Your talk is far too esoteric: include the audience and how an esoteric concept applies directly to them. Yes, you did use examples of a young child & chimpanzees, the connection seemed forced. Why did the boy yell when orange peel bitten into or banana cut? Bring it home to the audience.
Using the integration (don’t like this word—let’s try “The Sacred Marriage of Opposites”) of seeming opposites, the shallow & the deep, not esteeming or despising the finite or the infinite, among many others, shows the seeming dichotomy of reality; yet, you never did come back to Zazen, you continued to refer to training. What training? How does one train?Does a compassionate person know they’re being compassionate? Bring it back home to the audience and to their lives.
Speak from a Direct Experience/Seeing of the Nature of Reality; the placing of a hand on the Earth & Listening to the Earth Testify. The Buddha Enlightenment example captures interest but your execution carried little conviction—little or no Wonder at the Miracle exuded. Nor did the point you wanted to make integrate audience wide. Let it go; bring it home.
You took on a very difficult topic; not sure too many people would/could do it justice. One thought comes, possibly using the act of sitting & the Direct Experience/Seeing of “Form is meEmptiness: Emptiness is Form. . .” as two themes to spiral around might’ve been more effective.
But, to quote Archy of Archy & Mehitabel fame, by Don Marquis, when stuck by the seeming senselessness of existence said, “whatthehellmehitabel, whatthehell.”
