor before and after it,

[01:04]

He's clearly saying, release yourself from the structure of consciousness. And we don't sort of imagine that's... I mean, commonly, we don't imagine that's possible. I think most people don't think about these things and imagine. that the mind is some sort of man-made, God-made camera. And it just takes pictures. And I think that if you have an assumption that somehow we're created beings...

[02:08]

You don't emphasize so much that we're creating ourselves. And do we want to create ourselves in a complex way or a simple way? Okay. So I think we could see the world view assumptions behind MacArthur's wanting to simplify Japanese. I think he even wanted to create an alphabet. That's really stupid. Anyway, so... I mean, despite how brilliant he was.

[03:26]

Yeah. Okay. So... Okay, so... Can I go on for a minute? Can I stop a minute? Okay, so why did this strike me and why is it so interesting to me? Because one of the things we practice... is noticeable appearance. To notice appearance means to notice mind. We're not just noticing the objects, We're noticing the objects as appearance. That's at the center of any serious practice. Okay, so if you notice appearance, well, there's a continuous appearance.

[04:31]

Appearance, appearance, appearance, appearance. An appearance implicitly, explicitly, implicitly, is not about continuity. So it's about discontinuity, the moment after moment appearance of the world. So also then implied in this, or part of this, is that there's disappearance. There's appearance. Disappearance and release.

[05:40]

Okay. That's, again, basic adept practice. Okay. Now, my point is that we don't just release the object of tension. You're finally here. So we're not just releasing the object of attention. That's one of the dynamics of this practice is that when you release the structure of consciousness,

[06:45]

You open yourself to other things happening. And you open yourself to the presence of what we call the alaya-vijnana. Which otherwise couldn't get into consciousness. No, just to bring it back to, if you have any interest, to my primitive idea of consolation. Is that somehow, when you have a group of people together, You're generating, you're somehow releasing the structure of consciousness together. It's a special case situation.

[07:55]

Putting together some other kind of loosening up the structures of each person and then putting them together again. And you're making a lot of doors for other things to come in. And creating special conditions for releasing the structure of consciousness and reforming the consciousness in another way. So it becomes some sort of territory of shared consciousness.

[08:59]

And given this listed, which I gave you number 10 and 11, is number 14 is something like, you get access to the contents of others' minds. to receive the content of the spirit of others, So, to me, this sounds like it's definitely a territory of accomplished practice, but it seems to be also a territory that coincides with constellation, a special situation of constellation.

[10:08]

Also, this is certainly an area that is part of an advanced practice, but it also seems to be part of this special situation Okay. Is that okay for this evening to start off? I guess it'll have to be. Thank you very much. One of the, last night I spoke about some of the differences from me this summer from the others I do One difference, of course, I feel more I'm doing it with you than I do together than I do a different pattern together, let's say, than in most seminars.

[11:25]

And as I said, I also find that I emphasize understanding here more than just what we could practice. And we have more time here than the usual weekend seminar at least. To take the time to see what we understand. So... I'd like to ask, most of you were here last evening.

[12:57]

So I'd like to ask you how you understood what I said last night. Did it make sense, etc. ? Because from one, sometimes, you know, we're so familiar with the basic ideas that it's obvious. And sometimes it's not so obvious because we're actually not, not that it's hard to understand, it's just we're not familiar with the ideas, we have to get used to them. And I'm also asking you to share with me or speak together about How you understood what I said last night?

[14:11]

Yeah, I'm also asking because we need, it's good I think if we can establish a field of mutual understanding from which we can work. I also say that, or I ask you that, because I believe that it is good if we have a common field from which we can talk. Yes, this is someone who has something to say. Yes, Walter. I was fascinated by the idea that the structure of consciousness could also be altered or changed.

[15:17]

How can the witness notice that? Yes. Is this habit of looking with a witness, can this not also be changed? Oh, doesn't this habit need to be changed also? Well, it seems to me that what you said assumes that the observer is also part of the structure of consciousness.

[16:17]

Yeah. And that's what Buddhism assumes, that the observer is not something permanent. It's part of the structure of consciousness. So what you're saying, if we, the word I used, we release the structured consciousness, we released both the object of attention and the structural consciousness. But if I didn't use release, that's what I meant. So if we do release both, can we observe this or how do we know this?

[17:22]

Is that what you're asking? And then further, is then there another kind of knowing if the observer is also released? What Buddhism has spent centuries trying to answer these questions? Just posing the question though is already something radical, I think. And the posing of the question itself is part of the process of even unanswered, it's part of the process of Yeah, part of the process.

[18:35]

So rather than join and answer such a big question, it was good to make it clear if I understood what you meant. But that was sort of like the point of what I was saying. Yeah, someone else. Yes. Yes. But what comes to mind for me? What I have noticed in my experience is that there are moments of insights where one feels one with the observer or as if there isn't any observer.

[19:38]

And only in that respect do I know that there was an observer, because I find myself knowing what kind of insight there was. But in this moment or while this is happening, it doesn't seem that the observer is present. So it's in retrospect or afterwards that you have a feeling of, yes, I knew. Yeah, and that's... useful information. What you just said. Irrefutable observation. Something I wanted to say in the seminar this last weekend was it came up several times about how we proceed with knowing.

[21:24]

I can't know exactly the question, but something like that. An example I thought of that I didn't happen to mention was that when we have an insight, What we call an insight vision is when we have the experience of knowing. Without even thinking, we know this is true. Certain kinds of enlightenment experiences can be an experience of knowing, can carry an experience of knowing

[22:31]

with one which is false. But on the whole, I think that this aspect of knowing, which is a mark of an insight, becomes a part of the experience of practicing insofar as most of our thinking becomes insights rather than visual comparative thinking. Okay. That's about it. No one had any thoughts about this, right?

[24:05]

You didn't hear a thing or it was all obvious? I found very interesting what you said about the structure of mind in relationship to the body. As if the body was made by the mind or part of the structure of mind. In such a concrete way, the body is a creative product of the mind? Or is it that way, question mark? And what does it mean to release that structure or that habit as Walter called it?

[25:29]

Okay. Well, let me just say again, talking about the procedure for me of this seminar. Normally I would try to respond to what you said, Siegfried. In terms of what we can practice. And then through that practice, come to some, hopefully, into that territory, into a resolution of that territory. And then to introduce this practice or practice in an area where there might be a kind of resolution.

[26:45]

But in this case, I'm trying to, and it also parallels this winter branches program I'm trying to work with in Johanneshof, is how can we understand this? Can we find a way to understand this? The first week meeting, quite a lot of it was about either explicitly or implicitly, why the heck do we have to study when, you know, the practice is enough. In this first week of the Winterzweige program, there were a large number of conversations about the question, why do we have to study at all, and perhaps the practice or the practicing is enough.

[27:57]

Yes. Well, I don't want to get tangled up in that right now, but anyway, that's important. So the quotation I brought up yesterday is how do we understand an insight into the nature of the body and the distinction between mind and body. And that statement covers what you said. But understanding in some ways is much more difficult than practice. And what you see in the attempts to understand Buddhism after the historical Buddha.

[29:26]

And what one can see in the attempt to understand Buddhism after the Buddha died, was to create a philosophy which articulated practice. A kind of philosophy. And in its articulation, supported practice, made practice clearer and made the dead-end roads clearer. So in other words, they tried to make a map of practice so it was clearer The directions were fruitful.

[30:44]

There's a problem with this. Which is, particularly Zen does not want to map our practice in advance. And in any path, you make the path by passing it, by walking it, by doing it. I think that problem the Buddhist practice philosophy mostly solved. The people who tried to make a philosophy of practice mostly avoided making overly predictive maps.

[31:47]

But one of the problems they sometimes found themselves in is they tried to make connections that became purely philosophical connections and they weren't practice connections. In other words, trying to make a consistent picture that fit together, they started making connections which were just mental. So some of the links between within understanding still have to be left to actually practicing and you can't think that exactly. So what is the eleventh of these stages that I mentioned last night?

[33:07]

The adept can call up, call forth a mind-made body. I also then said, yeah, also a body made mud. So I can say those words. We could all have some resonance with it. Our resonance will come from our life, our practice, and our profession, if you like.

[34:15]

But a mutual resonance allows us to talk about it. But mutual resonance may not be helpful really making it clear. Because we resonate, but the tuning forks may be rather different. So the problem of understanding and trying to make this clear requires quite a lot of work or detail. And I'm always trying to do this. And I'm most happy when I can do it with others. I've got someone else.

[35:17]

Yes. This is in a similar territory and I woke up this morning. This has also to do with my dreams. I woke up with a feeling of having... I have many bodies. From my experience this is rather accessible and I asked myself How does that make sense, or what kind of consequences does this have when I see it that way in comparison to what we usually say, we have one body, we have a body?

[36:25]

I can see that, or I can observe that, and observing is not the right word for it. And once it's done, it's over. I'm in the middle of creating this particular body, but it's not really observing it. Yes, that's where I was, that's how I... What I always focus on is the difference. I can see how I create and that this is all a created structure. So I was walking this territory, and the point where I can't go further, where I'm stuck, is that I have a feeling of, yeah, I'm creating.

[38:01]

I can say mind or body, but I can't distinguish them. I'm creating mind or body, but I can't get clear on the difference. Okay. So you had a, let's call it a dream insight. Also, du hattest so etwas, sagen wir einmal, eine Einsicht durch einen Traum. That you have many bodies. Dass du viele Körper hast. I think Dogen would prefer it if he said you are many bodies. Dogen würde vielleicht vorziehen, du zu sagen, du bist viele Körper. Okay, so then we can ask the scripts and categories.

[39:02]

There's body and there's mind. And there's body mixed with mind. And mind mixed with body. And then are they successive or simultaneous? Now, are they simultaneously present and overlapping, or so is it not? Yeah, go ahead. Is it one body that changes, or is it several bodies that are present? So I think if you ask questions being open to all the possibilities, you come to more fruitful results than if you limit the possibilities.

[40:04]

I had only one body for the changes. Now, there's something wonderful about images. In addition, they carry tremendous amounts of information. They have a kind of life of their own. Their own integrity. Have you ever tried to change an image in a dream? Or, you know, like a half-waking state or something even.

[41:20]

There's an image of a person or a situation or a room. And you could say to yourself, this is an image within me. I can change it any way I want. But in fact, you can't, usually. But it stays there. So you can start a question with it. You can say, well, where do you go? If I follow where the soul which leads, where does it lead? So the image has a life of its own. That's my experience. Even if you are the... You are this image. This image isn't great. What's the story in anyone else? Why is it occurring in you at that moment?

[42:28]

Mm-hmm. Okay. So what I'm saying is images stick together. When they don't stick together, they may not be true. When they stick together, they might be true. Okay. So this is all to say, if you can work with a feeling that there's simultaneous bodies present and this image has a certain integrity, there may be truth to it. If you can't make the image work, it's probably not true.

[43:37]

Or you have to force the image on yourself and it feels artificial. Or maybe just that you're not ready for it. But I know that by any case, you can't work with an image that doesn't stick together. So here I'm speaking about a process of both practicing with your insight, But in this case it also can be a process of understanding what you're inside.

[44:42]

Okay, someone else. I want to come back to what you said about a philosophy created for practice where then artificial connections were made. Because I'm asking myself, does it make sense to make connections between, for example, Buddhism and modern... research on the brain, neuroscience.

[45:52]

I looked into this quite a bit in the past year. And in modern neuroscience what they find out is that the distinction between mind and body is not really tenable. Small changes in physiologic changes like temperature make distinct changes in consciousness. In this fraction of the brain that we call then consciousness, vice versa, that means also when you change consciousness, then it changes, of course, at least the physiology of the brain.

[47:20]

because this is an implicit function of the brain. I ask myself if it is fruitful and to make a connection between this modern science, ideas, and Buddhism. Because Buddhism also says, you say it's a mindology. Buddhism is a mindology. It's a mindology. When I say we only can think and experience in our consciousness.

[48:30]

We have no other access to our mind. That's not true. Let's just suppose. What? Yeah? when it becomes knowing that they can reproduce it, they can talk about it, then we have to create it in consciousness. Yes, okay. What is it? What? Can I say that... will we still have to remain on this very thin level of consciousness and is the practice not a possibility to reach this level of knowledge in part now,

[49:38]

Could the practice be a escape, not only to stay in the knowing consciousness, but also reach far out in that consciousness, non-consciousness, that also meets on the level of brain, of that that we know about the brain that we we try to reach out in other brain functions that we normally don't use. Because modern neuroscience says the same, then more or less frightened, and all his ancestors said that we are living more or less in a very small part of our possible field of experience. Yes, because... out of this thinking about, in that style, it also is, the question comes, what really is working in me, how do we have the possibility to access?

[51:19]

For me, it's the question, who really gets involved? How do we really practice? Because when you say you make the body, this operation of making it, isn't it like what I said, the operation of the same system making it? Yeah. Okay. Okay. My question is, we do our body, we do our practice, we grab beyond this frame of conscious awareness, and today another function is exactly the same. It's a bit like what Walter said, there is a possibility to observe the witness. Well, of course we have to be careful about the words.

[52:23]

Our words were constructed out of a different worldview that contemporary science presents or that Buddhism presents. But we still have to use words somehow. So we may have to use the word make, but we can't... We have to be careful we don't carry our own prejudices about the word make into the word make in this particular context. Okay. I mean, really when we're doing the kind of thinking we're doing here, The words have to be primarily defined contextually and not historically.

[53:35]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_74.33