That's always how cool. Okay, we have an hour and 17 minutes left. We get to the moon and the water? Are there any questions that we want to make sure we cover before he goes on? All right.

[01:03]

Okay. I'd like to go to the water and the moon. So I go quickly, five and six. In Section 5, Dogen says, those who greatly realize delusion are Buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded in realization are living beings. Furthermore, there are those who attain realization beyond realization and those who are deluded within delusion. So in this section, Dogen makes a definition of what is Buddha. And he said, those who greatly realize delusion are Buddhas. And his definition of deluded living beings is those who are greatly deluded in realization are living beings.

[02:24]

So they are both in the same condition. But depending upon the attitude, whether we carry ourselves toward all beings and carry out practice enlightenment, or all beings come toward us and carry out practice enlightenment or realization through this body and mind. So the directions are opposite. But as a real activity, things can be the same. Even if we sit in the cushion on the same posture, someone may sit as my practice. to make this person enlightened or attain something, some kind of expectation, or someone is just sitting as the manifestation of interdependent origination.

[03:30]

So these two sentences are Dogen's definition about what is Buddha and what is living beings. But in Kyogo's comment, he says, those who greatly realize delusion are called Buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded in realization are called living beings. That is okay. But he said, if you are careless, you understand these sentences in the same meaning as what common people usually think. However, it is not the case. Delusion and realization, all Buddhas and living beings are simply the same thing. That is a problem to me. Actually, Dogen is saying, you know, these are different. Yeah, and also I wonder what's the difference between common people and living beings. In this case, I think common people, people who don't understand their, I mean, Kyogo's sayings, understand or against, or don't agree.

[04:48]

So I think what Dogen's saying is more straightforward. Dogen is saying those are Buddhas and those are living beings. But Chogo is saying those two are the same thing. And I don't understand why we have to say those two are the same. Of course, those two, living beings and Buddhas, are not two separate group of people. But depending upon our attitude toward all beings, We are sometimes, or not sometimes, but we can be a Buddha, or our practice can be Buddha's practice, or our practice can be my selfish practice. Even we sit in the same posture, or even when we do the same thing. So what Dogen is saying, practice and realization or enlightenment is depending upon

[05:57]

our attitude toward our actions and toward all beings. Yes? The usual translation I've seen of the second sentence is deluded about realization. About? You said greatly deluded in realization, which implies that there's realization. but they are still deluded about that realization. Is that what you required? Dogen said, Go is enlightenment. And he said, Ni doesn't mean about. Ni means even though we are within realization. Realization means in the reality. We don't see that reality. That is the meaning we are deluded, even though we are right within realization.

[07:06]

Like we're embedded in realization. Right. Would it be more true to say reality than realization, though? True reality. That's easier to understand. But at Dogen Zenji, use is go. That is realization. So we can interpret in that way, and that is my understanding. So it's the go part of realization, which is the confusion. So it's like knowing that you're confused is an enlightenment. Yes. And knowing that in this kind of like thinking that your past confusion is an illusion. Yes. So you can never pass your confusion. Pardon me? You never really go... Knowing that you don't know, knowing that you are confused, is a realization, is a . That's the first part of it. But those who are deluded in realization, that part is like, think that they aren't confused.

[08:12]

In that sense, first. because they don't know the truth. Right. If we think we understand it, we really clearly see, that is delusion. So in a sense, realization is realization about our delusion. Sakyubashi said, the more we practice, the more it becomes clear that we are deluding. That is wisdom, I think. And in Section 6, Dogen says, when Buddhas are truly Buddhas, they don't need to perceive that they are themselves Buddhas. However, they are verified Buddhas, and they continue verifying Buddha.

[09:19]

This verified and verifying is a translation of . And Their comment on this part, I think, is OK. I have no question. I have a question. Please. This seems like a really kind of basic confusion here to me. His first sentence is, when Buddhas are Buddhas, they don't say, I am a Buddha. Well, our stories about Shakyamuni Buddha, he's always saying, I'm the Buddha, I'm the world-honored one, blah, blah, blah. Do you think he really said so? I don't know. I don't know. It's written in a sutra, but I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha really said so.

[10:23]

That would make me feel a lot better about his wisdom, if he didn't actually say that. I think so. Of course, I don't know. Well, I've always thought it was kind of a... an interesting thing, and that maybe he did say so when it was appropriate to say so, so that he was standing up in his reality and simply saying, no, I actually am awake. And when somebody would say, no, you're not, or why should I listen to you, or something like that, that he might say, just say it as a statement of fact, not as boasting, but just saying, no, this is who I am. I think he thought, you know, he awakened to something, he found something. But I don't think he said, because of that discovering, he said, I'm the only person worthy to worship.

[11:34]

Oh, no, I don't mean that. But there's that statement when Buddha was born, he said, Buddha pointed his finger and said, I alone am the world-honored one. I've only been able to find that in the Japanese traditions. I have not been able to find that in any other place, which I wondered about. I tried to find the original, original, original of that sentence. I think there's something in Chinese, not Indian. I don't think so. . He agreed. But I didn't say so.

[12:36]

You spend 10 years hearing Buddhas always boasting about how fabulous he is. It'd be nice if somebody said, well, you know, he may not have actually said this. And you don't have to take that. You know, for Buddhists, you know, Buddha should be something special. So Buddhists create those kind of myths. For some Buddhists, he'd be more special if he didn't say that. I thought he was talking about his Buddha nature that we all have. That is one interpretation. That's the standard Zen Center lecture on or about April 8th. Yes. That is a kind of a common understanding in Japan. Okay? So I think Section 6 is about how Buddhas are truly Buddhas.

[14:04]

When they are Buddhas, they don't think they are Buddhas, but they just continue to verify the Buddha nature or Buddha food. I think this is... I mean, Dogen's talking about those who attain realization beyond realization, just keep going, just keep realizing the Buddha or verifying the Buddha. That is section six. So now we reach section seven. Yeah, it's not so much problem in that workshop. And Section 7 says, in seeing color with body and mind and hearing sounds with body and mind, although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror

[15:20]

or the moon in water. When one side is verified, the other side is dark. And let me first read Kyōgo and Senrei's comments on this sentence. Seeing color with body and mind. This body and mind is on the ground that all things are the Buddha Dharma. This body-mind is itself, in this case body-mind is used as a compound, shin-jin. This body-mind is itself color or sound. That is why it is said that we perceive them intimately. Body-mind and the color, body-mind and the sound are not relative to each other.

[16:23]

If two things are separate from each other, we cannot say to perceive them intimately. It is different from the analogy of reflections in a mirror or moon in water. When we say body mind, there is nothing outside of the body mind. When we say the color or the sound, there is nothing outside the color or the sound. This is the meaning of when one side is verified, another side is dark. mirror and reflections or water and moon have to be two separate things. This is not the Buddhadharma. This is Kyogos and Senna says, we should just say that the moon is reflected in the moon and the mirror is reflected in the mirror.

[17:37]

Therefore, it is said that when one side is verified, another side is dark. The Lotus Sutra says, if people listen to the Dharma, none of them fail to become Buddha. This is exactly the same with what is said here. What the Lotus Sutra says is that since there is no living beings outside the Dharma, there is no one who fails to become Buddha. Hearing the sound and listening to the Dharma are the same. This is a comment by Senrei and Kyogo. And as I said yesterday, until recently, I followed their understanding and I thought this is a description of the reality of our life without separation between self and all other beings.

[18:47]

But if we try to understand in that way, the problem is the analogy of mirror and reflection within the mirror, and the water and moon, or moon and the water. Because in this case, those two analogies are used as a kind of a negative sense. You know, moon and the Reflection of the moon in the water are two different things. That is what they are saying. And the mirror and the things which mirror reflect is two different things. So there is separation between subject and object. So please. Could the reflections in a mirror and the moon in water not be understood as referring to accuracy in perception, that the whole moon is reflected in the water and the mirror accurately reflects what is seen by it?

[20:09]

Well, that is another meaning of this analogy, using these two. I mean, later, Dogen used these two analogies, at least moon in the water, when he described enlightenment. Right, so that's what I thought it was. Yeah, so if we understand as they did, they did. You know, this is kind of a problem. And they tried to, how can I say, justify. Dogenzen used the same analogy in two ways. Here, you know, this moon and water is two separate things. But later, Dogen used the same analogy as moon and the water is the same thing.

[21:16]

But it's kind of a strange thing. In one such a short writing, Dogen used the same image into almost opposite. So you're saying they see it as opposite in this one, from the one in Muninathira, that you had originally thought that that was true, but now... Yes, yes, that is the point. So now they understand their comments or their interpretation is... at least problematic, I'm questioning. And if this is not the first sentence, in seeing color with body and mind, and hearing sound with body and mind, although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflection in a mirror or the moon in water.

[22:28]

what this means. He said, we intimately see the color and hear the sound. Yet, he said, it is not like the reflection in the mirror or the moon in water. What this means? For one thing, the moon, if it's intimate, if it's a reflection of the moon in the water, like you said, there are two things. If it's a reflection, that's different from the real moon. And I don't think, I think in this case, there's no real moon separate from the reflection. I think that the whole virtue of the moon is in the whole reflection.

[23:31]

Please. I just thought maybe you could talk about the intimate part of that. I was just reading that that's direct perception. We hear and we see. the moon, and we open our hearing. We hear and we see, and we know it personally and directly. Or we could read Dogen, and we could get enlightenment as the moon and the wall, because you could get it indirectly, but they're not the same. You could have practice hearing and seeing, and have that personally and directly. Or you can go to the reflection of the moon in the water, the water being the text, maybe, or something like that, where you get that knowledge that it's not the same now, it's not the same. And that seemed to make sense when we read later about the drop of moon, it contains one food, even in this small example.

[24:37]

Please. For me, it changes how one understands this if one reads it as continuing into what you have as Section 8, so that rather than taking them separately, I'm wondering if you go from this first statement about seeing with body and mind, which although it is intimate, it is not... I see reflections in the mirror and moon and water as traditional tropes for enlightenment. Their phrase is usually used to signal awakening. So it's saying only to see with the senses, even though this is good, is not... The moon and the water. When you see a sway, one side is verified, the other is dark, and then to go straight to study the Buddha is to study the self, to study the self is to... It's a different mode of perception. And I'm curious, in the Japanese text, is there a break or is there no break between these two sections?

[25:41]

You mean sections of... Yeah. Actually, the originals we have not read. Anyway, my understanding, my present understanding is this seeing color with body and mind, and hearing sound with body and mind. is the description of what he said, those who are deluded within delusion. I mean, he said, to convey ourselves to all beings and carry out enlightenment is delusion. And if we understand that this is delusion, that is enlightenment or realization. But when we think, you know, how can I say, that we

[26:53]

get something or we make our kind of effort, practice, and then we see that we hear, we have a direct experience of hearing sound or seeing the color without thinking, without conception. then we may think that is enlightenment, kind of enlightenment. And according to Dogen, such practice or such people who think because of such kind of direct experience, if they think they are enlightened or that kind of experience is enlightenment, they are within delusion, deluded within delusion. So the section six is description of those who are enlightened within or who

[28:06]

attain realization beyond realization, they grasp nothing, just keep practicing without thinking whether they are enlightened or not. But here, if we practice and think, now I get it. I experience hearing or sounding directly without thinking or making conceptualization. Then we feel we get it. We finally experience that reality. And according to Dogen, that is the way we are deluded within delusions. That is my current understanding. Within delusion or within realization? That experience become delusion or you are deluded within delusion.

[29:09]

Please. One is that the idea that Dogen would use a kind of metaphor or figure of speech one way in one sentence and another way in another sentence, that wouldn't surprise me because it seems to me that that always he's turning and turning and turning, and in one sentence he says, it's this way, and in the next sentence he will say, in seriousness, it's that way. And so I don't, In itself, I don't find that very persuasive, that he would say it one way in one sentence and in a different way in another sentence. Also, just by accident, I found in Bendois, in question number two, a place where it seems to me that he uses reflection in a mirror and... I found that too.

[30:12]

It's not number two, it's number five. Number five. It was on the second page of the question. Where he uses... Yeah. It sounds like it's not complete praise, okay? This is what is similar, what is reflected in the mirror and water, what is similar to this. or sort of reflective of awakening, but is not itself awakened. So there is a classic use of this, these images. Yeah, actually, what he said in Vendoise, I wrote down. He used this analogy, mirror and reflection and water and moon, in negative sense. and discuss about teachings of other tradition about .

[31:18]

The mind itself is Buddha, like the moon reflect in the water. Maybe I should read before that, maybe entire thing. Buddhist practitioners should know not to argue about the superiority or inferiority of teachings and not to discriminate between superficial or profound dharma, but should only know whether the practice is genuine or false. There were those who flowed into the Buddha way, drawn by grasses, flowers, mountains, or rivers. And there are some who received and upheld the Buddha mudra from grasping earth, stones, sand, or pebbles. Furthermore, words that express the vastness of reality are even more abundant than all the myriad things.

[32:27]

But also, the turning of the great Dharma wheel is contained in one speck of dust. Therefore, the words, the mind itself, is Buddha. are like the moon reflected in the water. The principle at the instant of sitting becoming Buddha is also a reflection within the water. So actually Dogen is using these two analogies in a negative sense. They are not reality. So what he's saying here is only that words or understanding of the words, that mind itself is Buddha, is not real thing, like a reflection in the mirror or the moon in the water. But those are also not the real thing.

[33:31]

Yes? Please. It seems to me that the key to this passage is the line, when one side is verified, the other side is dark. And I've used that as the sort of determining what he's talking about in the preceding line, which to me it seems like the mirror and the water are both images of the mind. and the object which appears in the mirror of the water is the way that things appear to the mind. And I think in saying that things are not like that, he's saying that he's rejecting the position that everything is mind only, that even though there's no duality between subject and object, it's still not the case that everything is just the mind, because although you see something, there's still a part of it that you don't see. And I think that's what he's saying, because the other side is dark. So I think he's rejecting the position that there's only what we perceive, but nothing else exists. So my understanding, I was going to address that line, particularly my understanding of that line is that this is dropping off with body and mind.

[34:46]

What is? What's this? We see in color with body and mind, hearing sounds with body and mind. Although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror or a moon in the water. It's not like that, that there is a reflection, that there is something that is an approximation of or a debased manifestation of. In this situation, there is a dropping off of body and mind. So the one side is illuminated, body and mind are powerful. That is traditional understanding. And I thought that was my understanding until recently. I'm willing to change, but I don't see it yet. Well, I'm in the process of changing. Now I don't understand clearly. The second sentence, when one side is verified or eliminated, another side is dark.

[35:55]

What this means, if hearing sound or seeing color in this way is delusion, or deluded within delusion, what this second sentence means is not clear to me now. If it's delusion within delusion. Mm-hmm. and in Senrei and Kyogo's commentary this sentence when one side is illuminated or verified the other side is dark is a kind of a key sentence they think this is a principle that you know one dharma or one thing include everything. Each and everything include all other things. And that is a meaning of one side is illuminated, other side is dark.

[37:01]

That means body and mind, or the self, is illuminated. Within this body and mind, all other beings are included. I think that is a traditional understanding of this sentence. It came from Senni and Kyogo's interpretation. And if it it's not correct, then what this means. If this one side is verified or eliminated, another side is dark, doesn't mean the reality of all beings. We pick one thing, we pick everything. To me, it means that The delusion is from our perspective.

[38:04]

That's what, when one side is verified, the other side is dark. We're not able to see the other side because we're seeing it from our perspective. The delusion is already inherent. Yeah, probably that's the meaning when we think this is delusion. No matter how hard we try to see the reality as they are, still we need to take a position. We cannot see the reality from outside. We are already within the reality, within the world. We are born within the world and living within the world. And we cannot see the world objectively. We have to see the world from inside of the world. So now I can see only this part of the world. So when I see this side, other side is in darkness. So I cannot see the reality as a whole.

[39:11]

I think that can be the meaning of when one side is verified or illuminated, the other side is in the dark. So this describes the limitation of our perceptions. Please. Maybe it means that in the realization of all beings, there is no self and other. So you don't see the other side. There is no other side. There is the dark, but it's still the dark because you see the light. So it's like you see the valley, though there's a mountain, even if you don't see the mountain. So whenever you say something, it has... It's illuminated. You know that everything exists. You don't see it. The sentient part, you don't see this. The first part is, you don't see it. You know it. So this is a kind of a criticism from Dogen to those people who think they experienced in that way and that was enlightenment.

[40:21]

But if you see something, you see this, it's not that what you're seeing is not accurate, it's just that you're only seeing this and you're not seeing that. So that's not necessarily delusion about this, if you know that you're just seeing this and you're not seeing that. And then when it goes further, it's to... To study the self, the self is a particular viewpoint. But by studying the self, to study the limitations of the self, you can have the wider view. I think so. So next section he said, to study a self is to forget the self. To forget the self means, I think, we don't cling to what we see. we should understand see that there's something in the dark we cannot see i think i think that this is traditional understanding but i want to ask you there are two different things that come up for me one is his way of talking you know we say form is emptiness and emptiness is form and that

[41:31]

Sometimes you can think of Dogen as, you'll just say form is form, and then implicit within that is form is emptiness, or that emptiness exists. But you don't, as soon as you say form is emptiness, you're separating them. So his non-dualistic way of saying it is to say form is form. So that if you're saying that form is illuminated right now and emptiness is dark right now when you say it, Or it's like in the Sandokai, you know, in light there is darkness, but confronted is darkness. So it's this knowing that the other side exists, but you can't see it. If you're completely embedded in reality, you don't see the other side, because that's how we deluded beings are. We can only see one side at a time. Is that the traditional understanding? No. Well, it's difficult to tell.

[42:33]

I mean, there are many different opinions. Anyway, that's how I understand. I think that is one possible understanding. But that's not what you're saying. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I don't either. Well, maybe this is just simply a comment saying this is a dualistic view. When one side is verified, the other side is dark. It just means that, you know, if you look at things as having two sides... That's dualistic. And so we can't get beyond the fact that we're always within delusion, that we're always... and you can't get outside of it, no matter what kind of... which is what he's saying up above. I wonder if you could try to speak again about the difference between the traditional understanding and the new one.

[43:42]

Previous understanding. I'm not sure whether my understanding was traditional or not. So my previous understanding is this is a description of the reality that self and all beings are one thing. not separate. Self and object have no separation. When I explain, try to explain my understanding on this sentence, I use my experience when I was in Massachusetts. Let's see.

[44:47]

We lived in a very small zendo in the woods in western Massachusetts. And we had no financial support at all. So we had to have some income. So we worked at a coffee shop. tofu factory. There's a big macrobiotic group in Massachusetts, and there was a tofu factory. And our job was cutting the tofu. And sometimes it's too small to sit, so we can take those tofu weeks. So we ate tofu almost every day. That was main source of for us. And one day, a friend of mine went to a natural food store and I found a poster that said, you are fat, you eat.

[46:09]

And I said, then we are talk. And That was very interesting experience for me. Anyway, we eat in the poster at the natural food store. That means what we eat create our body. So whether we eat healthy food or not, physical condition changed, I think, so we should eat a natural food. That was what the poster wanted to say. But later I found this saying, we are what we eat, was originally from a German philosopher, Foyer, I don't know the pronunciation in German or English.

[47:13]

But in Japanese, his name is Foyer Baha. And he was a materialist. So if materialists say we are fat to eat, we eat, means we are not, you know, I think he was against the word in the Bible. You know, we don't live only with bread, but we live with, you know, words of God. And I think what that philosopher was to say is, we are bread. We are living with bread, not the same word or spirit of God. I think that was the point. But when we think, try to understand the same, what we are eat, As a Buddhist teaching, it has a very profound meaning.

[48:21]

We are what we eat. We are what we see. We are what we hear. We are what we feel. So the self and the things we experience, like hearing music or seeing the scenery or seeing the color of the sky, those are nothing other than this person. Actually, this person, like Shohak, is a kind of a collection of my experience So this person is created by what I saw, what I read, what I heard since my birth. So the object, or this word, or this word means the network of interdependent ordination, is ourself.

[49:34]

You know, that was my understanding of hearing the sound with body and mind. So I really agreed with what Kyogo is saying. Kyogo says, you know, body and mind and sound or color are one thing. That was my understanding what Dogen is saying here. And my understanding of when one side is verified or illuminated, the other side is dark, is when one side, when this side, body and mind, is illuminated, all entire other world is included, because included in this self, it disappears or hidden. It's in the dark. But it's there.

[50:40]

But when we see the side of sound and color, the self disappears or is hidden. But it's there. It's included within the sound and color. So there's no separation between self and sound and color is true of the object of five sense organs. So actually, according to this understanding, What this sentence is saying is, as the Heart Sutra says, there's no five scandals or five sense organs, no object or five sense organs, like no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch. That was my previous understanding.

[51:44]

And I was happy about this. But now I'm in the process of changing. If that is not what Dogen is saying here, then what does it mean? It's still my kind of practice. And for now, I think this is a description of delusion being deluded within delusion. And if so, for this sentence, when one side is terrified, the other side is dark, is something negative. That means we should clearly see the limitation of our perception. No matter how hard we try to see the reality as it is as a whole, we cannot see it. I think that is another possible new understanding of mine.

[52:49]

Please. When did you begin to find out about this understanding? Well, I first read... the criticism against Senni and Kyowo's interpretation on this sentence is about, I think, about 10 years ago. One of my friends wrote her own commentary on Genjo Gohan. And she said, this is strange. This is questionable. Since then, Until recently, I don't think that is the possible understanding. But last year, Seijin-san came to Stanford, and he gave me his thesis about Genjō-kō and his understanding of Genjō-kō.

[54:00]

And he said exactly the same thing. And this woman? Yeah, not exactly. The point is different, but both thought this is a description of delusion. And that is when I seriously consider about this. And I was in Pittsburgh last November. to read Sesshin, and I gave a lecture on this sentence. And kind of suddenly, I found that makes more sense. Please. Well, whichever direction our thinking goes in the first part of this section, another way of looking at when one side of the earth by the other side of the star is that that is a description of delusion, that it's not a description of awakening.

[55:16]

And it's a statement that when we carry the self forward, This is our circumstances. This is the description of what it is to be deluded with delusion, that the light does not circulate freely, that there is only the light going in one direction or the other direction. So when we're confused, when our body is confused or when we are in delusion, that only one side is illuminating. We see only the self. Or we see only the object. But we don't see both sides. And I think, I don't know how, whether that could work in the way Japanese is written. I mean, I don't know that it could be a disjunction, what comes before it. But it could be understood that way if you think that, if you agree to the setting, and you hold a different opinion.

[56:20]

Either way, you could say that this part of it is a description of delusion and delusion. Oh, that's interesting. Please. If there is a description of, as you say, the reading, then would the description of the true experience, true innovation, be just something as simple as not one and not two? I don't think I'm that. I understand what you're saying. Could you say that again? You said not one and not two. Staying together. That's what I'm just saying. Not one and not two. And you're saying not one and not two? One side is very high, the other side is dark. It's kind of like saying you can always see all beings or you just see the self.

[57:23]

One or the other. We can't see them both at the same time. Suzuki Rufi seems to be saying we see them both at the same time. That's good. We cannot see both at the same time is realization? No. The opposite. Opposite. That means we can see both sides at the same time is realization? Yes. Do you think it's possible? all beings and self, self and the other, not separated, but also seeing the separation at the same time. That is a realization. That's right. That's what I think. I'm asking, is that sort of what you think? In that case, I think this sentence means, when we see oneness, we don't see not oneness.

[58:27]

And when we see trueness, we don't see oneness. But oneness is in the dark. When we see oneness, trueness is in the dark. It's a kind of a traditional understanding. Yeah. But seeing them all together. At the same time. That is really bad. I don't know. Please. Are you saying, this is going to be really crude, but are you saying that as soon as you think or you believe that you're having a direct experience of reality, or when you think that, then that's a delusion.

[59:30]

Yes. Because we don't. We just don't. So enlightenment is accepting that, might be. Enlightenment is? Might be called accepting that, that we don't really ever have a direct experience. I think that is our practice. To see that limitation is enlightenment, in a sense. That means we cannot get realization easily by our realization. But we try to manifest that reality through our practice, not through our thinking or perception or personal experience. but within our practice together with all beings, with all people. That is manifestation of koan or genjo koan. So realization is not our personal psychological experience, but realization is within our day-to-day practice together with all other beings.

[60:45]

I think that is basic teaching of Dogen. And if we are not against this basic teaching or understanding of Dogen, since this Dogen's sentence is not so clear and not so logical, so we can interpret in different ways, I think. What comes up for me is actually a question from a child, a three-year-old, who asked, where does the darkness go when you turn out the lights? And it's coming up for me as when one realizes enlightenment, delusion is still there, but where does it go? I don't know. That's what this person is bringing up.

[61:48]

Oh, that's good. Yeah, I just want to say, just restating again, you know, to me this is very helpful in terms of practice. It's just this line, although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror. So no matter how clear we think we are being in, you know, how selfless we are, how much we've practiced and, you know, polished, the self is always going to creep in to whatever we perceive, and that we just have to keep remembering that. I think so. You know, as Dogen said, our practice is like polishing a tile in order to make it into a mirror. And it's not possible. Tile will not become a mirror. But Dobin said, within this polishing, the practice of polishing itself is mirror.

[62:52]

It's continuous polishing. Just keep polishing. Just sitting, just practicing, just trying to be helpful for all beings. At least not to be harmful to all beings. Moment by moment, within each action, this is polishing a type. We are type. We are not a mirror. But Within this polishing, tile and mirror is already there. So mirror is not something which we can produce from a tile. But this practice of polishing is itself the mirror. The mirror is being produced by the tile. So we should remember that no matter how long we practice, we are still tired.

[63:55]

But polishing the time is mirror. It's mirror in life. Yeah, if we use the word enlightenment, that is only possible enlightenment, you know, we can experience to, you know, keep the mirror, that means to practice. That's why Dogen said, practice is enlightenment, and enlightenment is practice. So there's no such things called enlightenment or realization or satori beside our polishing mirror, beside our day-to-day practice. Does that mean why we endlessly keep expressing the ungraspable trace of the realization? Yes, I think so. Well, we have 13 more minutes. We have a question about Genjoko-1, not specifically on this sentence section.

[65:02]

Pinter Cohen is often put as maybe the most important Dogen classical. Do you think Dogen, and Dogen put it as number one or number two in the Chopin Genzo, so do you agree that it is one of the most important and that Dogen felt that way? This is . is a basic principle of Dogen's teaching throughout the 75 chapters of . And traditionally, almost all masters accept it. For example, said Genjo Kowa and Bendowa and Busho or Buddha nature are three most important fundamental writings express Dogen's basic teachings and I think I think that is true but when I speak it

[66:36]

,, and Buddha nature. We call it . But decently, many scholars doubt it. Please. This teaching of Dogen seems to be a contrast to the platforms of fixed handsets. As far as the policy of the mirror is concerned, the enlightenment is already You're already on light. Right. Yeah, in the poems, in Prathama Sutra, he said, there's no dust on the mirror, so we don't need to push it.

[67:46]

Yeah, in that sense, it's kind of opposite. Is that the why we need to practice approach? Yes. Yes. So Togen tried to put emphasis on the actual day-to-day practice, not on certain kind of enlightenment experience or insight. But the basic understanding seems to be coming from different places. What is saying, we're already in light. He's saying, you're deluded. I think you're in light. I think so. And that is enlightenment. The tile being polished is the mirror being anticipated, being anticipated, really.

[68:52]

Oh, not anticipated. What's that? Not anticipated. You anticipate turning it into an error. It's never going to turn into an error. But it is already an error. I'm sorry, I don't know the word anticipate. Look forward to it. Expect it. Expect. Anticipate, expect. There being a later condition that will happen for policy. 80-90. 80-90. I don't think so. I wanted you to comment briefly on the discussion about firewood and ash, particularly the relationship between firewood and ash. We were just translating that from your Uchiyama regime. That's the last period you just translated. It's kind of difficult to talk briefly about it.

[69:58]

Well, I think section 11. This is a kind of a long section. uh shall i read the section or do you know i familiar with this section so i don't need to read it okay i think uh very uh obviously he's talking about life on this using for example fire and ash so until this section he's talking about delusion and then light idealization and put us on living beings and here he talks about he discuss about life and death

[71:02]

And he's always saying there is enlightenment, there is delusion, but there isn't a trace of realization. And here, again, I think Togen said there is life and there is death. Death, past and death, or life and death. but there isn't at the same time and in order to discuss about this change it's kind of a very crucial change for us change from life to death and in order to understand this change we need to understand that it's time you know to change I think means time If there's no change at all, we don't see time.

[72:08]

We see the time because there's something is changing. So to understand what life and what is life and what is this, what is this change, big change, I think he's talking about time. And our usual idea, our concept of time is time is always flowing from past to the future through present moment. I think we all agree about this. But Dogen Zenji offer another idea about time. He says, when we are alive, there's no death.

[73:10]

And when we are dead, there's no life. So life and death are not really, how can I say, relative to each other. When we are alive, 100% we are alive. When we are dead, there's no life at all. So as far as we are living, We never meet death. We never experience death. So we are discussing life and death only within life. We know death because someone died. And even, for example, if my mother died, I'm still here. And this world is still here. So I think even when I'm dead, this world and other people will be there. So I'm only person travel from life to death.

[74:15]

I think that is reality. But that is not only way to see the reality. That is what he's saying, I think. It said, when firewood is firewood, it is within the position of firewood. And as the reality of this moment of firewood, firewood has past or before, and fire would arise future or after. Fire would just to be, I think, a tree. When tree is cut and dried, it becomes firewood. And firewood is placed on the fireplace, it burns and becomes ash. So firewood has its own past and future.

[75:22]

And in the case of human beings, we have our past at this present moment. as our memory or as our karma or habit. Karma is our habit or influence from our experience in the past. So our past is in this present moment. And our future is also within this moment. And actually, this moment doesn't really exist, right? If there is even a slightest length of time, we can separate, cut into two. And one is already in the past, and another is in the future. You know, if we say, now, and I say, now, we are seeing the future.

[76:31]

I say, now is already the past. So the present moment has no length. That means present moment doesn't exist. But present moment is only reality. This only reality is, doesn't exist. really empty. But within this present moment, which doesn't really exist, entire past from the beginningless beginning and the entire future till the endless end is reflected. So within this moment, which has no length, which doesn't really exist, entire past and future is included or reflected I think that is Dogen's idea of time. So he says, time in Shobo Genzo Uji, or being time, is a being or existence, is time, itself time.

[77:40]

And time is being. So he is a kind of, not negate, but he thinks that our common idea of time is flowing from past to future. And this present moment is one kind of a, how can I say, a point within the stream of time. But he said, this moment, is or the time came out of this moment, this being. So this is only reality, even though this doesn't really exist. It's kind of very strange things, but I think that is the reality of our life. And it's 12 o'clock, and the workshop was live, and now it's over. Thank you.

[78:43]

Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you.

[78:50]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_88.97