Rarely in talking about prajna, in my experience, is the word thinking used. This is just in talking about prajna, or that sense that I feel of that term prajna in terms of how we deal with the spirit in this center. And it seems to me that the movement of Western philosophy to that final line, that expression, that surrender of thinking, and yet the word thinking continues. And just for the last part, the last half hour, the last part of your talk, I've been having a strong feeling of, shouldn't we just give up the word thought and thinking? You see, Professor Heidegger was a great thinker and wanted to hold his position and to avoid a serious attack.

[01:15]

If we give up the word thinking, he would have all sorts of attacks. So he took the traditional word of thinking, which is not thinking at all. So what did he do? You see, the knowledge is not knowledge. That knowledge is surrender. Surrender to the process and not knowledge. But he did not like to give up the word of thinking. He said that if you want to perceive real thinking, you should think it vigorously. That's wonderful. I think he used a step back. Step back, see?

[02:17]

That means he dropped all the effort to do the thinking. So he said, let it happen. That's all. And he said, is. That is is a great word. What is that is? We know it today. You get it? The roses are red. The woman is green. What is? When time is right now, when does teaching end? That's all. That's all. He mentions the key word of appropriation.

[03:18]

Do you understand what I mean? He, he, he, he. Appropriation is this. You appropriate to the universe, universe appropriate to you. Well, if you apply John's parallelism and I bring together and all things I know, there is mutual, unimpeded solution between the man and the universe, between self and others. If we use this, we can understand it very easily. However, that cannot be conceived as scientific approach. So, what Heidegger used, created. A commerce said event appropriation. It is movement, event, movement appropriation.

[04:23]

Yesterday, today, in different parts of your talk, you discussed something that you just arrived at, not something you make an effort for, or just stepping back where you just use the word ease. How do you relate that with some ongoing effort that's part of Buddhist practice? Because here we get up every day and we make some effort to get up, we make some effort to sit in meditation. There's also the idea of orichita, or desire for enlightenment. Some intention and some action that we put in conjunction with that intention, which helps us to practice in some way, or do something each day. What's the relationship between that desire for enlightenment, or a practice, and prajna, or the attainment of non-attainment? If you go over the 16 points that are translated in this book,

[05:43]

Poetry, Language, and Thought, you will see how Haneda transforms his way of thinking. So, I think that one of the last points I will discuss in tomorrow's session, because his disciple, who participated in the 80th birthday celebration, in the presence of Haneda, praised that last point as the beauty of the rock garden, beyond his rock garden. So, this last point is actually the damn point.

[06:50]

So how Haneda reached this state? He himself. So, through his writing, you cannot see whether he imagined Kure, or perhaps meditation, but I was told he learned meditation from his student, Sujimura, the man who participated in the 80th birthday celebration, who is now the leading philosopher in Japan, and professor of philosophy in Kyoto University. So he practiced meditation. And I know that Haneda was the first to understand Dalai Lama and Johnson, because when I arrived in Freiburg, we exchanged our questions five days before we discussed our problems.

[08:04]

One of the questions was in German, and he included the German translation of Johnson, and put the mark, and said, please let me know, how do you think of this passage? This passage in German was this, when Confucius traveled all over the country, and one day approached some farm, and all the men get the water from one side, and pour out to the other side, and one of the Confucius' disciples said, go, and said, don't you know there is gabbage, you see? If you never get it, you can have one side put in the well, and the other side you push it, and then the water can flow out quickly. So, the water,

[09:06]

if I have mechanical things to help me, then my mind would be mechanical. So, Harvard asked me, the question said, do you think the Taoist oppose technology? So, this is a difficult question to answer, but I think, these two, actually two schools, all the men belong to Taoist school, and here, Confucius and his disciples knew, Confucius is a Confucianist, and Confucius traveled 14 years around the country

[10:12]

to persuade the king to adopt his principle of government to rule the country, and found a failure. So, this is the artificial doing, and cannot help the country, we won't accept all this moral principle, propriety, benevolence, righteousness, which is just a human being, and cannot really reach to the man and the community, actually. So, the Taoist think, if we cannot, if we can't do the things as things is, we should not artificially try to make things better. So, this is two schools, actually. So, Taoist are ridiculous, the Confucianist artificiality,

[11:15]

so that's why, so, I think he understood my answer. It is kind of two schools are different, it is not just, say, the opposed technology. From this instance, we can see how deeply he involved in the study in France, and he also studied there, we know that the way in Paris, and he once said, he's just like a Confucianist, so, he studied there, too. But, you cannot find anything national correct. No. And, we couldn't find the method of

[12:19]

meditation with breathing exercise, but, how about the practice meditation under the guidance of his disciple, first of all, Sogyal Mora. But, for his saying, the reeling in stillness, he must have this in that experience. How can he say reeling in stillness? Do you have any idea what kind of meditation Sogyal Mora probably taught him? Would it be Zen tradition, do you think? Yes, I think so. That's of course, Sogyal Mora is. Sogyal Mora is also a disciple of Hisamatsu, and Sogyal Mora, once Hisamatsu was not there, Sogyal Mora leave the room. And, someone is not a little bit,

[13:24]

according to the regular form, he used to have to. And, when the prajna began to have this kind of central place, position of prajna, it is very easy to have such a central place. What a place do you want a place to prajna? Can you show me the place? No, I can't show any place. Prajna is abhava.

[14:55]

Prajna is anything. Prajna is tathava. Prajna is such a thing. I just mean, it seems like an Indian person is not saying such a thing. And, it's only like Chinese person. Can you just say, the question is, what does this thing, explain prajna, according to prajnaparamita? So, if you follow the Balanced Sutras, they are saying, when you perceive prajna is not prajna, then it is prajna. So,

[16:03]

see, in, in recent work, of, Rishikesh, who, he says, after a reason, quote, the reason, the reason, quote, after a reason. Previously, we say that identity, there is a constant contrast. What is prajna? So, if you resist it, a relative sense of division, a relative sense of happiness, even though it is empty, but you still have a place. But that place is nothing. Nothing is a place. Where is it? If it is not a place, it is not my place.

[17:05]

Then you have only me, then I ride on. That is prajna. Any more questions? The information of Alipia. The etymology of Alipia. He sometimes used that word, liktum. Liktum. Liktum is also,

[18:09]

means, clear and open. So, it's clear and open. In that forest, see, all those other trees condense in one region. But some udakata, or the continuous trees, can leave the opening. So, that's the place where he got that idea. Opening and clear. I think he was asking about the origin of Alipia. The only thing I know is that the al means

[19:15]

un or no in Alipia. I think it doesn't mean simply hidden. It's concealed. So, unconcealed. Unconcealed, yeah. I couldn't remember the Greek, the roots of the letters, but I remember it's unconcealed, that's open, and clear, that's light. Slightly unrelated, perhaps, Isamatsu Uroshi. Has some way of koan study with philosophical emphasis? Is that somehow related to what Heidegger is thinking of

[20:17]

when he talks about meditative thinking? Yeah, however, you see, here's a start-back. Jim Yosiba explained this start-back actually is called Taoism. Taoism. Where is Tao, you see? Where is Tao, you see? Where is it? To learn Tao, we use everyday to

[21:17]

to study the knowledge we learn everyday. Use. Jim Ujira, this is Taoist text, Taoism. Jim Ujira commented he he sent his he sent his That means you negate the non-being. You also negated being. You negated the negation. You also negated assertion. So what is the result of saying that start-back? When you reach this start-back,

[22:24]

then there are sixteen poems. The last poem is the description of the world is, that's all. The work of it. The beauty of work of it. Not the beautiful. So the world is. So this three of the start-back achieve. Now your question is whether he applied a coin. I don't think he applied a coin. But he applied something like a Hogan's answer. One day Hogan was asked

[23:25]

what is first principle? Hogan replied if I should tell you it would become second principle. He cut the roots. Yeah. That I found in the conversation of contrapart. Another question. There are quite a few Catholic monks and nuns who are doing Zazen these days. Do you think there are many philosophers and scholars who are doing Zazen? Theologians that you know who may be doing something like Zazen?

[24:26]

Yes. When I was in New York UN is now after the meeting the people go to the throne practicing meditation. And UN scholar was invited to be director of that meditation hall. So after so much hostility or confusion or who want to come back to tranquility where you see yourself clear you see others clear then illuminate lots of unnecessary quarrel. So

[25:37]

in UN there is meditation hall and high experts to teach meditation believe it or not. Many times the quarrel starts from from too much knowledge. So in a moment as you give up the knowledge the knowledge of not knowledge then you reduce this unnecessary hostility. Often that's beyond any

[26:45]

empirical measure. There is some very close relationship between the mystical and that kind of kind of a stepping back and acceptance of the unknown. Would you like to make any observation on that? Well I understand that they believe in things that they are beyond any measure of philosophy or physics. They don't know whether they are waves or particles. They call them what? And it seems to me that there must be some pure intuition involved even making such a position as that. Whether beyond

[27:47]

any kind of rational measurements or rational prophecies. So there must be pure intuitions. Isn't there something kind of mystical in this activity? You know if you don't you should be sure they are going to go in a parallel measure. And also many that is found that there is polarity between essence of things. But I'm sorry, I'm not a scientist. I cannot comment on that. However, when we talk about

[28:51]

this private part I see a constant contradiction. If it is contradiction then there is too bad. Yes, but I think there are constant contradictions that's something very important. Affirmation or negation, negation or affirmation. So this is also that. The universe is myself, myself is the universe. Since there is opposite, but yet the opposite of me is the location of the force. So the unity of atoms might be used in science like this. But this

[29:51]

does not work. It seems to me that two questions that have happened kind of help answer each other. The very first question on that view there is it seems to me that Heidegger's meditative thinking is much closer to what occurs in the koan processes and movement from the surface layers to deeper layers of the mind. That corresponds to Heidegger's meditative thinking. I don't think that would answer your question

[30:55]

but in the koan process there is a question that can't be answered conceptually because there is no possibility that it would be able to explain what occurs in the ship itself when there is no question in it. You were quoting someone but I wasn't clear as to the intention of what you were trying to convey with this quote here. Intuition as a result of direct experience is never a finished product of knowledge. And I was wondering if you were using knowledge there as knowledge

[31:55]

that you're describing as surrender to not-knowledge This is Fargo's words. Fargo's words. Yeah, that's what he defined intuition. So he conceives that intuition through this analysis of seven categories he is still not free from himself. That's something that he intuited. Here is the

[32:59]

intuition. There is no object that he intuited and there is no subject that he intuits free from subjectivity or objectivity. You mentioned in your lecture about how you were trying to think on the end of philosophical type of thinking based on acquisition of a lot of knowledge and how knowledge is known and stuff like this. And classical western philosophy is very much on logical, rational knowledge. And I was wondering

[34:00]

if other schools of western philosophy apart from Heidegger will take up where he left off or where western philosophy is going on because of what he said you know, he definitely has any connections with Heidegger. Heidegger often mentioned Archimedes, Heraclitus. So that's why he referred to Lucas as well as Stan. Greek, Greek, Socratic. He was fine. That's fine. But if one asks him Sir, if you take this primary intuition that you know from pre-Socrates such as Parmenides and

[35:00]

Heraclitus why should you proceed to write a being in time for 30 years and a family, you couldn't find a being because in the first place you're going to study philosophy or history or philosophy in Starogram Greek. But not until you become assistant professor and have a Japanese scholar work with you and Husserl has difficulty to his theory of phenomenology. Then question is changed. And in the conversation with Japanese scholar he mentioned 1921 he started change. Because Husserl

[36:04]

cannot solve the problem. And he tried to start to work out. But step by step he changed. Take him to 1st December 15 years and then another 10 years to gradually make it 20 words. That's right. So that he went up from creation or reading reading. All this terminology is developed after he worked with Japanese scholar. Otherwise you see it doesn't mean that all of it has to be in time. Because in the last paragraph in this book he is a cook for the week. So he must

[37:05]

find a time first. So change all time will be reversed. What is time? Absolute moment. What is absolute moment? That moment when you are free from subjectivity without objectivity. That moment is time war. So if it is correct to say that this idea also appear in Harakrata's pranabhilis. But why professor Harakrata should not see that before he starts the right reading in time? And the conversation between Japanese scholar and himself

[38:07]

indicated the same. He is very much obliged to Japanese scholar. And he also said that the east language has some magic power. So the west language is harder to convey or reveal this experience of Aletheia. Well, that might be true. But I think if you have that experience you know the proper language of UK expression. Thank you. Can you say that thought without thought is

[39:07]

thought without a goal? Or thought without gaining idea? Pardon me? Could you say that thought without thought is like thought without gaining idea, without goal? Thought is goal. Is that gaining idea, thought without a gaining idea or an end? Is thought without an end in mind? You say that thought is not thought. Thought which is not thought. Is that like thought without a goal in mind? Thought without gaining idea? Yeah. He asked more. Hope to hear more. Because Hebrew says

[40:08]

that absolute idea, real. Huh? So then if you have a goal, you say the goal, you have end, you end the world. That's the concept of reason. Chinese have cognitionist, a different new cognitionist has a word, a me. There are capital me. Reason. Desk. Desk. There must be basic principle of the composition of the desk. Chair. Work. Everything. But all those basic principles come together. Desk. Leave. Also called tithing. Meaning tithing for me. Also tithing for me. The same idea.

[41:12]

You have a goal, you have something to depend upon. You can learn something. Yeah. We are talking about that you cannot depend upon. Nobody will learn you. Yeah. So you must do everything by yourself. If you can do that, then that is consciousness. And where is Prajna? Once a disciple of Tung San Venka, the master Tung San asked, where are you? Oh, I am here. Have you reached top? Yes. I have reached the top of the mountains. Have you seen anyone? No one there. Well, you haven't reached the top. Have you reached the top? I reached the top. But I didn't see anyone. That's why I said I have reached the top. You know where is the top? The top is in this village.

[42:13]

It is in this temple. It is the ordinary way of living. That is the top. When you reach the top, you are back to this practical daily living. When you are hungry, you eat. When tired, you lie down. When you are hungry, you sit at the first top. Well, if you understand this, you will understand. Because it is a timeless saying. It is a timeless saying. You are sages and you are common. You are common. Not just a lay person. Land on the sage. Back to the common man. Then you are free from the sage, free from common man. You can be both common man and sage. That is timeless. Thank you.

[43:28]

Thank you for giving us a lecture again. Perhaps we would close with maybe four vows, if we could recite four vows in English. Thank you. I don't know if anyone is having problems with transportation tomorrow for the Greenbelt lecture. If someone is, we can speak to Jim Coffers. Any other questions?

[44:38]

Twenty years ago? I almost became back into a student. I became a student. Are you running his class? What is your subject? Psychiatry.

[45:27]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ