What I want to talk about today is the expression of buddhism and the context of buddhism. Obviously, most of us at least wouldn't be practicing, as I said yesterday, if Suzuki Roshi hadn't come here. the analogy is not much different from language. You wouldn't be speaking English. You wouldn't be talking with each other if a lot of work hadn't been done before you got here, creating English language. And spiritual language or religious expression is also a great work. done before you got here. So there's a kind of a meeting going on of you, of something rising in you, or your own

[01:27]

nature or possibilities which are brought out, developed or realized, clarified, by meeting with Zazen posture, by meeting with Buddhist logic, by meeting with teachers like Suzuki Roshi and others. And so your practice is a kind of meeting of these two, meeting of a tradition or language and meeting with you yourself. And practice takes hold for us when we begin to find ourselves experimenting with expression, how we express, and as I've said, what we don't express and what we can't express, how we acknowledge ourselves. And acknowledge is a better word than

[02:54]

Knowledge, I think. To see wisdom. Knowledge means something like to see or recognize wisdom or recognize learning or recognize understanding. So practice is two people, teacher and disciple, recognizing each other, and you recognizing yourself, and, I don't know, Dharma recognizing Dharma. So when you begin to

[04:04]

actually deal with the expressions of practice and the expressions of you yourself is when you can, experimenting with them, when you can best get free of them, when you can best see around them, experience around them. In a similar manner, Oriental culture and Buddhism is meeting Western culture. And we have to look in Western culture for the seed which is meeting the seed from the Eastern culture, just as we look in ourself for how we acknowledge knowledge in ourselves, how we find out what we already understand, or how the language of Buddhism or the posture of practice crystallizes, right, but like a lotus coming out. I'll use expression today, expressing how you are an expression of Buddha.

[05:31]

Maybe we're not ripe enough yet for Bodhidharma, not ripe enough yet for practice, to only practice like Bodhidharma. We also have to practice now like Buddhaghosa, Vasubandhu, and other scholars and teachers. And we have to practice like the last of the ten ox-herding pictures, going back into the world, just doing things with people. And we have to look at our own culture to find what In what way is it, what is it getting ready for? The West has to drop a lot of baggage, intellectual baggage, if it's going to understand Buddhism. But at the same time, there are many, many aspects of Buddhism, many aspects of Buddhism.

[07:01]

And what should we do next? What kind of practice should we do next? What are the possibilities of practice? I look for what we do next in America. I look in America for what to do. What seed is already there in America that can meet a seed? from, you know, fertilized maybe. Sometimes maybe we find male seed in the West and the egg is brought from the Orient. Sometimes egg is here and seed is brought from the Orient. reluctantly, but I almost necessarily went to hear Keith Jarrett play in Berkeley. And I did it, not to hear his music, because I can do that on a record if I want to, but in order to study him,

[08:32]

And as you must know, I feel pretty uncomfortable being away from you at all. And if I have to go, do something, then I don't mind. But I didn't have to go last night, so I felt rather uncomfortable. But at the same time, I must, you know, I felt I should go. my schedule all year round is such that I can't... I have to do things when the opportunity is there. And I want to study him, what he did, what he does, because I can learn something from him. And he doesn't get I guess he doesn't give concerts. Very rarely does he do it. And so I, anyway, went to study him. Some of you must know his music, do you? Some of you don't, anyway. I'm not concerned with whether his music is good or bad, but what he's doing, I think,

[10:03]

is similar to what we're doing or... Yes, I can say that. First of all, he has great technical ability. It's amazing. Like sports, you know, I don't know much about music either. So I'm just talking, so please be patient with me. But I'm interested in the chanting elements in his music. And what I'm talking about too, and what I'm thinking about, is when and how we'll chant more. In fact, I am trying to imagine what kind of storable... I'm very practical, you know, so I'm imagining what kind of storable little tables could be made where we could get rid of them in the corner and put them out so we could all, during a Sashim, spend a, well, maybe not a whole day, but a pretty long time with a table and books and we'd all holler and shout and read and blow incense, you know, till we were kind of falling over, you know.

[11:35]

Anyway, he has enormous technical ability. I would guess a... I mean, again, I'm just talking, but a classical pianist, you know, they... I know something, because my father was an excellent pianist, so I used to watch him. But you learn a piece of music by... usually by... there's the music and you are... you play it till you can hit all of the notes. And if it's a very complex piece, you know, you have to get so you can do it. But the pattern is established by Mozart or somebody or other, and your hands learn it. And then you learn it by repetition and by you can see the pattern and reproduce it in your hands. And of course, like, your hands have to be able to just go where they have to go. But he's doing something different. He plays without music and composes as he goes along. So, although he may be composing and doing things which are very familiar to him, still he doesn't know in advance exactly what he's going to do. He has some feeling, and as his feeling changes, and the body changes. I was watching his posture.

[13:04]

I can study his posture better than his music, because I know posture pretty well. Music, I don't know so well. And he changes his posture to change his music. So, anyway, he's formulating a pattern just by his feeling, and then that pattern has to be translated into his hands to hit the right keys. And, of course, also the pattern is influenced that he's feeling must be influenced by where his hands are, because his hands can't go from there to there. But he is simply, at some points, he's simply throwing his hands at the keyboard. I mean, I can't do it with my hands. He's just kind of going like that, and they're all hitting notes. It's quite amazing. I could no more do it than I can. Anyway, he's just literally throwing himself, and his hands are just He's not looking, he's just jumping about. He's doing something which is very interesting. Well, let me say it, I don't know how to approach all what I'm talking about. But he's doing something which is very interesting, which is, he's playing in rapport with the audience.

[14:34]

as he stated. And at the end everybody applauded and applauded and applauded and shouted. And so he played about two or three times afterward. And then they were still shouting and hollering and applauding. And he looked at them and said, you're blowing it. And they all shut up. another, the people who agreed with him started applauding. And he was right, they were blowing it. But also he set them up to blow it. Because, you know, I hate to say, I don't mean to sound critical of Keith Jarrett, I'm just studying him. And this is what I see. I don't know what he feels. I'm talking about Buddhism. Forget about him. I'm just using him as an example. But what I see is, first of all, the audience didn't come there to hear themselves played. They wanted to hear Keith Garrett. They didn't come there just to hear him mirror them in rapport.

[15:56]

And they know they've come there to be in rapport with him or something. So they're making self-conscious noises, you know, that will get on the record. You know, you can hear it. And he has kept the lights on during the first part. And he was too conscious of the audience, the first part. He waved and came in and stood around and fooled around a bit and looked at everybody and sort of waved, you know. But he obviously wanted the audience to be conscious of itself, and he must have asked that lights be on a little bit, so the audience could see each other. So he set that up, and then, in the end, all of the applause was, you know, kind of a we're-participating feeling. It was quite different than a... He's involved in training his audiences. He made some comment about shouting after dinner. You don't shout after you've had a good dinner. Somebody started shouting. He said, well, I guess I'm wrong. It was interesting because he's finding out himself what to do with the audience and he's training the audience in what way they can actually help him in his concentration.

[17:29]

Now, if you go, again, using Japan as an example, this is very developed. I mean, I've used no audiences, no play audiences as an example. The actors know exactly what they're doing and the audience knows exactly what it's doing. They don't need to be trained anymore, maybe they're over-trained. But here, he's still experimenting. Now, in the first that he played for an hour, about 45 minutes. It wasn't ... I fell asleep and it wasn't so interesting. And he was, you know, his posture was boring. And he was moving around too much. He's in a superb physical shape, you know. He'd have to be, to take some of the postures he does and to keep playing. But he was making his own mistakes, shall we say mistakes, you know, maybe a little bit off in feeling in the music and in his relationship with the audience. It's also a way of training the audience. If he didn't do that, the audience wouldn't be able to be trained. I think training the audience is very important. We're training America. When you practice, you're training America, whether you like it or not.

[19:03]

By the way, I could talk for several hours here, so you'll know when I should stop. In the second one, near the end especially, and then the two encores, kind of encores he played, he became extremely concentrated, and the audience disappeared for him. I mean, they're there, but there was no self-consciousness of the audience being there. The audience settled down, kind of honed in, and his postures became very clear. When he stood, he was standing. When he was below the keyboard, on his haunches, sort of, he was clearly there, and his back was usually straight. When he first started out, he was hunched a lot. His back and breathing changed, and his own physical concentration was immense. To be able to sustain – we're talking about pivotal thought – to be able to sustain for two hours, playing out of your own feeling, without any music, and sustain something that comes out as a continuous piece of music, he has to have

[20:36]

great concentration. And when he becomes more concentrated, his music takes on the quality of chanting. Now, there's two qualities of chanting I want to point out. And as you also know, Herbie Hancock, who's probably, I guess, usually counted with Keith Jarrett as the two greatest keyboard, piano, jazz musicians. Though neither of them are quite ... both of them have classical education, too. Herbie chants before he plays. In fact, sometimes comes over here and chants. Now, in the West I would say that Bach has a lot of chanting in him, in his music, and Beethoven has very little. Does that make sense? By chanting partly I mean repetition. And I mean that the ... well, when there's

[22:04]

I don't know how useful it is for me to get more technical, but I don't know if I quite have the vocabulary to explain what I mean. But when a piece of music, say, that somebody's written, doesn't have much chanting in it, what I mean is that it's a description, a grid or something, for the feeling or expression of the composer and the instrument and the musician. when there's chanting in it, there's more ... the music can sort of disappear and you take over. Like in the Brandenburg Concerto, there's parts where Bach just starts going, uh, [...]

[23:43]

You listen to it and it's idiotic, you know. You just took that one section and played it. That's like chanting. Chanting is a little bit idiotic like that. And when hearing Herbie chant, they get into, you know, Namu Ho Renge Kyo, Namu Ho Renge Kyo, Namu Ho Renge Kyo. Pretty soon they're picking up things like the Renge, you know, becomes Rekke, presented, Rekke, [...] R First, you know, there's an intertwining of gospel, of blues, jazz and classical. And in the overall whole, it's interesting to see that the driest is the classical, you know, kind of uninteresting. But then, when you listen over a period of time, it's the classical which has the largest definition. It's the classical which contains the other, in which he can then do some wonderful little

[25:08]

classical. While if he does blues or gospel it's more engrossing and is only itself, it's not so inclusive feeling. But he weaves these things together so you can't really say he's playing the blues. When you do that this way it's again becomes like chanting. He's not playing a piece of music so much as Okay, when you're chanting, you're just chanting over and over again, namo ho renge kyo, namo ho renge kyo, namo ho renge kyo, om mani pada niti, [...] niti

[26:11]

begins to make, like a diaphragm maybe, begins to make it breathe or comes in and out of it. So various moods and feelings, all in toning, maybe almost one syllable and one tone, change the texture or shape or something. So he's playing the blues, say, and It's, you know, that's very physical, and so he's physically doing it, you know. And then he'll suddenly just, he'll move his posture, so his body is different, and then he'll go into gospel or classical or jazz, depending on his posture. And then he'll, I watched very carefully again, and he, as soon as he'd want to shift back to a different type of music than he was just playing, he'd just change his posture, and he'd pick up just where he left off, including it. Physically, you'd think he couldn't retain it, and he'd switch his mood, not only his mood and emotions, but his whole body changes, and you'd think you'd lose it, but then suddenly he's right back.

[27:39]

So, I see what he's trying to do and the interest that the audiences have in him is very similar to, very close to practice and to the interest in Buddhism and things like Buddhism, Arika, etc. His attempt to transform ... First of all, he just takes a simple instrument. He's just got a piano up there. He hasn't got an acoustical. Isn't it great that you have to now say an acoustical piano to mean an ordinary piano, because electrical is taken for granted? To mean a non-electric piano, you have to say an acoustical piano. Anyway, he's got just an acoustical piano, a plain old piano, and himself, and his feelings, and the audience.

[28:53]

And he's not trying to play a piece of music that draws you into it. He's trying to use the instrument himself and the audience, all as before isn't right, you know, because he's on one trajectory, you know. Like I'm on one trajectory and I'm coming in here. And I'm speaking to what I feel from you, but I'm also on a trajectory, you know, started many generations ago and propelled by Suzuki Roshi. So we've come also last night to hear Keith Jarrett's trajectory, and the trajectories of the audience are meeting. And he's, I think, experimenting with that the intimacy of expression, of form, of activity, of the phenomenal world, if you like. And that just can't then be a set piece of music out there.

[30:21]

I didn't say fully what I meant there. I can't quite do it just now, so that's enough on that. Also, in the same vein, I want to mention some other things. One is Star Wars. So we're not talking about Bodhidharma, we're talking about Star Wars today. Things like a far cry maybe from Buddhism. How many of you have seen Star Wars? Already, just barely came out, already half of us. lines, if any of you have seen them, the lines are unbelievable around you, just stretching for blocks. It's one o'clock in the afternoon. Who goes to the movies at one o'clock in the afternoon? It's going to, as I said at Greenbelt, it's going to be the largest worldwide common experience other than breathing.

[31:50]

I mean, millions and millions and millions of people are going to see it. How many times have you seen it? A lot of people are going five times in one week. It's crazy because it's just a noisy piece of fluff. All the lovers of Star Wars, I'll be zapped by one of your ray guns. I enjoyed it though. It's completely corny. And it's a strange mixture. It does some of the things that Keith Jarrett does. So I don't know if you've noticed it, maybe you're not old enough, or maybe you haven't seen enough movies, but many, many old movies are entwined in it. The Wizard of Oz and the scenes from the Battle of Britain and Harpo Marx, you know,

[33:21]

all of these people are playing, it's like, it's very similar actually to Keith Jarrett bringing in gospel, gospel theme floats in and merges into jazz and then merges into classical and back. This has got all these old movies woven into it. So it's a lot like storytelling. And if you listen to that, to his music, and to, and you see this movie, as an aspect of storytelling. Or if you talk to, say, Harry about what storytelling is, the point is not to tell the story, to get the facts straight. Every storyteller changes it, makes it new, it should be new. The point is to get the feelings straight. So the story develops and changes. And we can talk, recently I had a discussion with Gary Snyder and some other people about myths like a lizard swallowing the sun, do they really think? And someone who's there said, well, I really believe that Adam and Eve ate the apple and the snake did, until a while ago. Then we can talk about Buddha and Bodhisattvas, why we carve Buddhas

[34:48]

the role of storytelling as within a language, where you develop themes and then you use those themes and how we get toward essential themes. So you go, shift from Shakyamuni Buddha to Bodhisattvas pretty rapidly. So Star Wars is kind of a mishmash of a lot of movies twined together. In addition, it's, you know, I would say what I don't like about it is how high the ante is up in it. If you just close your eyes and go to that movie, it's a total auditory barrage, assault on you, you know. It's noise constantly. I think Dan's child, Joanna, she was just

[36:00]

the sheer volume, it's like going to a rock concert, Led Zeppelin or something. I mean, it just bombards you. And then they're not just killing people, they're blowing up whole planets. I mean, as you may have noticed recently, the movies are full of disasters. I mean, trains barreling into Grand Central Station and the building tumbling down, you know, skyscrapers burning. What's this one with a bomb or dirigible that crashes into a stadium? I mean, the ante is so up, you know, that the sound has to be accompanied. part that lagged in Star Wars is when they're in the garbage disposal unit and the walls are coming in on them, you know. I mean, they're, they're being crushed and there's some, they're in the slime, there's some kind of monster. Now this is the slow moment. A computer, they have a little friendly computer who's sort of trying to find out how to stop the walls and they're talking to it.

[37:21]

You know, some people drifted off to sleep, while the noise is still tremendous all the time. So that this noise and then they're blowing up, you know, they just, they have this little gun that knocks out whole planets, you know, there's always people and trees and they go pop and the planet goes pop. So the ante is very high, you know. So there's sort of two themes in the movie which are interesting and contradictory. One is barrage you, so you don't, you know, there's not a moment for you to do anything but respond to all this flashing lights and explosions and noise. And the other is the relationship of disciple and teacher. And the only plot in the movie is the conveyance of wisdom from disciple, from teacher to disciple. I think that's remarkable, that it's like the Kung Fu series, which parallel, you know, Milarepa meeting the Bon Priest, or the half-Chinese Zenny, you know, Kung Fu artist meeting the drunken Western Christian cowboys, and always winning. That's amazing that American advertisers will pay for that. It means some change is occurring in America, the Age of Aquarius.

[38:50]

By the way, I'm not exactly really making fun of the Age of Aquarius, it's just there's no reason to depend on it. You've got to do it, you know, can't wait for the Age of Aquarius to carry us along. So there's this popular theme teacher and disciple and and there's some interesting things like he Both of you haven't seen a movie. I shouldn't tell you I guess but The way he does it is pretty accurate, you know And The great the force and that they call it the force the force The force I mean some kind of thing energy field or And I suppose that that's a screenwriter's version of Buddha nature or, you know, something like that. So, at the same time as they couched this, they tried to make a movie with as much technology and charming machines and noise as machinery and theatres and speakers can do.

[40:21]

to get you physically involved. At the same time, the only plot of the movie is the disciple-teacher relationship, and the real hero of the movie is the Force, the enlightenment of something. And this movie is going to be seen with this double message by, I suppose, more people than anything that's ever happened on the planet before. Very strange. And what's stranger too is that it's not just in the movies, this idea of the force, but as you may know, the Russians are actually trying to do it. Russians, you know, I'm talking about...

[41:32]

I'm talking about America, you know, and the world, and Buddhism and stuff like that. But the Russians are spending a lot of money on parapsychological research, and as you know, they beamed microwaves at the embassy in Russia, in Moscow, the US embassy, and I believe Everybody thinks as a result of that. Two young children, both cut cancer, and the ambassador's eye began to bleed. And the Russians, they made a big protest, and the Russians claimed they weren't doing it, and yet the microwave stopped. But they're also beaming in a different way at the American embassy and at American leaders. I guess what it's called is bioentrainment. I think that's the word. But it means that as a woman's period, it's related to the moon and such like, and I think they now think that the alpha rhythms of your brain are related to the alpha in the sun. Anyway, there's a physiological, metabolic relationship of your body to the environment.

[42:57]

I mean, Ben would say roughly the same thing, even though that's a scientist's version, like a screenwriter's version. And your health and vitality has to do with the enhancement or integration of both rhythms. So what they're trying to do is train people to affect the rhythms, a particular organ of another person at a distance. I mean, they're really seriously doing this. And now I guess the U.S. is getting worried that some portion of the Russian scientific community sort of poo-poos it, and in this country a very large portion of the scientific community does. But I believe recently the U.S. government has begun, through as much as I'm told, untraceable money, Defense Department at Stanford Research Institute and other places, training or experimenting with parapsychology to see if it can be used as a weapon of war. Really it's far out, isn't it? It's like the British trying to train dolphins once they found out they were smart to carry torpedoes. So now they're trying to use parapsychology

[44:24]

as a weapon of war. And a very close friend of mine did an experiment in the early 70s with the leading Russian PSP person, and he's been to Russia and talked with a lot of these people, and they were going to send a communication every day for a week or something like that, and none of them came across except the first one. And this friend of mine looked at a took a wooden elephant. When he was in Russia they agreed and then they came back. When he got back each day at a point in time he thought very concentratedly and the first day he concentrated very hard on a wooden elephant, a toy wooden elephant, and he got back a letter in Russian in a little while which said what he saw was a object round at one end with a movable eyedropper at the other end made of wood. Pretty good. So because of that kind of thing and because of people interested in that kind of thing, or they know somebody who seems to have a believable story about it, there's enough interest now that there's actually... the government is supporting it, you know, the force, they're funding the force.

[45:49]

And I brought something too, another example. How are your legs doing? Pretty good. Well, Gregory Bateson wrote me the other day. I don't think I can go, I won't be around, but he wants me to come to a meeting called Mind and Nature with himself You know who he is? He used to be married to Margaret Mead and wrote Steps Between Colors, do you mind? And David Finkelstein, who's at Yeshiva University and is one of the top two or three physicists in the world, I guess. His papers are supposedly so complex they can't find readers for them. By the way, a reader is, when you publish an abstruse paper in science that has a very limited audience because it's so abstruse, you find somebody who's your peer in the world who reads it and comments on it. Otherwise, you could write a paper and no one understands it, it could be gobbledygook, right? You have to find one other person who can understand it and will then comment on it who has a decent reputation. For his papers, there's only one or two people at all in Europe who can comment on what he writes.

[47:32]

And Francisco Varela is another person who's coming. There's about two, four, six, eight people. And Varela is a very interesting man. He was here a while ago. Some of you met him. He was Allende's assistant. And he was an associate of Allende up until the time he was killed and overthrown. And he's a bio... biochemist of brain chemistry and neurologist, maybe. Maybe he's a neurologist and a cybernetician. Very, very nice guy. Anyway, they want me to be concerned with things like mind and mental, circular and recursive, chains of determination, the availability of collateral energy at many steps in these chains. When A causes B, where does the energy come from? Is it triggered by a difference? How do you describe things like this so there's no mind-body dualism? And how do you describe things so there's no environment? Well, you know, these guys are pretty smart and I guess they want me to come because I represent a tradition of being concerned with mind. What is mind and how does the mind work?

[49:03]

One or two more examples. A man named McAbee, who interests me, and Illich in the same way, Ivan Illich. McAbee is working with how you organise a group of people who own a company, employees. And this also, I think, is very important because how our society is – and I'm running out of time, so I can't go into much detail, you know – but how our society is and the degree of participation we have in our society is, if many people are going to understand Buddhism, they have to have a life in which they can participate in So the move toward a life in which there's more participation, corporation, government, whatever, in which there's more participation, the interest in that leads those people to study Buddhism, because of Sangha and because of all kinds of things, and to come to me as the target. I'm just a target. I'm Sun Center's visible target.

[50:34]

and ask me, you know, about it. And at the same time, we can see – you who work in the bakery or the greengrocer, or however you work – we can see in the bakery, as an example, the bakery is very successful. And it's successful not because its products are so great, though they're pretty good, but because we have a different attitude about what a human being is who walks in the door. and what we are doing there, and what the nature of the work is. And all of that has to do with All of those are ways our society is speaking to us, you know, is asking for Buddhism or practice. And so you can find out how to practice and what your practice should be, not just by looking at sutras, maybe more accurately by studying your own life and studying the life of people around you.

[51:59]

studying just what happens where you work and what people do, and also what musicians are doing, what movies are doing. It doesn't have to be some kind of just non-Buddhist, you know, you can't go to a movie anymore and escape from practice, you know, on Friday night. Not this Friday night anyway, but Saturday night. Because we find everything, many, many things at least, particularly some of the more prominent, like Star Wars, talking to us about exploring, in much the same way Keith Jarrett is, what is expression, what is Buddhism, what is enlightenment, what is the relationship between people. And asking what is the relationship between people, in a way very similar to the way we find that to be in practice. Now, I'm talking about environment in another way, too, which I'll just give you, since it's taken so long, a feeling for what I... maybe I'll talk about a little more later. You and all have seen those flip-flop visual puzzles.

[53:29]

you know, or drawings, where it looks like a face with one eye, and then another eye looks like two faces facing, and then another way it looks like a vase. Or it's a cube, and the cube is either going this way or it's going that way, and flip-flops. This is a foreground-background play. or a positive-negative negative space and positive space. And what's interesting is when we see a person, when you see a person, when you see them primarily as foreground and there isn't much background. Well, let's put it this way. if I drew something and I draw this shape, but the feeling is I drew the shape from here, from outside, right? That's one way, right? If the feeling, if you look at the shape, is I drew it from inside, this way, so there's a feeling of it going this way, even though the shape is the same. There could be such a thing, right? Can you imagine such a thing?

[54:56]

a person who... You can see a person who's had a Kensho or Satori experience by such a difference. They'll look the same way, they'll walk, talk, sit the same way, and if you look at them next to another person, it's the same outline, but one, the outline feels like it goes this way, and the other outline feels like it goes this way. or it's very much like the foreground-background. And I'm making... I'm only doing this not to make you go around looking at everybody, see which way they put you on. I'm just trying to give you a feeling for something quite subtle. But shall we say, and this is ridiculous, you know, but shall we say pre-Kensho? It isn't such a thing. Let's say pre-Kensho.

[56:02]

What you see is a foreground, and the background is gone. When you post... turn that to... I don't want to ever be quoted. My teachers in Japan will disown me. PK. You get a bottle of it. Anyway, post-Kensho, the foreground disappears and the background appears. The other way, the background is dead, it almost doesn't exist, what you experience is the foreground always. But a person who's had some Kensho experience, they literally bring the background to life. When they're around you, you will feel the background, you'll hear it, you'll hear the environment. They won't be so prominent as that they'll bring the background to life. And it's as subtle as those things, you know. They're the same thing, but one way it looks that way, one way it looks the other. Very hard to see any difference, but there's that kind of difference. So by our practice here, you know, we're bringing the environment to life in America.

[57:34]

least the environment which is conducive to Buddhism. And we're practicing here because of those things in our own culture, you know, people doing things. Coming up, like your own nature coming up, which meets the expression of posture or sutras, practice in all its forms. So you are again I was saying yesterday, you're on a trajectory or an expression which is meeting the expression of other people and bringing out the expression of yourself and the expression of other people. Just like, very similar to Keith Jarrett, experimenting with what is the audience, how does the music flow in and out of him? I mean, the music when he plays disappears back into him. So it's not blues he's playing anymore, you can't say it's blues, because it's something that is so obviously arising, it brings you back into yourself. In, out, you know, there's not the same boundaries there. And you can find that in your practice, a kind of humming or chanting, or in chanting.

[59:01]

that as you get more concentrated and your posture gets more focused and clear. There's a cat at Tathagata called Docho, because Docho is my title, you know, means head of this place. Tassajara, the dojo's place in the zendo, this one cat would always go and sit there, so he came to be known as Dojo. All I've been trying to do today is alert you to look around you like you are seeing your own stomach, seeing your own sounds, hearing your own sounds, seeing yourself. And buy those seeds, finding out how to practice, what practice is required of you.

[60:32]

Letting the background come to life for you.

[60:53]

@Transcribed_v004L
@Text_v005
@Score_27.08