War is the father of all things. You can swallow empty. What was Heraclitus thinking? And what would that mean today in a world where sabre-rattling is no longer enough, the sabre needs to be used. Well, it's about opposites that are perhaps not opposites, but are mutually dependent? Those who shout peace are aggressive. What are the links between these opposites? Buddhism helps to understand that war is what we give it a fixed meaning on the mental level. So not father, but enemy of life, for example. But others give it a different meaning: salvation from the loss of sovereignty. So the first step is to realize that diversity of perspective helps us to tame the mind because there is no truth (relative truth is the Buddhist technical term). And the second step is to be free of mindless constructs, then it is about ethical action. And then war is the downfall of humanity.

The ideal interplay between body and mind is described in classical Buddhist terms in a rather drastic and somewhat politically incorrect way. According to this, the mind is a person with a severe physical disability but very good eyesight, while the body is the ridden, blind, somewhat wild horse. The mind leads the body, not the other way around. The mind usually wants to do yoga in the morning, but the body gets its way and presses the snooze button. The body wants alcohol, while the mind is a teetotaler. But the body should become a friend, so exercise and exercise again and again. Not put in the corner. And the book is no substitute for body care. A healthy mind in a healthy body, as it was called in the West. It's about an awakened body and an awakened mind. In tantric Buddhism, we can also start with the body if we don't forget the mind. The body brings the energy, the mind the clarity and the knowledge of impermanence and the lack of "empty intrinsic nature of composite phenomena". 

If it were that simple. Then everything would be on the outside, happiness for example. Or unhappiness, responsibility. If it were that simple, there would be a religion that everyone would follow. If it were that simple, I would kiss the flower because it smells so fragrant. If it's complicated and exhausting, then I have to start with myself. But please stay relaxed.

If fears make me cautious, then I don't speed into bends on black ice. But if fears make me freeze, that is less helpful. Either way, strong emotions are a means, not an obstacle on the path of Buddhist tantra. Look at the emotion instead of looking away. Courageously confront the supposedly destructive, even if it is trembling inside. Then breathe into it. Focusing means sending lung (Tibetan: wind is an unclear translation) to this unpleasant place. Perhaps also actively shine a bright light where the emotion is physically manifesting. Long-time practitioners pray that they will get strong problems, i.e. strong emotions, so that they can actively transform this unpleasant strength on the path to awakening. Where is the next anger?

Love is dangerous. I lose myself, the feelings slosh around. My inner center wavers, if it was ever there in the first place. Love becomes a straw for my helpless, needy self. If I fully embrace it, this love, I might suddenly love everyone and everything. Pink. Is that what I want? Where is my room for maneuver, my self-efficacy? Controlled by others, and then these hormones. In that case, I'd prefer to enter the waters of all-encompassing, unconditional love instead of going straight into inner immigration. But where is this unconditional love? In my Buddhist-nurtured concepts. Perhaps it is in me when I feel others? Pink after all, only more focused and conscious, perhaps. Classically speaking: when I feel the same longing in everyone, without differentiation. The longing for happiness, the longing for freedom from dissatisfaction.

Buddha is not so important, long dead. Nietzsche would be pleased with this statement. Because God is also dead: the idea of an external force is passé, not very helpful. Only helpful for the poor as a source of power, religion as the opium of the people, according to Marx. Arendt could say how irrelevant this generalization is; the individual assumption of responsibility for justice and freedom remains decisive. And where is the historical Buddha? After all, he was one of the first to radically assume this individual responsibility, for the benefit of freedom for all equally, without exception. Of course, this short discourse is steep. But stimulating the brain and reacting critically is important at the beginning, before I practise devotion. Not to the historical Buddha, who is actually no longer with us, but to my living lama, to Buddhist texts that inspire me today, to my colleague who meditates with me.