Welcome. It's my honor and delight to introduce Brother David. He and I have been teaching this workshop for a while. Not just this year, but many of you. On the spirit of practice, Brother David. As we before. more than half a century. But much more notable is his omnivorous relationship to spirituality. He has explored in depth and of appreciation so many traditions. So we come together once a year and we explore Zen Christianity. Rabbi David has one of the highest accolades you could have in Zen, is that he has a reputation of being a very good dishwater.

[01:08]

He came here and practiced here, one of the practice periods, and the word on him was, he's good worship dishes. In the Zen world, that's fruit growth. Basically, we'd like to talk about the interface between spirituality and different traditions. And it was brought to my attention to just to note the tragedy in Orlando. And maybe as we note the tragedy in Orlando, we can also note the tragedy in Dantad. the tragedy in Syria, the tragedy in so many countries and cities in Africa. These things have become death, the shootings in different places. These things have become our everyday effect.

[02:14]

How they break our hearts, how they open our hearts, and how they cause us to wonder How do we live in such a world? How can we live in such a world? So not so much that we want to address, maybe we want to address that question, rather than talk specifically about one of those tragedies. I'd like to start by reading a couple of poems. I was asked as the dealer saying there weren't enough poems. I didn't tell the person they could find. He never had it in my mind. First of all, I'm going to read one. Brother Davey's going to read one. This copy, it's, I think, Mary Oliver's the summer says, and I think probably at least half the group he had searched for. But he would read that for the first summer.

[03:21]

The summer did. Who made the world? Who made the swan and black bear? Who made the grasshopper? Who is in this world? The grasshopper, this grasshopper I mean, the one who flung herself out of the grass, the one who is eating sugar out of my hand, is moving her jaws back and forth instead of up without, who is gazing around with her enormous and complicated eyes. We ask any answer in exquisite particularity. Now, she lifts her few forearms and thoroughly washes her face. Now, she snaps her wings open and flies away, and flows away. What could be more split?

[04:25]

I don't know exactly what there is. We need the word just as it is and it does something to us. It instructs us in a way beyond ideas. It asks something of us. But we often don't know exactly what we're being asked. I don't know exactly what there is. I do know how to pretend, how to fall down into the grass, how to kneel down in the grass, how to be idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields, which is what I've been doing all day. We enter into what is, and we give ourselves over to its blessing. being idle and blessed, how to stroll through the fields, which is what I need doing all day.

[05:35]

Tell me, what else should I do? Doesn't everything die to get lost and too soon? Tell me, what is it you plan to do with your wild wild? in our hearts, in our minds, open in our lives, in grace for what sins. Thank you. Thank you, Paul. We chose to talk about this topic because we have found over the years, but more and more so, that we agree that As human beings, we are confronted with that great mystery.

[06:39]

And Mary Oliver sees it in one glass hopper. Anything that we just look at opens up to dimensions which you cannot feather. And that unfathomable is what we call the mystery. That we find that as humans, We have to interpret that mystery. That is, so to say, our task as humans. And when I say mystery, we mean something very specific, and namely that which you cannot grasp, which you cannot let you grasp or put into concepts, but which you can understand. There's a great difference between grasping and understanding. You understand it when it grabs you. My favorite image is music, or experience is music.

[07:45]

When you hear music, and you really like it, but you can never explain anything about it. There's nothing you can tell. It may be interesting if you wrote in what time and what style and so on, but that doesn't touch your music at all. That music goes beyond words, and you can say, I understand it when it does something to you, when it touches you, when it cramps you. That is true of life. You cannot put the life into concepts. But, of course, you understand it moment by moment as you live it. And that is what the poem, short poem, speaks about that I wanted to share with you. It's about that same mystery that Mariela sees in the grasshopper.

[08:49]

And one of a sudden she talks about prayer. I don't know what prayer is, but I know how to fall down on my knees and how to stroll through the kids. And what are you going to do with your one precious life? How are you going to encounter the mystery? And Wilke writes about it in a short poem, late poem in his life, which he calls a scroll. We talk about the path of life. but in it, in the few lines, he speaks about nothing but that great mystery. Unfortunately, as you all know, poetry is that which gets lost in translation, so this is very poetic, the way I read it to you, but in this case, the most important thing is that

[09:53]

for the thoughts that he has here in the images. And maybe there are a few of you who speak German, I mean, afterwards we decided in German. So it starts with an image. My eyes are on the hill that's in the sun. Ahead of my path, which I have barely started. This is the whole image. These thoughts are not on thoughts, obviously still in the mornings here in the top, but the sun is already on the hill. And then immediately jumps to a setting, in that same way, that which we cannot grasp takes hold of us, a radiant from afar. It's like we saw a hill, that which we cannot grasp, takes hold of us from afar and this radiant.

[10:58]

And it changes us, transforms us, although we cannot grasp it, into that which barely aware of we are. It grabs this mysterious something, grabs us from afar takes over us and transforms us in that which we are, although we barely know it. And then, the last lines, a signal, the breeze carries a signal responding to our signal, but all we know is the head wind. Everything, even the dream that we encounter, there's an encounter with that which we ultimately cannot grasp, but we want to understand, we long to understand it.

[12:03]

It's the one thing that we want to do with our one precious life. So I really want to learn my... and then I read it in my little passage. I was a spaziergang. Schon is my blick am blick in the front, the way, the way I came began, forward. So fasst uns das, was wir nicht fassen konnten, forder Erscheinung aus der Ferne an und wandelt uns in jenes, das wir kaum des Ahnen sind. Ein Zeichen weh erwidert unser Zeichen, wir aber spüren nur den Gegenfried. My eyes are on the hill, the sunshine, ahead of the path which I just started.

[13:08]

Thus, that which we cannot grasp, takes hold of us gradient from afar, and changes, transforms us, although we cannot grasp this, into that which, partly not aware of it, we are. The breeze carries a signal that responds to our signal, but all we are aware of is hatred. so this is basically what we wanted to present to you and now we are open to your questions and you don't have to stick with the topic you think because under this topic everything thinks so what would you say well Christian

[14:10]

And Zen and Buddhism, they invite us into the now. And the now is beyond the ideas and understandings that we give. And it says, when the self goes forward and gives it a name, that's the move. When it comes forward and owns you, grabs you that's awake and and and that which grabs us as it's all particular it's the grasshopper it's the sign of the evening crickets it's the the very vision that's in front of your eyes the sensations in your body it's always there and we experience it as a head with It's searching for something different.

[15:18]

How mysterious. And all the great questions that move us in life, personal questions and questions about the world situation and all the different great aspects, all that we can only meet In this present moment where we are, we have all these ideas of what should happen and so forth. It might be alright, but all I can do is in this present moment do what life offers me the opportunity for. And that's my contribution and that's at the same time my encounter with the great mystery of life. And then we can pick up the tradition. We can call it Zen. We can call it Christianity. We can call it Islam. We can call it whatever we wish.

[16:22]

And it has its particularity. And even though it has its sacredness and its profound teachings, still, how do we hold it? How do we relate to it in a way that it illuminates and awakens rather than sort of lodes us into conformity. And when you compare the Buddhist tradition to the Christian tradition, we are in a situation in which anybody who has heard and come in contact with Buddhism has come in contact with the finest tradition in this country. And if you go to other countries, you find the same kind of popular version of Buddhism, like you find here, popular versions of Christianity. And one of the, I think very few people in the Far Eastman have as clear a notion about Zen and Buddhism as they have here at Asara.

[17:40]

But in the same way, the people here, you kind of suppose that they're really ready to talk about this, especially the Christians. They will have all the farmers and the teachers and the kids and all, and they're really encouraged to read this mystery head on, although it's already the Christian tradition. My favorite sentence is the preaching of St. Paul when he talks to the Greeks. So he's not talking to converted Christians, but he's just talking as a human being to human beings. And he says, didn't your poems already tell you all you need to know about God? He's crying in the poems, poets. And he says, your poets have said, in God we live and move and have our beings. somewhere over there, separately.

[18:46]

In God's level, we live in the mystery. Okay, that's just some questions. Do you think there are any Do you think there are any doctrines in Christianity and doctrines in Zen that are mutually exclusive? Do you think there are any doctrines in Christianity and doctrines in Zen that are mutually exclusive? Exclusive? Yes. We haven't found it yet, have you? We haven't found it. I remember several years ago someone said to us, well, how do you negotiate your differences? And I said, we haven't found it. I think... Maybe that's what keeps us having this workshop every year, is that the more we listen to each other, the more we see them as utterly compatible and simply trying to talk about the same thing.

[19:59]

Although we do see great differences in expression, for instance. In the library, I read an essay by Robert Haas, who was the poet, Lord of the United States, and Pulitzer Prize winning poet. And I'm going to read you a sentence and ask you to comment on it. He said, one of the most striking differences between Christianity and Buddhist thought is that in the Christian sense of things, nature is fallen, and in the Buddhist sense, it isn't. And I just was wondering if you would see interested in commenting on that. Shall I read it? Yeah, I will read it.

[21:02]

One of the striking differences between Christian and Buddhist thought is that in the Christian sense, in the Christian sense of things, nature is fallen and in the Buddhist sense it isn't. In the Buddhist sense, in the Christian sense it has fallen and in the Buddhist sense it isn't. Jesus said nothing about that. In the course of the Christian tradition, there were many different sects that brought on their own ideas. And one of the very strong sects very early on in the first were the Manichaeans.

[22:08]

And the Manichaeans didn't get that out of Christianity. They were Christians, but their philosophy came from actually probably completely different sources. And for them, anything that had to do with mind was positive, and anything that had to do with body was negative. like many other Greek philosophers, they thought of our minds being kind of caught in this trap of the body, and they didn't like the body at all. And so it was foreign, worse than foreign, it was just evil. And St. Augustine, was first a Manicheer. He lived to turn from the 5th to the 6th century.

[23:12]

And for a long time as a young man, he was a Manicheer. Then he became a Catholic Christian and a great teacher, a great also in the sense that he influenced the tradition for many, many centuries, actually, in some respects, until the present day. But he never completely outgrew some of these Meritean misunderstandings. And so it gave very many good positive things to the tradition, but also saddled us, for instance, with the notion of original sin. That from the beginning, everything is done. That was his invention, so to say, his interpretation of what has happened. And that is just one strand, but in this case a very strong one, in the Christian tradition, but it is a matter of interpretation.

[24:15]

And that can be changed, and that does change. And Matthew Fox, I'm sure, Matthew Fox, Dominican of about a century, 20th century and now, he replaces the notion of original sin with original blessing. He wrote the books, original blessing. So this is an equally valid, and for most people today, much more acceptable notion of what creation is all about. One has to very carefully distinguish between tradition. This is correct. The statement is correct that you read. a very large part of the Christian tradition, but it's not essential to it, and in fact, there are many other Christians who see it simply as a misinterpretation and reinterpretation.

[25:21]

I don't know if you have something like that in Buddhism, where you get on the wrong track and then somebody brings it back on the right track. What is the tradition? You can look at the Buddhist tradition as best we can, you know, looking at the early teachings of Shakyamuni Buddha, and things like, it gave a particular definition of karma, which is in contrast to the existing one. The existing one was that karma is something you do, and it's either bodily, it's positive or negative, and you're building up a bank account of good karma or a deficit of bad karma. And then there comes a time when you've got a cellular account. And so that's the tradition we commit to. And he said, no, karma is simply causing a fact. It's the very fact that this is almost like a scientific statement.

[26:24]

This is a causal, consequential event. Something happens, it has a consequence. And that's it. And then, within a couple of centuries, things started to go back to the old definition of karma. And now in most Buddhist countries in Asia, that would be more the abiding consideration. Especially in somewhere like India. That's very parallel. Yes. One would expect that, that traditions go like that. Yes. Which has the advantage that you look in the tradition, that's perfectly legitimate, you look within the tradition for the things that you like and that you offer. If you don't like it, you can change it. You're a part of that type.

[27:27]

You receive and you have your part of that, so you might as well. For instance, in the Bible also, we have, in the Hebrew Bible and in the Gitlam, we have very different currents. This isn't one book, it sort of tells you the story. It's the quality of how people have in different centuries dealt with that mystery. You have the prophetic tradition that is very much egalitarian and for the poor, and then you have the priestly tradition that is for the king and kingship and rituals. People choose between them, can choose. David, I'm going to probably get this quote wrong, but maybe you can correct me and answer my question.

[28:31]

Can you stand up and speak as loud as you might? There's a quote, and I'm probably going to get it wrong because I'm not a Christian, but by Christ that said something like, I am God, annoyed me, or crucified me. Something like that. Christ said... I am God, anoint me a crucified. I may have the quote wrong, but is he saying that, are you saying, I'm trying to wrap my head around your poems, and are you saying, first, can you say the quote correctly, and second, can you explain what he meant by that, and third, can you, Did it have something to do with the poem about just being, and that's when you're God, like when you're in God, you're experiencing God, like with the grasshopper?

[29:39]

Can you just explain it? I said already that you have to know what kind of book you're reading and where it comes from. And so you have the three Gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke who also proclaim the good news. They are not history books, but they proclaim the good news. But they tell the story a little closer to what we would nowadays call history. And then you have the Gospel of John, that has a little bit of a historic frame, but is a theology book. And so most of the statements that speak of Jesus or put into his mouth, not falsifying it, but theologizing about it, put in his mouth statements like, I am divine, not including anybody else for that.

[30:50]

Most of this you find in the Gospel quote to John. In the Gospel, for instance, of Matthew, you find that somebody says to Jesus, good master, tell me what I want to do. And he says, don't call me good. One alone is good. God alone is good. So they wouldn't have put that in if it hadn't. more or less occur, maybe not exactly that very, because this is not something that they invented, they didn't like it, but they wrote it down. So you have on the one hand something a little closer to the historic Jesus, who is simply a Jew of his time and would never identify with God, but deep down we all know we are children of God, son of God. Son of God was originally Adam in the Hebrew Bible, Adam the son of God, meaning alive with the life of mystery, alive with God's life breath at the same time, little clay figure in time and space and alive with that mystery.

[32:07]

So One has to also be very careful where this comes from. But Jesus went around and called himself God that is historically simply neither possible nor anywhere suggested that that actually happened. But later on, the people saw more and more how this mystery shines through him. There are no people through whom this mystery shines into me. One of the people who know the most strong influence is not a llama. That's why you feel good with him. It's not this awe-inspiring figure. You're awe-inspiring, but nothing distant. You can't feel like a family. And something like that must have been also the case with Jesus. And then you take this, yes, he's divine, but so are we all. That's what it means to be a human being.

[33:10]

You'll be participating in that mystery. And that is a great contribution if you read it correctly. And the moment you introduce exclusiveness in any tradition, you're on the wrong track. Because the mystery is not exclusive. It's always all inclusive. Does that answer a little bit of your question? Yes, yes. So pass. Just a quick question. Do you have any other real quick forms that are your favorites? Do you have any other favorite real quick forms? Yes, he does. Hundreds. Hundreds. I think, like, maybe everyone can hear, probably appreciate that, like, non-exclusivity of religious and religious traditions.

[34:11]

And also like the thought that I'm about to express is kind of thinking back and forth of what you said earlier about how you guys didn't find any differences from in response to that question that was asked earlier. But what about like when going out into the world and navigating and interacting with other people of these traditions and whether the distinction is like an illusion or not, like, do you have any advice for kind of building bridges and kind of connecting for Just in a practical way, like not dealing as a problem, but if you see what I'm saying. So when you might say to each other, or we don't have differences, then our traditions, you know, when we go right into that world and we lead, oh, here's the norm within the tradition. Any suggestions about how to navigate that or how to relate them? The one good answer is, Diplomatico.

[35:19]

In our workshop today, one of the things we were talking about is that all the traditions point us towards the Miscope. And then each of them has their own imagery and their own name. And so that's just one particular word. And then out of that manifests myriad expressions of being. And the realization and the engagement of the realization is all inclusive. when we run into any particular expression of our religion or anything else, even if that expression is, well, you speak the word of the devil, something like that, even that we can reach to for engagement.

[36:39]

How is this person seeing me that they consider what I say, how I am, as the antithesis of what they hold up as virtues? Can we have that all bracing? The word Catholic, actually, It means universal, it's all-embracing. But then you could rightly pull out certain Catholic teachings and say, now this is quite explosive. Or if someone said to me, well, if you don't return to Catholicism, you will go to hell. But how do we reach our brother and say, okay, well then, right back at you. I think there are several steps that we have to do, both of us.

[37:52]

One is we have to really understand our tradition, because when we speak here, for instance, in front of you, and you are not interested in what Paul believes privately or what I believe privately, what we represent to traditions. So we have to really know what these traditions are and want to be faithful to them. Then the next step is that you express it in your own words and because otherwise you're just always saying the same thing over and over again. Unfortunately, many teachers who simply repeat what they have heard and that's not wrong, but is not really tradition that develops and unfolds creatively. So you try to say if your own words and the words that the hearers can understand what it really means and not simply repeat. That's the next step. And then when the authorities hear that,

[38:58]

if they have a little bit of goodwill, they ought to hear, yes, it is the tradition in an unusual way expressed. Like a friend of mine asked a bishop what he thought about the book I wrote about the Catholic faith, and he said, well, I would have said it differently. Of course, that's very good. But he said, But I had no thought before. It doesn't matter what to do. You shouldn't be able to find thoughts, but it should also be something new. You said that we're all manifestations of the divine. And I'm imagining that what you mean is that we are all a manifestation of divine spirit or God.

[40:02]

And I wonder, what is God? What you said about mystery, that which you cannot grasp beyond your intellectual grasp, but you can understand it by living it, by being in it, living it, That is what some people call God, those who use the term correctly. Originally, the term God meant that which is called upon, that which is called upon. Linguistically, that's what it originally meant. So it stresses a very important aspect of this mystery that even though you are it, you can still have a relationship to it. The last and deepest thing is that relationship. Do you think it's some form of consciousness or is it?

[41:07]

The relationship? No, God. I always suggest that think when you say mystery, think simply of life. That is how we experience history, life. St. Paul says in God we live and move and have all be. So that's how we experience what God is in life. In living our lives in God, it's difficult, it's and so forth. As something which we can never grasp, and yet we have to understand it, we come to understand it. And that is our relationship to God, to women. But please, uh, stick with it if you're out with one push, don't bother too. Okay. Hi, my name is Bill. Uh, I was, uh, raised Christian. Can't hear you.

[42:10]

Go ahead. Can't hear you can't. No, come here. Sit up. Okay. Okay. Go ahead. Just sit. Okay. No, um. So I was raised Christian, but I've been following a Buddhist path for like 15 or so years. And so having the two of you up here, it's really interesting to me to feel what's coming up like a younger part of myself. I don't know anything about your brother David, but if there's something really deep coming up in your presence, I feel what it is is what I've never really felt in Buddhism is some kind of contact with my heart, that there's some heart opening. And while I've been really appreciative of the Buddhist path with establishing equanimity and feeling like a calming of neurotic patterns, it's really intriguing for me to

[43:18]

feel this sense of love which I feel is the Christian path so I don't necessarily have a question about that but if you have any thoughts about where in Buddhism where do those two strengths come together as far as Lewis ain't having grown on Christian. I'm going to speak to you. [...] Shut up. I don't think it's very difficult.

[44:20]

That's the house opening in the room. I'll just have this open. Okay. I just told you, thank you. No, no, I just told you, thank you. I just told you, thank you. I think one part that's significant is referencing your own experience. You know? You know, this is saying in Zen, where we said, this very mind is Buddha. But really, we're also saying, this very heart is Buddha. This very being is Buddha. and that we reference what happens here.

[45:25]

And that's our resource. That's what we can speak with authority about. We can speak about that authority. My experience as best that I've experienced, you can attend to it, is this. And then it's helpful for us to not say, And because I have this experience, this tradition is this or this tradition is not this. And I appreciate the way you did that. I do think that in very broad terms, there is truth in what to say. It's not the whole picture, but I do think that equinevity is held in high escape. in the Buddhist tradition. As equanimity matures, so to speak, it's not simply a pervasively neutral experience.

[46:37]

It becomes more inclusive. You know, we could say, how can we include the whole range of the human experience, with that sense of balance, with that sense of inclusion. How can it be that I open my heart for this, but not for that? How can it be I open my heart for this, I open my heart for that? And that, I would say, the right-binding process of losing. And that's one of the ways I heard, I can't remember where I heard it, but one of Suzuki Roshi's students asked him something like, well, how do you know that we're progressing? And Suzuki Roshi said, I look at the way we treat each other.

[47:41]

And to be that speaks to that inclusion. What do we manifest in? And I do think it is the formidable nature of being able to sit and stay present does initially have an integrity quality for many people. As we become accustomed to that, there's a flowering and a ripening. That's also the initial part. It also has a lot of healing. The heart is wounded. There is fear. There is resentment. There is hopelessness. As we heal, we flower. As we flower, we heal. And that inclination... It just happens, so it's... Would you be surprised to even say that the flowering and fruit bearing of equanimity is compassion?

[48:55]

Yes, I would. And then that's what we need, love and compassion. Yes. Okay, one last quick question. Okay. Okay. I question a book from the Bible in John 3 16 and for God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son for the forgiveness of sins and I just want to know how you comprehend that and how you would talk about that The first thing you remember, that is in the Gospel of John, and so it is a theological statement. Nothing wrong with it, very early theological statement, but it's interpretation.

[49:59]

And what did they try to interpret? They tried to interpret that Jesus was crucified. This was a great teacher, a very young teacher, and then he's crucified, and crucified as a revolutionary. This is perfectly clearly established today by any Catholic Protestant, Jewish, and Gnostic scholar would all agree that he was not crucified because he claimed to be the son of God. He didn't claim it, and secondly, that would not have been a cause for crucifixion. A cause for crucifixion were only two reasons either revolution or runaway slaves. Those were, crucifixion was for people who undermined the social orders deeply and that was slaves running away because slavery, everything depended on slavery or revolution in one form or the other.

[51:08]

And Jesus was a revolutionary. very much in the same sense in which the Dalai Lama says, what we need is a revolution, but a revolution that is so revolutionary that it revolutionizes the notion of revolution. It's not just that those who were on the bottom now get to the top and do the things that the others did before, but that this whole power pyramid is a rebel, and that instead of a pyramid, we have a network. And interestingly, that is the original Sangha, and that is the original community that Jesus founded. It was very revolutionary in his time, and he was crucified as a revolutionary. So now his disciples have to interpret that somewhat, because crucifixion also meant for the Jews that he was not one of none.

[52:13]

It says in the Bible, one who hangs on a tree and that refers to hanging or crucifying is condemned by God. So it appeared to me that this happened. He died and God left him there. And then comes some experience, which we cannot reconstruct, but we have, we have some indications what might have happened there, but something happened that made them wonder if he is not alive. And so they said, He rose from the dead, and then he had visions. The grave was empty. That seems to be, of course, a fact.

[53:15]

Not all scholars agree on that, but the better part agrees that the grave was empty because we read psychologically something for this frightened little group to say maybe something is positive. So the grave is empty. And there's a book out, a new book, which I recommend to you. It's called The Rainbow Body and the Resurrection. So this is the connection. Francis Tissot, Rainbow Body and Resurrection. So something happened, and now they have to interpret it. And the first interpretation of the resurrection was his life is hidden in God. He's alive. because resurrection meant for his disciples that God has approved of it. And before that, we thought when somebody is crucified, that means God doesn't approve.

[54:20]

So this was the important term. And once we felt God has approved of him, it was much more important than our... imagination that he was dead and now he's running around again. He had visions, this thing that clearly has visions, and they spoke of it as visions, but very important visions of seeing him and dealing with him, eating even with him, and so forth. And then they started interpreting what happened here really. And one of the interpretations was that just as a sacrificial animal, they were very familiar with the idea of a sacrificial animal, and it is killed, and then it's burned, and it disappears, and the smoke goes up, and so they compared it, and they do it to please God. And so they compared it with the sacrifice. And so then came this interpretation,

[55:23]

Jesus was in some way sacrificed. And among the many other ways in which he's interpreted the resurrection, he has conquered death, he has brought peace to the whole world, those who were opposite to our world, many, many other interpretations. This one, that he died, and then died for our sins, first of all, it's got so much emphasis only about a thousand years after there were scenes for it but really in the 11th century it started to be so prominent and that conquered all the other interpretations so nowadays most people have no other idea it's a very vague and very misleading idea why would God want to Now, Axel of Canterbury said, because sin offends God, and so this offense has to be made good, and for such a great offense, the one who offended has to die.

[56:41]

But no human being is worthy to be... This is good enough, so it has to be God himself who has to die, and that is Jesus as God, and man has to die. It was a very, very complicated theologics, but for the people in the 12th century, for the knights, for the sense of honor, it made a great deal of sense, and for them, it was perfectly acceptable. To drag it on into the 21st century, which is absolutely unacceptable. But there are many other good interpretations for it. Because very tough people, they genuinely could enter it. We can't anymore. For us, it is a barrier for most people. The biggest barrier, why we found this into the sun and all this. It was an interpretation.

[57:43]

We don't have to accept it. But the beauty behind that passage, and it is very often told, God so loved the world that God gave his only son to God. It is a very beautiful concept. You don't have to weigh it down with all these other interpretations. God loves each one of us so that God dies when any human being dies. And especially when somebody like Martin Luther King or Gandhi dies for a cause which Jesus did. That's a beautiful thing. That whole mystery is behind it. And so to say God, named for the mystery, suffers with it. And suffers as a father or mother would suffer when the old child is killed. So that's something very beautiful there. But we have to be careful to take the misinterpretations out of it that in the course of history, way down and wrong, really, outcome is good.

[58:51]

Does that help a little bit? Maybe we can also privately talk more about that. Thank you. So, maybe one question about that. The annual has been saving me for the last 15 minutes. Two words. Two words about the same. The Greek Paradox. Being everything and being nothing simultaneously. Thank you very much.

[59:40]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_81.12