in the forests of the night? What immortal hand or eye could frame thy fearful symmetry? In what distant deeps or skies burnt the fire of thine eyes? On what wing dare he aspire? What the hand dare seize the fire? And what Shoulder and what art could twist the sinews of thy heart? And when thy heart began to beat, what dread hand and what dread feet? What the hammer, what the chain? In what furnace was thy brain? What the anvil, what dread grasp? dare its terrors clasp?

[01:02]

When the stars threw down their spears and watered heaven with their tears, did he smile his work to see? Did he who made the lamb make thee? Tiger, tiger, burning bright in the forests of the night, what immortal hand or eye dare frame thy fearful symmetry? It was a request, this reading. But it's apropos of these two tigers here in this story. When tigers meet, meeting the strong, be weak. Meeting the soft, be hard. If both are hard, and hit each other, there will surely be one damaged. But tell me, how do you interchange? There's a seat up here, Kemp, if you want to sit up here.

[02:09]

And so how do we accommodate? When I was in college, there was a movie of a psychological experiment. I don't remember exactly how it goes. It's pretty famous. Maybe you know it. I think there was these two sides. One person on one side, one person on the other side. And they had these little toy cars, I think. I'm not sure if they were toy cars. But anyway, they ran along a road, a one-way road. And your car could transport goods. Little trucks could transport goods. So you'd come along, you'd both load up your trucks and head along the little road, and then you'd run into each other. One had to move over to the side and let the other one go, or neither side would get anything transported. So they did this, and they drove their little trucks down the road, and they'd get to there, and they'd negotiate who would move over and who would let the other one go and stuff like that.

[03:23]

And somehow they would work things out, and then one would let the other one go, and then that one would go, and then the other one would go, and they'd both get some push to the other side. Then they gave one side a weapon. And so they'd come together, and the one with the weapon would say, move over, and the other one would move over, and the one with the weapon would go by. And then the other one would go by. Then they gave both of them weapons. And then they never did ever get by each other. They almost never could work anything out. I think neither side got anything transported when they both had weapons. When neither one had weapons, their level of productivity was, let's say, five, approximately equal. Maybe one had six and the other one had seven or something like that.

[04:33]

When they both had weapons, their level of productivity was basically zero. When one had a weapon and the other one didn't, the one that had the weapon got about 15 and the other one got about 10. Their productivity was highest when one of them was strong and the other one was weak. Next, when they were equal without weapons and lowest when they both had a lot of power. That just came in my little head there just tonight. And I was thinking about this case. How do we accommodate each other? How do tigers get along? Even tigers are different strengths sometimes. In this experiment, the tigers were equal strength, and they bumped into each other, and there was damage. So this story, to me, is about, again, it basically is how do we accommodate to each other?

[05:38]

How do we interchange? How do we communicate? And it reminds me of a basic, not basic, but a Buddhist term, which is in Japanese, kanodogo, not kanodoko. That's what Jim wrote on that book for you. Kaan means... It means... What does it mean? It means... It means feeling. It means influence. It means to move. It means sentiment. It means emotion. It means touch. It means to touch, to reach out, to appeal, to have some feeling. And no means response.

[06:39]

So appeal and response, or to touch and the response. And then do is a path, Buddhist path. And ko means Chinese character which looks like two swords have been crossed. It means the associating on the way or crossing on the way. So it's the association on the way of appeal and response. So in the Buddhist... There's a seat up here if you want, Linda. In the Buddhist practice there is a... There's this thing about appeal and response, and that's how we associate or cross each other or meet each other on the way. So it's that turn.

[07:42]

And so... Dogen's teacher said that also you could say the reverer or the worshiper and the worshipped are not a possibility for this. Anyway, the appeal and response, Dogen's teacher says, are both empty. And the way they communicate and interact or accommodate to each other is beyond comprehension. So maybe I'll just let it go at that and see what happens in our discussion. What do you think about appeal and response, spiritual communion?

[08:52]

This story is about that, I think. Yes. It's a very different way of describing the secret than the way you talk about it. And I was, I got, By God, I was not liking the story this week, part this week. I was thinking more of your description of it than actually looking at the two directions saying to each other. And now when you say, when you describe this as a feeling response, it's a whole different view of it.

[09:56]

And I like it better. It makes it make more sense. Or it makes it make more sense of the teaching. The two guys putting up their... I don't remember what, I just remember this. Putting up their... magnificence of each other in a strength. It seemed like both of them had weapons, the analogy of both of them having weapons, rather than communicating to each other. Yeah, that's one way to see it. But another way to see it is that The reason why the first guy put up this big front was because he already respected the other guy.

[10:58]

He actually was coming and saying, Master, I'm a master. So he already was revering the other. And the way he was expressing his reverence was to say, I respect you. I want you to recognize me. I'm an adept. but I want recognition from another adept, a senior adept, an older adept, so I'm going to show you my strength. But before he even showed his strength, it was already in the context of him respecting the other. Or you could say his strength or his, you know, thousand-foot cliffness that he presented was a gesture of appeal. He was appealing So, in other words, appeal does not necessarily, oftentimes when we appeal, we might think that we should be meek.

[12:03]

And it's true, sometimes we should. But his appeal was very strong. And then the other guys, in some sense, perhaps we could say the other person's response was strong, or you could say his appeal was strong too. that he was saying, okay, you are. I recognize you, and the way I recognize you is by being strong, too, to now see if you recognize me. And the other guy didn't, in a sense, recognize me. Anyway, this is part of the complexity of the situation. Yes? Yes? That who followed who? They followed each other? Well, the response of the teacher's question was strong, but it wasn't strong in the same way the question was.

[13:13]

It was like he asked the question and he just followed that question, not getting over, but he just stayed right there with it. I don't know. As you're pushing up, you can't stay where you are. You're like standing up. Yes? What happened to that jewelry? I don't know if you've been able to see everything that you've got there. When they did it, it was like two opponents. It was like a grand play, in a way. When I read it, it seemed like they were well-matched, and it seemed like they... I mean, it could have gone really wrong, except that they were well-matched, and nobody picked it badly, and they...

[14:14]

Yeah. I think there's that side of it, too, that they were playing. When I saw the story, I remember when I was younger, I played judo. We actually say in judo, we say play judo. Judo means the gentle way. And we call it playing judo. Well, I wasn't going to say this, but the people who went out there and resisted being thrown, generally speaking, the word was they didn't learn anything. The people who learned the quickest, well, first of all, the first thing to do if you want to learn fast is, first of all, learn how to fall. And the first thing they teach you is how to fall, because, you know, beginners get thrown a lot. But if you learn how to fall really well, then then you don't get hurt when you fall. So you don't mind getting thrown very much.

[15:21]

And if you don't mind getting thrown, then you can get into situations where you might get thrown. Now, if you don't know how to fall, then falling is quite dangerous. And so you don't want to fall. So what you do is you resist. And if you're strong, you can actually resist someone who's quite good. But you won't learn a thing. You'll learn nothing. What you learn from it is making various moves and seeing their strengths and weaknesses and also basically helping the other guy get better at his throws. And enjoying and learning from how he throws you and what situations you're in when you're thrown. And oftentimes, when you're in a situation where you're being thrown, that's a perfect time to throw somebody else. when you're falling. But the main thing is that those who were, and after I practiced for a while, I knew people would come to the group and that they would be very strong and resistant.

[16:33]

And I watched them, they never learned. And the great masters, they say, they're like a dish towel. You take, you take, put your arms out and you go, they go like this with you. This is how they, this is how, this is how I'd like to play with you, Dave Master. Take them like this, and you throw them all over the place, and they always wind up in their feet. I don't know how you throw them. Just like this. Of course, at any moment, you can go flying anywhere. But they're just like not there. The desire for verification is part of all of us. With regard to our experience and the experience of others, it is understandable, but we cannot always be satisfied. A character on a stage who can present no convincing argument or information as to his past experience, nor give a complete analysis of his motives,

[17:41]

is as legitimate and worthy of attention as one who, alarmingly, can do all of these things perfectly. Apart from any other consideration, we are faced with the immense difficulty, if not the impossibility, of verifying the past. I don't mean merely years ago But yesterday, this morning, what took place, what was the nature of what took place, what happened? If one can speak of the difficulty of knowing what in fact took place yesterday, one can, I think, treat the present in the same way. What's happening now? The past cannot be got at, present cannot be got at, future cannot be got at.

[19:01]

I'm not sure. I think it's either Harold Pinter or somebody talking about the way Harold Pinter writes his plays. Yes? I thought that Judo example was very useful because now it's clearly defined for me who I am. You're definitely the one that is not learning a thing. And you know, my take on this case since day one has been that I don't see, I haven't been able yet to penetrate the actual lines of this case to see what you have been talking about. I mean, I've been following what you've been talking about,

[20:04]

But when I go back to the case and say, how do I investigate these words to come to this understanding? Well, I find great difficulty, particularly in contrast to case 32, where I felt that was doable. And I could get in there with the case I've presented and not just sort of hang on to your commentary. I feel very much like that's what I'm doing this time. And I guess the other reason I feel so much resistance is because in this case, most strongly, it calls out something that rings through many of the cases, which is very much this martial approach of two guys sort of staking out territory. And what, you know, trading, you know, can look like trading insults in a way, although, you know, if you take, if you back off that a little, you could see maybe it's a little more lighthearted, a little humor to that, a little bit of that.

[21:18]

But I wondered at some point last week what this exchange would be like with two women, or a man and a woman, and whether that sort of male chan machismo is just in here as part of this, or what? I mean, these are just the things you're talking about. Right. So one thing, you said you raised several things there. But the first thing that struck me when you were talking was that this case is talking about how to approach this case. Because isn't this case kind of like a big affront? Doesn't it kind of go, okay, recognize me. I am case 33. What are you going to do with this? What's your response to that?

[22:20]

I think a lot of people's response is, well, okay, then I'm going to look you right back in the eye and we're not going to get anywhere. Huh? Isn't that what you did? Okay, this is a macho story and I'm going to macho right back at it. Now, what if this case, how about if this case is actually a woman talking to you? Hmm? Some women, what they do is they walk up to you and say, I am not interested in you. My experience is you have Taurus women. Like you're walking along the street and then suddenly there's a woman standing in front of you from almost nowhere telling you,

[23:21]

to get out of the way, and that she's not interested in talking to you. And you wonder why she's telling you that. So you look, you get interested. I mean, I get interested. Now, some people don't. Some people just spike back. But I'm always mystified. Why the person would go way out of their way to tell me that? What's the point here? And also, I just, you know... The main rhetorical device in Zen stories, in Chinese Zen stories, is irony. So this martial approach is ironic. These are powerful beings and they manifest, they show their power ironically as martial. as masculine, they're afraid people will find out where they're at.

[24:24]

But at the same time, what would the story be like if it were two women? Let's find out, shall we? Here we are, an updated reality. We have two women meeting. What is the story now? Tell us about these women. Yes? Well, the first woman says, what do you think the fish can eat when the fish comes out of the net? That would be the first one. So slightly different. You mean she's not stating that she's out of the net? Right. And that's one way to translate this, is it's really a question, what would you feed a fish? The other way of reading this is the guy is saying, I am the fish. I am this fish up here who got out of the net. Well, she might be a fish that got out of the net. She might think she's a fish that's out of the net, but she probably wouldn't say that.

[25:28]

She says it more in the subjunctive? Yeah. Okay, and what? Not confrontational. And what does the other woman say? I'm not saying it's an admirable thing. What does the other woman say? What do you think would taste good? What would you like to eat? What shall we eat? In my experience, I've seen fish as eating. You may even know what a fish is. Do you? Maybe. When fish get out of the net, do they have a little bit of kind of an aversion to food because that's how they got in the net in the first place? There's something like, maybe they should lay off? Or weren't they really... Maybe nets aren't really good examples. Maybe it isn't nets that catch fish. I mean, maybe it isn't fish's greed that gets caught in that.

[26:30]

Maybe that's more like the hook. The hook thing. Yes? I think that the response might be something like, well... What you even get out of that isn't really the problem. The thing that you should be focusing on is getting out of the net. In other words, I'll tell you when you get out, but don't worry about getting out right now. Well, if the first question was really sort of a sincere type of question, not sort of an ironic or kind of in-your-face question, I think that's a sincere kind of talk. Well, that's the way, the earlier way I read this was, he wasn't saying that he was out. And then I think it's reasonable to say what you're saying. But later I feel, later I felt like he was saying he was out.

[27:31]

Kirsten? i thought if i was there and i would think the woman and would come to this point with the weapon i would probably not be sheltered or if in my method i would just be planning It's something that's just important somewhere else. It's a lot harder. It's a lot harder. I don't mean to be talking so much, but I realize what irritated me about the story so much was that I was putting in a place situation where I spent too many hours and where men primarily are doing this back and forth.

[28:48]

But what I realized is that they're not really doing this. You know, they're doing a mockery of this, really. So they're trying to beat us with this story, but What they're expressing is not real strength, but it's whatever fear or injury or the other things. And so that's really just a copy. What's a copy of what? That what I think probably a lot of us have experienced a lot in life is people doing this, or what seems like the story. And so it's hard to get into the story, but that isn't what's happening in the story. What I'm experiencing out in the world is more people, primarily men, trying to be like this.

[29:49]

They're not really like this. They're not really like this. Trying to be like this. Right. Now, are these guys also not like this, but trying to be like this? Huh? What? They're like playing at that. Is that what you're saying? Well, I guess one thing is some men are not that way, are not that way, but try to be that way. These guys aren't that way either, but they're just playing that way, and they don't want to be that way. They want to be another way. They want to communicate. Yes? A way into the story for me is a comment about when contending it's not enough and when conceding it's extra. It reminds me about the case of impressing the seal. If you impress the seal, it's not quite right. And if you don't impress the seal, it's not quite right. And I felt it was...

[30:51]

The male-female conversation is really interesting for me because it's that place in the middle that's not male or not female. I feel, in me, my feeling is these teachers are really trying to need it. And so it's the place where they're not pushing and they're not pulling, but it's that fine place in the middle where neither is the case. But sometimes, maybe from the outside, because we don't know them so well, It may appear to us that pushing, pulling, or it may appear macho, or it may appear, oh gee, I have a lot of stuff to do, you know, on the habit. If somebody can push back enough, but, you know, that's the middle ground in the story that brings to, where it's just right, it's not too much and it's not too much. Right. Like some men might use this masculine thing as a way to play, as a way to meet. Just because it's an easy thing to do. And women might use a more feminine approach as a way to meet, but it is not the feminine approach or the masculine approach.

[31:56]

It is just an opportunity to meet. And, of course, you can test this by seeing if they're perfectly able to try the other approach. You know, all these approaches are not really it. The key thing is the verification. Yes? I like this one. I don't see communication in this case. I don't see that actually they do interchange. And I keep reading it and reading it and hearing all several people talking about how they do in a community. And I just hear them saying, well, there's this first question. What does it use for food? Now, if the fish are not, but what does the fish use for food? And I think it's a good question. And the way the teacher answers, it's just like pushing them back completely. I mean, it doesn't really give an answer. So, and that's basically the case.

[32:58]

I mean, then the other one says, okay, you don't even know a saying. And that's like, I think it's like a paid call. But, well, I can't send more than that. And I don't know where that, I mean, where do you see that they are really actually Communicating. I don't see that they are communicating, actually. I'm more... I know these guys from other stories. So I'm just... I'm assuming that they're communicating, and I'm trying to figure out how, in a situation like this, there would be communication. Because I think these two people pretty much always are communicating with everybody. That's my feeling about them at this stage in their life, is that they are good communicators, these two monks. But I don't see anything in the story which proves that they're successfully communicating. I don't see that yet.

[33:59]

But when I look at the story, I notice that the way I approach the story can be like the story. In other words, I can feel that the story is like boom and i can come boom back at it too or you know i can i can be more interested in a sort of sort of say well gee what are you about you know and come tell me the secret and it does come and tell me yeah what are you lacking it tells me that they're communicating and i have no way to prove it I mean, I can prove it, maybe, to somebody's satisfaction and get verification from somebody by how I prove it, but really I don't see it in the words. But I feel like the words are on my side because I'm willing to be a... I'm a devotee, I'm a student of the words, I'm a disciple of these words, so then the words recognize me. I recognize the words. I honor the words, I bow to the words, so then the words turn around and recognize me, and they're my servants then, because I'm their servant.

[35:06]

But I don't see objectively in the story any particular interpretation. I could see that they're fighting, I could see that they're insulting each other, I could see that that's ironic. To me it's like, how is a story a story which shows me how to communicate with you? Yes. Yeah. Well, actually, this thing is telling me several things. You can see clearly, I think. Like, when the first, okay, I didn't interpret this as major conflict. The way I interpreted it is, okay, the first guy is saying, uh, golden bishop has to do that, what does it use for? He is asking to make, uh, you know, this going beyond, this going beyond the world of objects, what is it like?

[36:11]

And the other guy says, when you go beyond the world of objects, I'll tell you, or you'll know. And I think that the third one can be viewed, you know, you were saying Looking at it, I was trying to look at the same words that were spoken by people not in conflict. Can I interject something? Yeah. And that is, another way to read this is, you have gone beyond the world of objects, and I am telling you. That's the way I feel about it. But please go on. Okay. Okay. And so looking at the same lines, it's not what different lines would be said if people were not in conflict but were in support of each other. If you pop in these lines, you see that it's in support of each other. And the third line can sort of be like the person saying, this is amazing.

[37:18]

You're the teacher of 1,500 people. yet you don't even know a saying. It's marvelous. You can teach 1,500 people without saying anything. Right. And the answer that's given is, well, sort of like, yes, I have a lot to handle. And there's sort of a commiseration rather than a get off my back kind of statement. Yeah, or another way to read it is, if you're telling me that you're saying to me, I'm the teacher of 1,500 monks, and I don't even need a word to teach them all. If you're telling me that, then I might say to you, yes, I am rather busy, aren't I? Or what is it? Old Mother Hubbard lived in a... No, there wasn't a woman who lived in a shoe. She had so many children, she knew what to do.

[38:19]

There's that reading, too. Do you know what I mean? So I think the way you read it was good, and it led me to a new way for that response to be, is that you're giving me such a big compliment. Jeez, I am busy, aren't I? I'm busy taking care of all these people. I'm so busy that the only way I can take care of them is not to do anything. That's how busy I am. And that's actually the best way to take care of that many people. Like the Diamond Sutra says, the Buddha knows the trends of thoughts of all living beings. Trends of thought, trends of thought. As no trends of thought does the Buddha understand their trends of thought. That's how the Buddha knows the trends of thoughts of all living beings. You take care of everybody by letting everybody take care of you, by being totally decrepit. By inviting all of the golden fish to come out of the net.

[39:35]

Right. Just like this case, they're inviting us to come out of the net and get some food. Right. Yes? Well, I was thinking about it this week. I thought about the net slightly differently. I thought about, you know, which net is he in? was he in the net of being outside of the net? Yeah. And he got the first mystery, but not the second one. He started to get the first and second, but not the third. And so then I thought, the third one, the teacher of 1,500 people, you're doing the same, that's something like, oh, so you're really in the realm of being outside of that net. You're back with the 1,500 people. And then he said... Yeah. [...] I was thinking about it all this week, like, there's something about devil's advocate being played here.

[40:39]

Uh-huh. It's like devil's advocate is playing with me, and it expresses that it makes me think more. I become, I don't break with my thinking. Instead of just replying to what somebody throws at me, I have to reply to what I'm thinking about. Well, it's nice of you to do that. Some people, when somebody's playing devil's advocate, do not want to think more, and they get angry. But you're more flexible, so you can start thinking more. That's good. They start to grow. They start to grow together. This all suggests one thing, the other one thinks. And as he's thinking, it all starts to play with him. He's got room. The mind is telling him. Hey, Scott. Thanks for inviting the women to talk. Yes? I had another take on the story. And, you know, what I thought was this younger master was approaching the older master with a very head-on question and a challenge.

[41:42]

Yeah. And the older master very deftly turned to his side. There's a phrase that doesn't come on in the story, like, that I achieved that, but he didn't pour out the food without the test. Right. But he's teaching. Right. And he's teaching the way, he's teaching him, I feel he's teaching him the way you would teach a master. He's giving masters, he's giving instruction to a master. That's why he teaches that way. It reminds me of a haiku that Galen wrote, do you remember? Your haiku? Yes. Can you say it? And the witness one? No. The one about the matador. Oh, yeah. Matadors like it when they feel the wind brush them. No. When they feel the horns brush them passing in the rain.

[42:44]

Larry? Right. Dyslexia comes through again. I see in this case that these two, how, it just sort of, this discussion kind of illumined for me how indispensable these two adepts are to each other in terms of verification or validation. And it's almost like when someone said that they couldn't get beyond the words, I thought of, well the words The words are that mirror pointing. And their dialogue, these two adepts' dialogue is almost like one can't do without the other because one is an object and one is a mirror.

[44:03]

And they're changing that back and forth. And so they can't do without each other. And that whole irony of the combat, of being opposed, is just a purity. Usually what people do is, one is asserting and the other one's recognizing. One is the expressor, the other one's the mirror. And actually the dominant person is the expressor and the submissive one is the mirror. The submissive one's doing the mirroring. The dominant one's saying, I'm big, and the little one says, yes, you are. I'm really saying something, the other one says, yeah. You know? So the submissive person is the mirror of the, you know, dominant one. And in a case like that, you know, you can really see this person's coming on strong and the other person's saying, wow.

[45:03]

Or the other way, that maybe they're both expressing and there's not any mirroring. But in this case, I feel it's an example of where they're they are in a sense in combat and in that sense they are both simultaneously expressing and mirroring each other and so it's hard to see much and again you know when people are equally matched like that you don't see much going on i remember again when i used to saw the when most in the judo matches which we can see the least happening were between the highest the most highly trained people could see the least happening. They couldn't do anything with each other. They would try their best stuff and they had the best stuff. And the other one would mirror their excellent moves by stopping the move. It was such an excellent move, it had to be stopped.

[46:08]

Stopped. So these guys would try these extraordinarily brilliant and extremely fast moves, which you could hardly even see anyway or tell what they were doing. But the other person would be one of the few people in the world who would realize what this guy was doing and realize it fast enough to stop it. The fact that he stopped him mirrored it. And the guy trying it And having the other person recognize it and stop it felt recognized. He said, that didn't work. He saw it. He stopped it. So you feel frustrated, but you feel met because it isn't by accident that he was able to stop it. I mean, just a few people in the world could stop any of the moves of these guys. And vice versa, the other guy is trying. And stopping it is also an opportunity, again, to do another thing. Because the stop is not just a stop, it is... It is using the energy of the other person. So they're constantly asserting and mirroring each other.

[47:10]

And if you watch it, if you're... I didn't know enough about it, but all I could see, basically I couldn't see anything. But I did notice that almost every other player, as you come down the ladder of skill, you could see what they were trying to do. And... And they would get to try to do it enough so you could see what they were trying to do. The other person also wouldn't be fast enough to stop them. Or if the other person was much better than them, you would never see what they tried to do because they would never even begin to try it. And they wouldn't even be there anymore. They'd just be gone. But when they were both very trained, you wouldn't see what they were trying to do. As you come down, they both tried things and you could see what the guy was trying and what the other guy was, you could see what the other guy was stopping and so on. You could watch it. But the great masters, you just basically didn't see anything. They just went... They were just vibrating. And then suddenly, boom!

[48:11]

It was awkward. And you didn't get to see this beautiful move. Now these guys, if they played people less than them, they'd do these classical moves. People would do all these beautiful flying all over the place. Well, this is this one, this is this one, this is this one. And if they were marked for style, very high ranks, they wouldn't have been able to do it to the other guy. That's what I see here. But I don't see them as in combat. I see them implementing each other. And the same in judo. They're actually helping each other. Although one may seem to win, they actually help each other. Carrie?

[49:15]

Look at the great function. Look at the great function, yeah. Leaping up magnificently. Jumping, leaping splendidly. You know what your brother-in-law thinks? He thought that when the dragon was walking over the mountain, he thought it was the thunder that was going over the ocean. But I thought the thunder was following the dragon over the ocean. But that's part of it, too, is that the clouds and the thunder are following us and supporting us.

[50:25]

Andy? I thought it was interesting that you used a reference to Harold Pinder. Because I used to see Peter the Observer, especially the plays by Harold Pinder, and I used to think about Dharma combat, which seems to be kind of what's going on there. Because it seemed like, at that time, I felt that what you have in this really good theater of an absurd, and what you have in what's historically called thermal combat, I guess, or situations where this kind of, what some people describe as a masculine, or kind of an effrontery approach, I always kind of interpreted it as a statement of completely giving up the world and giving yourself over completely to the dark.

[51:53]

I don't know how to really express that to people, but I felt that it was, and I tried to understand what the arm of combat was, because that didn't, like everyone here, it doesn't make sense to me in terms of the tradition of Buddha. But when I would see Theater of the Absurd, I get the same feeling. I think about that, and I think what's going on here is when you give up everything, that what comes then? When you give up everything else and do yourself over to this, really what comes then? This kind of theater happens when you give up everything? Yeah, that's what I think, too. And what kind of theater is it when you give up everything? I mean, I know it's hard to answer that question because maybe some people would think you're presumptuous.

[52:54]

No. No nothing? It was something, but I missed it. Can I ask you a question? How does holding on, how does not giving up for anything prevent this trauma from happening? Because I think in theater of the absurd, if you really, this is just my impression, it seems to me when I see really great theater of the absurd, that everything is a total non-sequitur, almost like you're watching a great Zen master speak, because you don't know where he's speaking from. And you don't know where these people are speaking from. They're speaking from some place beyond where you can get a hold of these people. Or before which you can get a hold of. Or before. Like I sometimes, you know, quote Coco the gorilla. And she seems to be coming from a place that's before you can think of, right? I want your purse. So...

[53:55]

Yeah, the clock was still alive. Absolutely. The words. The words aren't as important as the dynamics. It's just a movement. One bit of this, another bit of this, and the next one bit of this. And then all of a sudden it's turned inside out and it becomes something else. And that's how I feel about it. That's what I feel about it. You know, and every tap spring when you try and slide out of the bath, it's a different bath depending on the size of the aquarium. I'm just thinking about that.

[55:11]

And just thinking about, you know, how, you know, two women, the way I saw it, would be two women dressed up and they'd probably, you know, They can finally be at the first level of meaning. And it would be a great joke, you know. It would mean these two great heroes, you know, showing off. I mean, that's how, I think, two women would talk. If you were looking at them. Yes? I have a question about irony. The main rhetorical device in Zen stories is anger. And I can't... What is it about irony that would be chosen? Because because, you know, our self is ironic.

[56:28]

There's a kind of a gentleness to irony. It's gentle? An irony is something looking at itself. It's like the thinker thinking of the law, thinking of one. And irony also is historical. References it has. In order to understand causation. Yeah, in order to understand causation. Irony involves awareness of causation. And it's not just a blanking out. It's not just like the opposite of what you're saying. It's more like using what the expectation is and then reversing the expectation, surprising the expectation.

[57:41]

So there's a few Zen stories where the teacher just said, you know, that was really a good answer. But there are millions of examples where the teacher says that was really a good answer. But they don't write them down. Because, of course, there's millions of examples like that where teachers encourage their students, say, geez, thank you very much. That was wonderful. But that's you. It hasn't hurt to hear that. When people have been kind to you. People have been very kind. I told them people have been kind to you. People have been very kind to me. I take back what I said. But these stories have not been ripped down. These many stories that have happened to Cynthia so far have been sent. The ironic ones are in some ways more interesting because you need to bring irony in at the time

[58:52]

of realization. You don't say, nice going on realization. Because realization is not something that somebody did. And yet it wasn't like nobody did it, either. The mindful stopping point, it confuses the person who's being praised. It's fine for me to praise you, but it's not good for you to be praised by me. Unless you're really adept, and if you're really adept, then I choose to do it ironically, because you enjoy that more. Because, in fact, I'm not praising you. I'm praising myself, because, you know, I hang out with you. When a teacher sees a student, it's the teacher that teaches. It's the teacher. Hmm. When a teacher sees a student, the teacher sees not just one student, the teacher sees all students.

[59:53]

And this is not something the teacher exactly wants to praise in the other person, because he's not just praising one person, he's praising infinite people. So an ironic statement is actually quite appropriate. Like one person sitting quite near to me came to me one time and said, I just want to say thank you very much. I don't know to who, but I just want to say thank you. Something like that. I was in the room at the time, but it wasn't to me, and yet it wasn't not to me. And yet this person was saying it to me. And I thought, oh, jeez, I didn't get the thank you, but actually that's more appropriate. Got to give it to her. Daniel? Irony is not dualistic.

[60:54]

It uses the terms of delusion to construct itself out of the terms of delusion. without sort of distancing itself from them, doesn't exactly negate them. Right. And yet it kind of twists them inside out. Yeah. Irony sort of says, irony says for us that, well, we're a little bit deluded here, aren't we? This is kind of, this is something, there's something ridiculous about what I just said. Did you notice? No. It reminds me of a ridiculous thing that I'm about to say, too. It reminds me of that story when I mentioned that you followed a food, right? It reminds me of a story of a potential physical corruption. And Liz Wolfe would talk sometimes with Wolfe, and she would say, afterwards, they'd approach the man and say, how did you feel?

[62:00]

And I'd say, you're a fool. I felt like he was giving me help. And in a sense, I thought I could destroy it. I misread it to a few times, and I could have just, would like, lived well, given well to himself, and she gave him all. And the first student was giving, we were giving each other the opportunity to express their gratitude to me when I read that. And that's what I meant by being food in that, When the first student said, I've come out of it. And what happens when I come out of the bowl? And the second student said, they have to eat me. And without any story, I have all my students can eat me. They all can eat me. And they all have satisfied me. That's kind of how it's all about.

[63:03]

Paul, you remember Larry? Larry Hankin? Remember him? I don't know. He didn't have it. No, this is my old old dictionary. He left, he escaped from Zen Center in about 1969. Get out of the net. Poor guy. Yes, Carrie. There's a line that comments on my captive addict for many with an almost true hand that's not startled by someone's I'm used to faith being a great connoisseur, you know, here from the start. I, um... I just wondered if you could comment on it.

[64:20]

Comment on it? Yeah. That was such an odd one. I enjoy how text-oriented you are, bringing us back to the written word. I know you do. It's wonderful. I'm glad there's a few of you. I was wondering if these guys are scared of each other. Have they gone beyond fearlessness? I think you guys have had some close encounters of the fearless type. But have they gone beyond it and are they now afraid of each other again?

[65:22]

Or are they different from such New and different fears. What? New and different fears. And what are their fears now, do you think? Yes. Good. I mean, good that you said it and good that I said it. And good that you admitted you didn't know. But I think that's what they're afraid of. I think they're afraid people will find out about them. That's one of the things these people are afraid about. They're afraid that people will find out. Why? I don't answer the right questions. What are they afraid of?

[66:29]

What are they afraid of? If people find out, what are they afraid of? They already got quite a few. What else? How so? Too much. Hmm? Too much. You mean they're afraid that they had said too much? Yeah. Yeah. If people find out who they are, that's mainly because they said too much. There's other problems with people finding out who they are. What else? They'll separate from each other and they won't just have fun. Yes, that's right. People will separate them. the government will intercede. This is against the law.

[67:30]

You guys are not supposed to be having this much fun. It's not okay. Because no one else gets to play this game. So you can't either. Do you believe that that will happen? Do you think that's possible it will happen? It will happen. Huh? It happens. They'll break it up. I'm not going to pay the people to jog with it. They'll be jealous because they're so happy. And this is also incest. Dharma incest. An attachment to the enjoyment is the way people find out about you. You're in there kind of going... Do you see what they're doing? It's showing.

[68:31]

That's all they cover up by saying... Well, when you get out of it, Ned, I'll tell you. And thousands of years later, we watch them and think they're fighting. And all this time they've been having a good time. And no one could ever break it. Don't discourage her.

[69:48]

We need her. If it weren't for the text, we wouldn't be having fun. We'd probably be having more fun. No, no, no, no, no. Please, make some more excuse. I don't know. I think we've understood now. But the nice thing about understanding is that it can get deeper even when you understand. So, but not this way. Unless somebody has something to say. Thank you. Yeah, I do have one.

[71:14]

Oh, good. I actually, I like to take a lot, and I felt very clear about one thing, and that is that the older teacher, as the younger person was approving his vocabulary, the younger teacher followed very closely, and through his own thinking in that. And then when he The younger person felt it was another way of speaking. The teacher followed that as well, and very strongly said that he was speaking in that case, too. So I think that's quite a joyful experience, where two people are communicating that way. And so I didn't want to say anything, but since you asked, I thought I would. I'm untouched.

[72:18]

In more words than one. I have a part of the case mistranslated, and you just need to find the place. Well, I want to tell you it's been mistranslated a lot of different ways. And have you translated it? I gave you a copy of the Chinese. Would you tell us what it really is supposed to say? It's just a slight difference that you can interpret. Instead of saying, instead of saying the golden fish that passed through the net, what does it use for food? Another interpretation might be the golden fish that passed through the net. It's uninvestigated. What does it eat? The golden fish that's passed through the net. It's uninvestigated. Undetermined. What does it eat?

[73:31]

How do you feel about that, Jerry? Good. Is there any implication by who uninvestigated? It's just like the Chinese characters are ,, which means not determined, not investigated, not included. I think that a lot of things might be determined or figured out, or something like that. So that's why it says in the poem, the beautiful fish won't agree to be found in a pickle jar. Oh, yeah. Right on. A blue-quake record says, what does the mysterious boom feel part of the fish's inefficiency? Yeah, it's unknown.

[74:37]

It's something that isn't the truth yet. So that falls to mine. I like the way you brought it down in the nose. That was nice. That was really nice. But I feel it, as far as redneck, I have the right to raise questions like this. I mean, I don't know. Are you a redneck? Yeah. I'm a bachelor. Well, thank you. I didn't realize that. You should have investigated. Well, I mean, it changes the flavor of... I mean, the initial theme of it thought to be very strong. But he's admitting to a mystery here, but it isn't revealed. So it kind of changes the approach. We said that it's unknown. It's a mysterious mystery. A mysterious fish, or a fish that's passing through man is unknown.

[75:42]

It was undetermined what it would be. No more hesitant. It kind of takes the edge off that original statement, I think. I think that more like what I was saying would be, you know, what do you think? What's more like something out here that we're looking at and talking about rather than you just talking to you? What do you think? I don't know. I mean, I think you're just... I can't really tell you what the morality issue is. Those characters, when you read what he writes, they're not there. Those characters don't seem to be reflected in the text. Maybe we have that more experience with the literature than I do. Maybe they are there. Maybe I'm missing them. I don't understand.

[76:44]

Well, as I said, the first way I read this, and the translation here, and also the booklet record, the translation sounds like he's not saying that he, he's not literally saying, I am out of the net. But another interpretation is he is saying that he's out of the net. But I think actually I think that's part of the irony is that he's saying that. And I think in some ways he would be more exposing what they're really up to if he's more gentle and more open. Because I think that's where they really are with each other. I think they're totally mystified by each other and really are interested in each other and they're not going around asserting, they're not going around one-sidedly asserting their position.

[77:53]

I don't think that's what they're doing. And as a way of making that clear, they take a side and they appear that way. Because it makes things clearer to just express yourself, to play that role. But, keep an eye on the other. I don't think it changes the format. You found that monster could be standing in the first area of the weather? Or can you go to the other? Is it that the change comes from the direction? That the change is a bit awkward? Would the same character also block the second one?

[78:53]

Pardon me? Are the same character also dropped from the second one? Dropped from the second one. From the second one, were the characters dropped from the second one? I'm sorry, I didn't understand. Were the characters, like, from the second one, were they dropped from the second one? Or were they also dropped from that one? It's not in the second. It's not in his response. He doesn't refer to the first directly. He just says, we need to come out. But then I'll speak. Can Gordon incorporate the spirit? Yes.

[79:58]

So what shall we do about this case? Shall we go another week on this, or should we go to case 34? Rob? Another week. How so? I didn't think it was really necessary. You didn't think it was really necessary? But that's how you felt? Mm-hmm. Are you looking for a show or a poem?

[82:30]

Oh, gee, I don't know what I'm looking for, but I... I guess... I guess I have a feeling like this spiritual communion thing... is something which we, which I think is really important. And I think, I personally feel, tonight I don't, I haven't hit the part I feel squeamish about. But there are certain aspects of this topic which I feel a little squeamish about, and I think other people do too. Let's see. Yeah, it's true.

[83:42]

It is discussing case 34. That's true. Good point, Kaigen. Hold that, Kaigen. Oh, the tagging. Tagging, tagging, burning bright in the forest. Stay in your seat now. Well, why don't you please come next week and we'll keep working on this spiritual communion, okay? About this... this... this... intersecting or this association in the way of inquiry or appeal and response or inquiry and response. We keep working on this because I think it's something I think would be good for the vocabulary to be a little bit more, what do you call it, a little bit more sitting up in our bloodstream here at the

[84:54]

You know what I mean? No. That's why. You're the reason. Keep working on it.

[85:06]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_79.56