It looked like two hours wasn't quite enough for about half of you. Please take that under advisory. Under advisement. Does anyone want to start off with a comment? Yes. How? Going on in the feeling of this discussion of today's morning, I was reminded of elements of practice which are dealing with this threshold between life and death, or threshold on life and death.

[01:05]

These are the kinds of practices where I can enter in a space in which all kinds of things appear. All things, actually. And I perceive them as coming and going of activities. And I perceive them as coming and going of activities. And if I can see that these things are calling me forth and bringing me alive... And I feel that they have no kind of self-existence.

[02:28]

And I cannot feel any border. There is just coming and going and I don't feel a kind of border between them that I could call myself. And on the one hand this can be frightening because I cannot find a beginning or end. And on the other hand it can be completely relaxing if I can let go of this fear. What is this agency or this power? And what remains is the question or a question that poses itself in this space is what is this agency and what remains?

[04:00]

What is the force that forms all these activities which keep this together? Which makes it possible that people say to me after, and I haven't met them for maybe 20 or 30 years, oh, this is Peter. Or that I am myself, I am recognizing myself. So there are no limits, the beginning and end are not distinct. And sometimes within me I'm getting insecure.

[05:10]

Why do not parts of myself appear as something else? Really, it's a question I have. It really comes up in a little bit. So this comes up again and again. Hi. You got it. That was a healthy walk. Power. Yeah, it's her power that holds us together. Yeah, we have to take this to someone else. Yeah. But... Parts of us do appear. When we think of ourselves in terms of continuity, of course, there's beginnings and ends.

[06:15]

But when you stop taking that for granted, there's only a middle. Middle over and over again, and no beginnings and ends. Mm-hmm. Okay, anyone else? Yes. I saw there's a Griesler ice cream place in town. No. Almost. Yes. If you say so. I saw it. It says Griesler. No, it says Chrysler. It's the other way around. Oh, it's spelled E-I-I-E. Yeah. Sorry. It was for ice instead of east. Yeah, something like that. I liked very much what you said this morning.

[07:38]

And I would like to challenge you somehow and don't let you off the hook so easily. I would like to ask you why you think that Buddhism is a science. And why you are framing it as scientific or science. Because for me, science is a cultural development of the West. And it's a method. And it follows certain principles. It's led by theory. It follows a method. It's systematic. And it's not ever systematic. And it's empirical.

[08:56]

And for my own experience, this is completely true for Buddhism. And for my own experience, this is completely true for Buddhism. Especially in the way that you mentioned today that the only Buddhism that exists is the one where you're teaching yourself Buddhism. But that's only what I think about it. And I'm interested in what you think about it. You just said, I think that. I don't know what the translation is, but it sounds like you said, I think that, and you think that, and I'm the only one, you're the only one who thinks that. I don't quite understand what she said.

[09:59]

Say it in English. OK. My understanding, you said Buddhism is a kind of science, or you would like to take it as a science. Yes, I do. And my understanding of science is that it has... Well, I heard all that part. Yeah. The latter part. Yeah. So that's what I think. Yeah. What do you think? Why do you say something like Buddhism is a science and it should come in the... Did you say the same thing? Well, if we agree, then wonderful. That's kind of boring. Yeah. But it isn't a science. I think it's a science. I don't think so. Well, tell me why. Because the notion of science I think it's more or less in the line what... So I follow more or less the line Erich brought up.

[11:01]

But the essential difference seems to be reconnect the term science with something like objectivity. And within the sciences, there is something like a methodenstreit. dispute about the methods. So the natural scientists, for example, they think that only repeatable experiments are independent from place, time, and person doing it.

[12:04]

Are they essential bases? I am a social scientist. I think they are all nerds. They do not read and they have no understanding of history because the beginning of science, as everybody knows, I think, is logic and philosophy. Mm-hmm. which has the same idea that something is... And in my understanding, Buddhism is so much... So in my understanding, Buddhism is so much... coined, formed by subjectivity. So that it may be called even the opposite of science in the Western understanding.

[13:22]

You are teaching us 20 years that we have to practice, practice, practice, practice. And that counts, and not all these intellectual gamifications. And I believed you here after here. Yes, but there is something like an inner science, which is also based on experience, and in principle also a repeatable experience. Yes. So what I want to add is that I experience, I can use the term scientific because I experience it as a kind of inner science where the most important tool that you have is your experience and the basis of practice.

[14:30]

But if you use such a term, Then we must allow the question. Again, from a Western science perspective, we always say, we learned that we have in science, we always have a theory and a method. So is experience also fear? Is it a theory or is it a method? Oh, dear. Yes. This is fun. I'm having fun. So my difficulty with the definition is science is dealing a lot with distinction. So you obviously have to doubt the English children.

[15:52]

Why is this like this? And the other one is different. And that's why often in a certain language, the authors are different. But the language teaches you to be different. So also science happens in language and also language is based on distinctions and logic. Don't you think I've made a few distinctions these days? Don't you think I've made a few distinctions these days? Yes. But for me, it seems science is more about making clear distinctions, making even clearer what something is, different to something else.

[17:03]

And the practice is about going, leaving this part in the logical thinking and distinctions and really national work. Now I want to say it in German. For me, it is a practical practice to learn in the field of the biblical books, or to come out of it with tricks and tactics in another field, because the scientists are more precise. Regina, you were going to say something? For me, Buddhism is scientific insofar as there is repeatability. And the most important and interesting question for me is what is watching, what is observing, and what is that which looks?

[18:15]

And this is changing, there is nothing which could be fixed by me or something like that. So this is extremely elastic and it moves but at the same time it's repeatable and by allowing the bodily sphere And during the last Winter Branches Week, I had the clear experience and recognition that by thinking I cannot go any further and I have to let my body decide.

[19:32]

And this also is a kind of science. Science that needs the rückhaltlose Vorstellungskraft des ganzen Körpers. Imagination of the whole body. Sounds good. Unrestrained visionary imagination of the whole body. So not wanting to make up something distinct, but allowing this forming process to happen. Okay.

[21:09]

Help! You're ganging up on me. That's your fault. That doesn't get you off the hook. I think I'm so impressed with Buddhism because the way of coming the way the path of poetry from experience to such valid abstractions as, for instance, the five skandhas. If that isn't science, what is? What really impresses me about the art of Buddhism is the ability to crown valid factions. Okay, well, maybe we have here a Buddhist science. This gets me out of the hook.

[22:15]

A Buddhist science, which is not... the same as the provincial western science. Okay, something else? I'm very astonished that people are saying that these experiments in practice it's possible to repeat them because for me every sasen period is unique me too yeah

[23:16]

The answer is quite different. In science, we work with consciousness and that has the function of distinction. So the starting point is different. In science they are working with consciousness and consciousness deals with distinctions. And the aim is to point out regularities and laws and some things like that. And in Buddhism, what's always pointed out is nothing is fixed and everything changes.

[24:34]

And everything rests on the components it is made up of. And what's important is that by practicing you are able to shift the focus from the location in consciousness to awareness. And by that, it's possible to access the moment that is different, every moment, all the time. Okay, yes? Yes. For me it's not important whether it's called science or not.

[25:45]

But it creates knowledge. Knowing. Knowing. Mich interessiert eine ganze Weile schon das to investigate and exploring. Investigating and exploring. Und das denke ich, das ist schon etwas, was in den Wissenschaften sehr wichtig ist. I have been interested for some time into this investigating and exploring and this is also very important in the sciences. And how does this happen and what is the doer? What is doing? What is exploring? Can it be done by itself and what kind of field is necessary for this? And one starting point for me is these two words.

[26:56]

I like them, allowing and applying, and to feel out the relationship or the dynamic. Yeah. Okay. Have we got rid of all the hands yet? No? One more. Well, I tried to study science, social science. And why I did it, because I wanted to find something out about existence. And it was very disappointing. And, um, So it doesn't matter to me whether this is science or not, but what Buddhism has shown me is simply how many different levels of, how do you call this correctly, of knowledge there can be.

[28:21]

So it doesn't matter so much to me whether it's called science or not, but what Buddhism has shown to me is what what a whole range of different ways of recognizing or, I don't know the German, Just knowing. And what I feel about it is that these are ways of experiencing and knowing that our Western way of living just pushes it aside and we don't have much access to them. And that's the reason why this inner science, which makes these ways of experiencing accessible, it's enormously valuable for me.

[29:29]

No, you've already started all this process. So I completely understand what people have brought up and I wouldn't want to oppose any of them. No, it's good. So also what Christine now said about the inner science, of course, I cannot really know whether I understand it, how she means it, but I can completely feel it. But... But we can use science and I am doing it and others can do it differently maybe.

[30:51]

As a specific term. Yes, that means as a defined term. Terminus technicus as a defined term. A technical term, as a term that is defined. Yes. And as terminus technicus I would say that science and Buddhism have exactly two different dimensions of life. And as technical terms, I would say that science and Buddhism, they describe quite different dimensions of being. Okay. Christoph? Okay. There was the situation of the room and the design as always.

[32:09]

When I entered the room today in the morning, before 10, the setup of the room was like the last 20 years or so. And then there was an interesting situation. I think it was Christine who said that Begiroshi wanted to sit differently. And there was this, for me, interesting situation that, I think it was Christina, said Baker-Rochie wants to sit somewhere else. And then there was a short interview, and Christina said, yes, this seminar should be different, Baker-Rochie said. And then there was a kind of irritation and people asking why. And Christine said, because the seminar should be different.

[33:12]

Okay. There was this kind of process of movement where it was different as usual in the sense that only those two, where you two sit there, you and Christine, were deciding. And the rest was self-organized. It was not prefixed. And then he said to me, it looked more or less like the same. And then it suddenly looked like that for me, as well as otherwise. And I asked myself, and that bothered me the whole afternoon, how is that different? And I asked myself, and that was some kind of part of my awareness for the whole morning, is there a difference?

[34:23]

So at the beginning I had the impression there is no difference whatsoever. And the first difference I noticed was the symmetry is broken. The first difference I noticed is the symmetry has been broken. The second difference I noticed was you can even in a room where there is a very clear front, back, side etc. change this situation. So the second difference I noticed was, even in a space that has been designed by an architect with a clear up front, side, middle and so on, you can change that. And the third difference is, which I am just talking about, namely a form of conversation.

[35:40]

So the third difference I noticed is it's more like a conversation rather than a teaching. And this is just something I wanted to share. to act from a deaf person. This sort of echo is constructed and often sounds arrive later. It's different, this and that position from my hearing. Is this more better? Is this better for your hearing? Yeah, it's easier. You still have a pillar to lean on, though. I... Well, let me respond to what you said first and then I'll see if I can respond to the people who want to make sure I'm still on the hook. Okay.

[36:48]

The problem I face is I would like to use the venue, the configuration to change things a bit. And I think by First of all, it's different than before. That makes a difference. Second, by creating the space in a way that the architect didn't create the space makes a difference. To resist the symmetry is already something. I saw a marvelous show at the museum in Zurich the other day, just before it ended. And I think it was first somewhere in Austria.

[38:27]

It's a kind of the Japanese influence on Western contemporary art. And there's lots of obvious influences. But in a person like Cezanne, who, according to what I've read, didn't seem to get into a kind of a Japanophile mode, but he did break the symmetry of paintings. And there's a big distinction. They began to paint things in relationships that were not both no vanishing point, but not even placed on the canvas in a symmetrical way. And that seems to come from Japan. They're not organized by a vanishing point.

[39:32]

And they're not organized by a symmetrical relation on the canvas. And another example they tried to suggest Cezanne was influenced. Was he did what other painters had not done in the West, but is very common in Japan, is to do a series of the same thing over and over again. And he painted that mountain that he liked over and over again in different days, etc. Yes, there's series of Mount Fuji, etc. Anyway, so there's that kind of change which is as much as what we're doing.

[40:33]

Okay. But you have come here to have a particular relationship with me as a practitioner. So I don't think it would help if I sat where Felix is sitting. Or when you self-organized, half of you were behind me. I would have been charmed if that was the case. I would have had to have a rear-view mirror to make sure you weren't smoking back then. Now there's another problem. which I'm really trying to explore.

[41:58]

Which, as I said... Okay, let's go back to Dogen's statement. Nun, ich habe gesagt, ja, lasst uns zurückgehen zu Dogen's Satz. Sometimes, ich ehe, betrete einen ultimen Zustand und biete ein tiefgehendes Gespräch an. complimentary or important emphasis. Praiseworthy or something like that. Complimentary. Praiseworthy, like something to be praised.

[43:09]

But I don't know the original Japanese, but it may well be just I enter an ultimate state and offer a discussion arising from an ultimate state where there's no idea of it being better or worse. My guess is the adjective does not have the implication of profound. And then he says simply wishing you meaning you. And simply also has the, would contradict the idea of profound. Simply wishing all of you to be steadily intimate with your field of mind.

[44:11]

Okay, so he's clearly saying, I don't expect you to be trying to understand. But he's saying something like, I want you to be immersed in the field of mind that I'm establishing. And I would like you to be simply intimate with your field of mind. With the assumption that, and yes, implicit assumption that, that the field of mind of Dogen and the field of mind of the assembly are interpenetrating you. And the science of Buddhism isn't just that things are interdependent, but also, and this is a more complex and

[45:26]

equivocal idea, but interdependent and interpenetrating. Okay, so when I started out this morning, I said that one of my ingredients in developing or following through on what happens in a seminar, One of the ingredients is my feel of the presence of each of you. So that makes it difficult for me to change the configuration too much.

[46:52]

Because in order to do that, I have to stay within the orbit of the field I can experience. There's an experiential boundary to immediacy. There's an allness to immediacy, but there's also a locality to immediacy. Now, what is given here in Dogen's statement to be simply intimate, steadily intimate, steadily intimate with your field of mind? And I think probably steadily is a good translation of what was not continuously intimate, but steadily intimate.

[48:11]

And you understand the difference in English between steadily and continuously. Und ihr versteht vielleicht den Unterschied, den das im Englischen macht, zwischen kontinuierlich und beständig. When you steady yourself, you're adjusting yourself. Wenn ihr euch steady yourself... Städig und städig würde ich hier sagen. Beständig heißt in der Zeit gleich sein. Oder städig heißt... Immer wieder. Immer wieder. Okay. You're standing up again and again. You're standing again and again. So it has the sense of again and again rather than continuing. Okay, so part of the ingredient an essential ingredient of my making use of three days or two days.

[49:49]

And having experienced that I'm speaking inside of you, And very often people say to me, I'm always surprised, but it's also the same, that you spoke about something I was just thinking about. I'm not trying to do that. But I do create the conditions where that can happen. Now, what's interesting for me is here, for example, I get to a point where I am right now, which I cannot go further without giving you some yogic practices.

[50:53]

Now there's a word I've mentioned to you in the past. A Japanese word. H-I-S-H-I-R-Y-O. Which means to, simply as I put it in English, to notice without thinking. So it takes some time to develop the ability to notice without thinking. Now, there's an And noticing without thinking is a physical experience.

[52:08]

A withdrawing attention, maybe like you said, interior, withdrawing attention, so it's an interior attention that doesn't go out to the object. And it's an interior attention that doesn't go out to the object. So it's an experience of noticing but not thinking about. And somebody, I don't know who, I can't remember, said this is maybe the most important word in Buddhism. Okay, so this is what I would call a yogic skill. And for your practice to... All these words evolve and develop have built into them concepts which aren't really Buddhist.

[53:29]

Words like evolve and develop have concepts implied in them that aren't really Buddhist. But that's a more subtle problem that we need to deal with here. Okay. So, what I'm trying to do here is an experience here, and what I'm trying to do here is to... convey to you the sense that to notice without thinking is a physical experience. And you develop the feel of pulling attention in the body. Or to use attention.

[54:38]

Oh dear, you know all these words. To use... to restrain the tendency of attention to go out to the object. This is not just a mindfulness act, it's a bodyfulness act. And after a while, you get used to holding attention, externalized intention, so the world is informed by a field of interior intention, which includes the outside.

[55:47]

After a while you get used to this externalized attention, so that you feel a kind of inner attention, Okay, so, to practice this, in this case, I would say you need a pivot. And the pivot is the particular. So I always say to you, I've given you this phrase, to pause for the particular. And to pause for the particular is to give appearance a chance. And to interrupt the implicit continuity we live in.

[57:04]

Okay. So if I'm here with you, what is the first thing I do? I come into the room. And then I have a... And feeling as if my chest were a big space. And it's not important whether that's true or not. But it's true that I have this experience. Whether it's actually a big space, I don't give a damn. I have the experience of it being a big space. And when I sit down in that space, I feel like I'm sitting down in a space we share.

[58:06]

Now I make a point of not thinking about anything. There's an intention on my part not to think about anything. And I don't want to know your names. But I interrupt that now and then when I haven't seen you for a while. I say, oh, hi, Suzanne. But I use the interruption intentionally to shift away from it. Und ich verwende diese Unterbrechung absichtsvoll, um davon wegzuwechseln. Okay, I'm describing to you how I locate myself with you in a tesho.

[59:27]

Und ich beschreibe euch jetzt, wie ich mich mit euch verorte in einem tesho. Yeah, and how I understood and discovered Suzuki Roshi doing it. Now, for the last couple years, people have been asking me to come up and, you know, should we videotape my talks? How could you possibly video my using her interruption as a way to reinforce the presence in the room? And also if there were a video camera here, it would clearly imply to all of us that this has some value outside this context. And I do not want to convey that.

[60:53]

So I don't want it to, oh, some of you will see this later, blah, blah, I'm audio taping it, but I gave in finally to do that. But I don't think while I'm alive I'll give in to video taping. After I'm dead, I might. Okay. Okay. So I use the particular, like your hand there touching your foot, As having nothing to do with you. It's just a hand touching the palm of your foot. So I allow and trust. Now trust is a big part here, which I don't know if I have time to speak about. I trust that whatever is noticed is part of what's happening.

[62:11]

My teacher in Japan, Yamada Momon Roshi, said, let's see if I can remember, something like, an actually essential realization for a practitioner is that at every moment, the world is working to give us what we need. The situation we're in is allowing aliveness. And he says something like, if you don't really recognize that, your practice won't be really happening.

[63:37]

No. How does he say it? He says... is to have an absolute respect for yourself, respect for yourself. Rising from knowing that everything is participating in your aliveness. Okay, now this is an attitude that you have to cultivate. And respect, of course, in English means to look against, like spectacles or inspect, to look again, re-look. So basically, Yamada Moroshi is saying,

[64:38]

You need to find the stillness or stockedness of meditation, body and mind stillness. In which you examine, inspect yourself to see if you have respect for yourself. And to notice the degree to which you do have respect for yourself or don't have respect for yourself. And we will find out if I don't really have that much respect for myself sometimes. So Momonoshe would say, who was a wonderful person by the way, would say that until you can really feel respect for yourself, the power isn't there to practice.

[66:12]

And that's why we start practice with the precepts. We can say it's a process of developing respect for yourself. Okay. And I consider that a science. To develop respect for yourself is a science. So when I'm here, and I will try to think maybe we should have a break sometime, someday. Yeah, is that I assume that whatever this sensorial apparatus among the many, many possibilities, an infinite number really, notices, is part of a mosaic which has an integrative dynamic.

[67:40]

So I use the particular as a pivot to shift to the field. And every time I shift from the particular to the field, the field gets stronger. And when I feel the field, only when I feel the field established, do I feel I have the permission as a Buddhist to start to speak. And if the speaking is coming from anything I thought of before or intelligence, I don't have then permission to speak. Okay, so it's important because I'm seeing what happens with this attentive attention. And everything I've been speaking about is attentive attention.

[69:07]

Going from the specific or the particular to the field is an attentive or attentional attention. And an assumption that several levels at once are functioning here. And the alliah of darkness is functioning most in the field. So I feel the different levels of functioning more in the field than in the particular. But the particulars become the root and pivot of the field. Is that too complicated to tell you all?

[70:18]

Should I not tell you these things? Generally, the rule is you do not speak about this to somebody who can't understand. So I feel grateful that more and more I'm always, if this new guy here, but he's got a Tibetan side to him. Okay, so... So I'm relieved and grateful that I don't have so many new students. I like the fact that most people come back. And there's often meetings at Crestona and people talk about, how are we going to attract new students? And I think, No, I have enough trouble.

[71:20]

I don't need news to. But then there's quite a lot of new young people at Johanneshof because we have more rooms and more facilities. So I try to see if I can make them old students fast. Or more experienced fast. And if I can't, then we sort of phase them out. At least as long as I'm alive. Okay. Okay. So that means to end this little riff.

[72:22]

In various ways we can change the configuration. But if I am going to speak into the field of mind that like Dogen suggests, In which I can wish none of you to even try to understand. Sorry. that I can wish that not any of you even try to understand. And just hope that you can be steadily intimate with your field of mind. Okay. Okay. So I couldn't do that if people were sitting behind me.

[73:26]

So I sort of need a situation where I can feel you visually and bodily. Okay, now for a few moments maybe or more, back to the question of is Buddhism a science. I would say that Buddhism is the science that science wants to be. If you look at what really is the motivation of science, Buddhism is trying to do that. If you have neurologists trying to understand consciousness as if consciousness was the whole of mind, yes, they'll learn something. And in contemporary scientists when they were young.

[74:37]

And they studied atoms before quantum mechanics or quantum science. And to study atoms at that time was a fruitful thing to do. Yeah, but it wasn't studying atoms in the context of contemporary quantum mechanics. So if neuroscientists want to study consciousness the way they do, so be it. But from my point of view, the problem is they have a somewhat rather primitive idea of what a human being is. So they're studying a primitive concept of a human being. Or a limited concept. And the Dalai Lama has said, for example, a fairly well-known comment of his, if science proves any aspect of our tradition is untrue, we have to drop it.

[76:03]

Now, he doesn't necessarily mean the science which thinks only the repeatable is true. That is a position I find pretty dumb and have argued against for 50 or 60 years. And in recent years, I've found that I used to always say if I decided to be a scientist, which my whole family involved in science and engineering, I probably would have decided to be a physicist or a mathematician. There's an interesting topic I'm not going to develop, but I'll bring up. Are there any unchanging laws that don't change?

[77:19]

Like, does mathematics apply everywhere? Let's leave that out of the... Let's leave that right now. That would take more effort for me to talk about. Okay. But nowadays I'd say Maybe I'd be a physicist, maybe I'd be a botanist. And that has arisen because my neighbor in Freiberg turns out to be, you know, he's just a nice guy, I like him, he turns out to be one of the most creative people botanical researchers in the world you've met him. And Buddhism is influencing him quite a bit now in trying to get other scientists, including his many graduate students, to open up a little.

[78:30]

It's very difficult, he says, to get them to open up. But he would say, I think, that a plant, because it can't walk around And I think he would say, I'm going to have to ask him, I'm pretty sure he would say, in the vein of all of our conversations, is that you put a plant in a new circumstance, and the plant will discover permutations of chemicals to make it survive that it's never done before.

[79:40]

So it has a incredible kind of intelligence that is circumstantially operational. And builds an operational history. And build, develop an operational history, a functional history. In any case, in the science of Buddhism we have to accept that everything, everything is absolutely unique at each moment. And I would say that's Buddhist science. The contemporary establishment of science is still developing. And just because it has certain rules, I will say those rules are wrong.

[81:01]

Maybe not for sociologists looking at it as a discipline, but for my looking at it as what science really wants to be. We'll learn a lot from Buddhism. And Buddhism is going to learn and does learn a lot from science. And even Buddhist scientists need a break. Thank you very much. We don't have much time to go into language, which I'm still trying to do. If you still have the strength to let me try your patience. And I'm going to ask you to translate this so you can take a look at it before I ask you to translate it.

[82:26]

OK. Can you see it without your glasses? I can see. I made it a bigger type thing. I can see. OK. Let's see. It's easier to get off the platform. But I like it better sitting in the field. I not only share a field of mind, I share a floor.

[82:55]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_77.6