Good afternoon. This morning I talked about the story of Dogutsu Buddha Nature and Wu and Mu, with several varieties of the story. And I talked two traditional interpretations of this story. And one is in Mumonkan, traditionally used in Rinzai tradition, and another is Shouyou Roku, or Book of Serenity. And these two are very different. And now I'm going to talk on Dogen Denji's interpretation of this story. Maybe one thing I have to say before talking about this is, better to forget everything I said this morning.

[01:07]

So different. It's page 91, the last paragraph of page 91. I first read the first half of the story and his comments. That is about, in this case, no Buddha nature. A monk asks Chao-chu, Chen-chi, Tashi, that is, Zhou-shu, Does that dog have the Buddha nature or not?

[02:08]

The meaning of this question must be clarified. It asks neither whether a dog has the Buddha nature or whether it does not have the Buddha nature. It asks, does a man of iron still practice the way? Saochu or Joshu, branded into a poison hand, and his resentment may be intense, but it is a means of seeing half a real saint at last. After 30 years, Joshu said, move or no. Hearing this word, of course, the course of practice to be pursued opened up. The move The Buddha nature declares itself to be. The moo, the dog, declares itself to be.

[03:13]

Both must be utterances like Joshu's moo. So does the moo a bystander calls out. Such a moo is a sun with storm-melting power. The monk said, all sentient beings, everyone have the Buddha nature. Why doesn't the dog? What this essentially says is, while there are no sentient beings, there would be no Buddha nature. There would be no dog in there. Essentially, it means what? Dog, Buddha-Mesha, what need have they to be called Mu? Joseph said, it is because the dog exists in karmic consciousness. The meaning of these words is that existence for the sake of others is karmic consciousness.

[04:21]

Although his existence in karmic consciousness is existence for the sake of others, it is dog mu. It is Buddha nature mu. Karmic consciousness never understands the dog. How could the dog encounter the Buddha nature? Whether we speak of existence in karmic consciousness, existence for the sake of others, or of dog-noo or Buddha-nature-noo, they are always karmic consciousness. This is the first half. Because Dogen Zenji respected Wanshi, the Chinese photos and master who compiled, collected the 100 koans and made poems and produced the material for Shouyou-roku.

[05:34]

Dogen Zenji succeeded. That story consisted of two parts. In one part, in the Shōyōroku, first Joshu said U and second Joshu said Mu. But here Dogen Zenji changed the order. And I think this has some meaning. If Joshu first say U and then Mu, the interpretation by Bansho Joshu or even Wanshi, that first Joshu gave the jewel and next take it away. But if Mu is first, then that interpretation is not possible.

[06:35]

I think that is the point. And so Dogen didn't say anything about this change of order, but we must be very careful about this. And this is, I think, this is my guess, but this is same as the, you know, in Section 8 and 9, Dogen discuss about Enkan's living beings have Buddha nature or Ubu Sho and Isan's Ubu Sho. And I introduced a story from Shinji Shobo Genzo or 300 Koans entitled Shobo Genzo collected by Dogen. But somehow Dogen didn't quote that story. He only quote Enkan's And I-san thinks of being U-bushou and Mu-bushou. So he cut off the part of, you know, two monks, you know, talked with Yangshan or Gyo-san.

[07:46]

That is, you know, I-san said, all living beings have no Buddha nature. And Enkan said all living beings have Buddha nature, or Ubu Shisho. And two monks from Enkan's assembly visited Isan and tried to figure out what Isan's meaning, but they couldn't, and they thought Isan teaching is not a Buddhist teaching. So one day, those two monks found Ifan's major disciple, Gyo-san, and they had a conversation. And they said, it's important to study Buddhism, so don't be lazy. So you should diligently practice Buddhism. That means your teacher's teaching is not a Buddhism.

[08:50]

And no Buddha nature is not a Buddhism. Then, I think you remember, Bajosan made a circle with his hands on the air and hold it and throw it away and show his hands and he said the same thing, you know, this is Buddhism, you should be presently practicing Buddhism. But those two monks didn't understand. And Dogen Zen, I think, Dogen Zen didn't like this idea. This is, again, same as I think Shoyoroku's interpretation of this koan. It's kind of a two-step. First, you should find the Buddha nature. Then next, you should take it away or throw it away or be free from Buddha nature. So this is a kind of a two-step method. First, you have to understand it. and find it and hold it, and yet that is not the end of the practice.

[09:59]

We have to throw it away. We must become free from it. That is one kind of approach of Zen practice. First you discover Buddha nature and practice it, and hold it, and after that you need to throw it away, become free from that, and just practice. But Dogen then gives like this idea of two-step method. He is always discussing reality is only one, like now, like here. We don't expect anything in the future. We cannot hold on something we did in the past. This is it. That's it. So, when we study Shobo, not only Shobo Genzo, but Dogen's writings, what he didn't like is also important.

[11:08]

So we must really carefully study what he's writing and to study the sources or material he used, and we need to find what he didn't mention, what he, how can we say, leave it out. It's important to understand what Dogen really wanted to say. I think that is why he put the new Buddha nature first instead of woo. So the question is very familiar with us. Does that dog have the Buddha nature or not? And he said, the meaning of this question must be clarified.

[12:14]

That means it's not clear. We think the meaning of this question is very clear, whether the Buddha and dog has Buddha nature or not. What else can this question mean? And actually, this translation didn't translate one sentence. And I understand why it didn't translate, because I also work on translation. This is nonsense. In a common sense, the Japanese sentence is kusu to wa imu nari. You know, the question is kusu. This is kusu.

[13:25]

U is have, busho is Buddha nature, or not. So does kusu have Buddha nature or not? And this kusu is a Chinese word for dog, but this is not Japanese. So what Dogen said is kusu is an English-Japanese word for kusu. So he said, kusu is ino. But if we translate this into English, a dog is a dog. And it's just a repetition of the same word. So it doesn't make sense to translate. And this might not be important. but it can be very important you know dog is a dog that dog is nothing other than dog dog cannot be a buddha or dog cannot be a buddha nature dog is a dog period same as you know buddha uh

[14:52]

Emptiness is emptiness, period. And form is form, period. So Buddha, I mean, dog is dog, period. It can be a very important expression, but this translator ignored it because he thinks this is simply the explanation what kusu is for Japanese people. KUSU TO WA IGO NANI? KUSU is deferred to. WA KUSU means adopt. Then he said, it asks neither whether a dog has the Buddha nature or whether it does not have the Buddha nature.

[16:07]

So according to Dogen, this question is not a matter of whether a dog has the Buddha nature or not. But this is really unique. He interpreted this question as, does a man of iron still practice the way The man of iron is Thet Khan. Thet Khan. Thet is iron, and the Khan is man. This expression, tekkan, appeared in some Zen texts within some koan, but tekkan means the person who is really deeply determined to practice good way.

[17:17]

So the question Does or is the tekkan, is the island person still practicing or not? Means it's not a question. And tekkan means the person who is practicing. Never constantly, never stop practicing. So is tekkan still practicing? Means kind of nonsense. It's not a necessary question. It's a matter of course. If the person is not practiced, he's not a tekken or iron person. So if he's a tekken or iron person, of course he's practicing. That means this question, does Buddha have Buddha nature or not, means according to Dogen, not according to the common way of reading this sentence, but at least according to Dogen, this means does Buddha nature have Buddha nature or not.

[18:36]

So this question is not really a question And they are talking about, using the example of Buddha nature, dog's Buddha nature, is how bodhisattva, very deeply determined bodhisattva is practicing. Joshu branded a poison hand, and his resentment may be intense, but it is a means of seeing half a real saint at last after 30 years. I'm not sure what Joshu branded a poison hand means in English.

[19:43]

What does this mean? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. Unintentionally. Unintentionally. Accidentally. Accidentally. Foolishly. mistake mistake so uh this means uh joshua made a mistake who is using a poison hand he thought he was doing something else that landed into a poison hand so this poison hand is joshua's hand or the monk's hand I want to translate that. Actually, in Japanese, there's no subject.

[21:12]

So we cannot... It's difficult to tell who wins, who loses. Yeah. I think this poison came from Shoyoroku. Poison in Shoyoroku. So this question by the monk was a poisoned hand. And Joshu made a mistake. So he was poisoned. So even in Japanese modern translation, translation to modern Japanese, depending upon the translator, Someone said Joshu made a mistake. Someone said the monk made a mistake. My understanding is Joshu made a mistake.

[22:16]

Joshu mistakenly deals with this poisoned hand. And his resentment may be intense. That means Joshu made a mistake, and he may have intense resentment, but he said it is a means of seeing half a real saint at last after 30 years. This also came from one Zen story. This story is, again, one of the Baso's disciples, whose name was Sekkyo Eizo. This person used to be a hunter, and he was always carrying the, what do you call, arrow, bow and arrow, even after he became monk.

[23:20]

And for 30 years, whenever monk visited him to ask Dharma. He put an arrow on the bow and tried to shoot the person. And of course, for 30 years, he couldn't find any two wind seekers. But finally, one person visited. His name was Gitchu. And when Sekyo tried to shoot the person, he didn't escape, but he opened his clothing and asked to shoot me. And this thing was by that Zen master that I have been looking for 30 years, looking for the two practitioners for 30 years. And finally, I found half a person. you didn't say one person.

[24:25]

Half a saint. Half a saint. So that means Joshua finally finds a real practitioner. So Dogen prays that person who made this question. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? I think no one else said such a thing. And Joshua said, hearing this word, the course of practice to be pursued opened up. So is an instruction to show how we should practice. The mu, the Buddha nature declares itself to be.

[25:30]

The mu, the dog declares itself to be. Those must be utterances like Joshu's mu. So does the mu, a bystander called out. So I think the point is, In both Shōryō-roku, or Book of Serenity, and Numonkan, or Gateless Barrier, and in Zen teaching in general, word is something extra, or we should not cut up in words. and concept so how can we become free from world and concept or logical way of thinking is one of the most important point in them you know it was very clear in the teaching of uh

[26:39]

But Dogen's kind of, not idea, but attitude toward words is completely different from that kind of, you know, words cannot be truth or reality itself. Of course, words and concepts are incomplete copy of reality, but like a map or atlas. And yet a map or atlas is part of the reality. So it's really important we study how to use it. If we know, if we study how to use the map, the map is really useful kind of a tool to see, to understand the reality of the Earth. If we think the map itself is reality or the shapes in the map is a real thing, that's a mistake. Of course, that is true. But that doesn't mean we should throw all the maps away and stop using it.

[27:45]

But we have to study how the map was produced. And that distortion occurred. So if we can, you know, how can I say, adjust that distortion, then we can see the reality through the map. So what we need when we study Dharma is to understand how the language, when we try to describe something or express something using words and concepts, what kind of distortion is made and how we can adjust it. And if we know how to do it, then the word and the concept is part of the reality.

[28:47]

and all the Buddhas and ancestors and Buddhist masters trying to, even the Buddha Shakyamuni, trying to transmit, express, explain and transmit the realities through using words and letters. in the form of sutras or commentaries on sutras or the recorded sayings by the masters. So Dogen considers these words in the sutra or in the Zen texts as reality itself. And that is the Buddha nature manifests itself or expresses itself through words. If the words are correct and if we can adjust the distortion, that means if we know how to use words and language.

[29:58]

So to say something is really important in Dogen. Reading books or studying sutras and having discussion to study each other is really important in Dogen. That is what Dogen said in Dōtoku. Dōtoku is one of the Tattabushō Bōgenzo. Dō, tōku. This dō is the same Chinese character as way or path. But this also means to say or to speak. And tōku is to get or attain or being capable to.

[31:04]

So dōzoku means how can I say, when we had certain experiences or certain understanding. We have to create the expression using words. Until you can express that experience or insight, that is not really experience. And it's not really insight. So to express something using words is really important. Another word Dōgen used in the show was dōshū. Seimudo and shu. Shu means to get or take. So we try to offer the expression what we experience and what we see.

[32:06]

So this move. That Buddha-nature declares itself, this mood is, how can I say, is Buddha-nature's, Buddha-nature declares itself to be mood. So this mood is Buddha-nature's word, not Joshu's word. But Buddha-nature expresses itself through Joshu's mouth. And that word was mu. And not only Buddha nature, but the dog declares itself to be. So this mu is dog express itself as mu. And that is, those must be utterance like Joshu's mu.

[33:14]

So Doshu's word, expression mu, is same as Buddha nature's self-expression and dog's self-expression. And so this, according to Dogen, this is really expression of reality itself. So it's not a matter of we should not cling to, or we should avoid, or we should think opposite, like woo. So the new bystander called out. So anyone or all beings, not only Buddha-nature and dog and Joshu, but all beings, when they express themselves, that should be Mu. And such a Mu is a sun with stone-melting power, stone-melting power.

[34:26]

I don't know what this means I mean whether this is true or not but he said the sun has a power to melt a stone and this means before Dogen quote someone the master's expression a piece of rock in emptiness Kuri Bennoishi yeah That's what emptiness means. Within emptiness, there's a piece of rock. So it's not really simply empty space. But emptiness is the way the rock, that means five scandals are. So here, what Dogen is saying, my understanding is, Even that rock in that emptiness is melted away.

[35:32]

That means really emptiness itself, nothing else. So this is same as emptiness is emptiness period. Then the monk said, All sentient beings, everyone, have the Buddha nature. Why doesn't the dog? Dogen says, What this essentially says is, Were there no sentient beings, there would be no Buddha nature. There would be no dog either. Essentially, it means what? I think he can interpret these conversations in Chinese in a very unique way because he was not a Chinese, and Chinese language is not his own language.

[37:06]

When you study a foreign language, you have to figure out each and every word and try to think what this is. And after that, we try to understand one sentence. So first, we need to think each and every word instead of interpret one sentence. I think that's why he could interpret it in this way, I think. But the monk's question to Joshu is, living beings, all have . So all living beings are all U, or half-planetary.

[38:20]

The dog, for that reason, why move? And Dogen's interpretation is, even though the monk said all living beings are, he separated this u and busho, and he read this as being. So if all living beings are all beings, and that is Buddha nature. Dog for fat, why moo? And Dogen's saying is, you know, all living beings are moo. That is what Joshu said. All living beings are moo, then Buddha nature should also moo.

[39:38]

Kus is also mu. And what does this mean? That means, what is this u? This all being, kai u, is one strange thing. All others are mu, but what is this u? That, I mean, according to Dogen, that's a question of the monk. What is this woo? What is really there, alive, moving, arriving, eating, doing things? What is this woo? If living beings to the nature and dog are all woo, what is this woo? So dog, Buddha nature, what need had they to be called Moo?

[40:49]

Then Joshu said, it is because the dog exists in karmic consciousness. I'm not sure about this translation. The original word is . is, in this case, dog. is a third person, it or he or she. And wu, as a common way of reading, wu is have, and gosu kid, karmic consciousness. And zai is to be. So this means, and ii is because.

[42:03]

Because the dog, ta, or he or it have karmic consciousness. And this zai is also bee, that means the karmic consciousness is still there. And the Buddha and dog have karmic consciousness. That's why... Let's see... in the common way of reading, that's why dog has more Buddha nature. But Dogen's way of reading this sentence is in is because, but another meaning of this Chinese character is for the sake of, or the

[43:07]

Seiko, ta can mean other. And so he read this as one word, itau, the being for the sake of others. And the being for the sake of others means bodhisattva, to live. You know, the very basic definition of what bodhisattva is, is ordinary living beings are living, being moved or led by karmic consciousness, making karma. Being moved by karmic consciousness, therefore we create karma and we create suffering. But this is a definition of ordinary beings, living beings.

[44:09]

But one of the definitions of bodhisattva is the way of life of ordinary beings is called gosho, gos and sho, life based on karma or karmic consciousness. So the expression is ordinary beings who lived based on karma. That is ordinary living beings that is transmigrating with six realms of samsara. But the definition of bodhisattva is bodhisattva is a person who is living with vow. Vow? the expression is gansho.

[45:11]

Gan in say gan, gansho. Gan is vow. So living based on vow, because of vow, because of the four bodhisattva vows, especially the first one, sentient beings are numberless. without to free them or save them. That is first vow. And if sentient beings or living beings are numberless, there is no time we can save them all. To save them means save them all. So this vow means we don't become Buddha or we don't enter nirvana until all other beings are in nirvana. That means we vow to be the last person to enter nirvana. We, you know, try ask other people to go first.

[46:19]

And if all living beings have this vow, kind of strange thing. No one is there. You know, everyone said, please go ahead. I have a question. I was wondering, you know, if truly the compassion is coming out of hearts, spontaneously, what does it mean to be the last person entering the Nirvana? Being the last or first doesn't make any difference. The same thing you mentioned, to be at this first step of the mountain or being on top of the mountain doesn't make any difference if you're in the practice. So anyhow, the question was, could be, does it make any difference to be the last person to enter or the first person to enter? So this is another idea of, you know, how we, how can I say, create the Buddha land in this shore, not to the other shore.

[47:24]

So no one go to the other shore. All the people stay here. That's what it means, first step and last step is the same place. And that is compassion. That makes sense. Anyway, so Bodhisattva's vow to stay in samsara, to work with all beings, to help all beings, and to go ahead. And if all beings live in the same attitude, then we don't need to go there. Now, if all the people live with that attitude, that is Nirvana. No one is, you know, self-centered. They like to help others, serve others. So, you know, those supervisors are, how can I say, transmigrate again.

[48:32]

Not again. Same as ordinary living beings who have... karmic consciousness. Or we can say Bodhisattva is a person who has karmic consciousness. Therefore, we don't stop transmigrating, but the purpose or the motivation is different, not because we are ignorant and we crave things, but because we live being led by vow, we cannot stop transmigrating. And that is what this dog means, or dog's karmic nature and Buddha nature means. As for Bodhisattva, we have still karmic consciousness. And yet, because this dog is a Bodhisattva, this dog cannot give up this karmic consciousness in order to stay in this world, to work with others.

[49:46]

That is what inter-woo means. I think it's a very unique way of reading this sentence. No one can live in such a way. So itau is bodhisattva. The being for the sake of others is the beings of karmic consciousness. And that is Buddha. That is dog. So dog has karmic consciousness in order to continue to practice as a bodhisattva. If dog give up karmic consciousness, the dog has to give up the vow. So we keep karmic consciousness in order to continue bodhisattva practice. So both are there. We live with karmic nature in order to work and practice as a bodhisattva.

[50:50]

So, the meaning of this word is, please? Gansho, yes. Gansho is a life, or a living. And, you know, the name of... MGMC, temple name of Inesatagen Meditation Center is Gansho-ji. That's what Katari-rosh meant, which means being led by vow, and that means bodhisattva. So the meaning of these words is that existence for the sake of others is inter-un. is karmic consciousness, is being of karmic consciousness. This is his way of reading the sentence.

[51:54]

Although his existence in karmic consciousness is existence for the sake of others, it is dog-new. So this way of life is new. It's not because he clings to the karmic consciousness as a self or ego, but to continue to practice as a bodhisattva, the dog does not give up karmic consciousness. So that fat mu means empty. It's clinging, but it's not clinging. There's no self nature there. And that dog moo and Buddha nature moo means. So it's very different from, you know, common understanding of the Koan story.

[52:59]

So karmic consciousness never understand the dog. Karmic consciousness never understand the dog. Understand is A in original, and this A also means to encounter, to meet. So come consciousness, never understand, never meet with dog, because these are one thing. You know, Shohak cannot meet Shohak, or a Buddha cannot meet Buddha, and the dog cannot meet the dog, and Buddha-nature cannot meet the Buddha-nature. So there's no subject-object separation. So how could the dog encounter the Buddha-nature?

[54:03]

Because Buddha-nature and dog are one thing. and karmic consciousness and life as a bodhisattva is one thing. Karmic consciousness and being or life as a bodhisattva for the sake of others is one thing. we cannot separate into two. And this is good point, that is bad point. So the idea, you know, the common idea about the Buddha nature, Buddha nature is something precious like gold within that. That is, that Dogen tried to negate that idea. You know, our life has kind of a combination of two parts. One is precious, another is So if we want to be enlightened, we cut off this dark part, then we become Buddha.

[55:12]

That kind of very simple calculation, A plus B equals C. So if we take B from C, it become A. very simple calculation, but according to Dogen, our life is not such a simple thing. We have both, and we cannot separate into two. These are one thing. So whether we speak of existence in karmic consciousness, existence for the sake of others, whether we are and we are both. Or dogma or Buddha nature move, they are always karmic consciousness. So our practice is not, you know, like a karmic consciousness, like a tantra, cause of problems.

[56:16]

So if we have surgery and take karmic consciousness out, then only the bodhisattva part is left. But such a surgery is not possible because this is one thing. So from one side, this is entirely karmic consciousness. And from another thing, including karmic consciousness, this is entirely Buddha-nature. That is the part Dogen said in the very beginning, entire being is Buddha-nature. It's not a part of it. Mark, this is the end of the first section, and now he starts the second section. A monk asked Joshu, does that dog have the Buddha nature or not?

[57:24]

Let me read until the end of this section. A monk asked Joshu, does that dog have the Buddha nature or not? This question signified that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshu. We thus see that making utterances and posing questions about the Buddha nature are ordinary rice-eating, tea-drinking occurrences in the lives of Buddhas and Patriarchs. Joseph said, it has, or oo. The manner of this has or oo is not the has or oo, employed by exegetes of the doctrinal schools.

[58:32]

It is not the has, or I don't think this is has, this is being, who, posited by the Sarvabhasthi-Bhāvan scholars. You must go beyond them and learn the Buddha being. Buddha being is Joshu's being. Joshu's being is the dog's being. The dog's being is Buddha nature being. These beings are all oo. The monk said, if it already has the Buddha nature, what's the use of it pushing into such a bag of skin? This monk's utterance asks whether Joshu's being is present being, past being, or established being, and we should have to reply that the original being in Joshu's utterance appears to refer to one being among various other beings.

[59:47]

But in fact, it is originally being, signing alone. Should originally being be something that pushes into? Should it be something that does not push into? The act of pushing into this bag of skin is a cause of erroneous striving, but it is not therefore in vain. Joshua said, it's because it does it knowingly. It's deliberately transgressed. As a mundane utterance, these words have long circulated in the world, but now it is Joshua's utterance. He's saying that in transgresses on purpose, in full knowledge of what it does, There are probably few people who would not have doubts about this.

[60:56]

The words pushing into are difficult to understand in this context, but in fact, they are not really needed here. Not only that, if you want to know the undying man in his heritage, Hermitage, sorry, Hermitage, You must not leave your own bag of skin. The undying man, whoever he may be, is never at any time separated from his bag of skin. To transgress knowingly is not necessarily pushing into such a bag of skin. Pushing into such a bag of skin is not necessarily knowing and deliberately transgressing. It has to be deliberately transgressing because it is knowing.

[62:02]

You should be aware that this deliberatory transgressing may, as such, contain concealed within it daily activities that constitute the emancipated body of suchness. This is what is meant by pushing into. At the very time, the daily activity constituting the emancipated body of suchness is concealed within it. It is concealed from you and from others as well. But although that is indeed true, Do not say you are not yet free of ignorance. You leader of donkeys, you horse followers. And that is not all. The eminent priest Yanchu said, you may learn all there is to know about the Dharma, but in doing so, you completely

[63:17]

falsify the bearing of your mind. Hence, even if your partial halfway study of the Buddha's Dharma has long been in error, for days or even months on end, it still cannot be anything but the dog pushing into such a bag of skin. It is a case of knowingly transgressing, but that itself is no other than being Buddha being. Do you understand? I don't think so. But I need to talk. Yeah, that is the problem. So this is the second half of this conversation.

[64:25]

A monk asked Joshu, does that dog have the Buddha Nijawa or not? This is a very familiar question. But Dogen said, this question signifies that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshu, gotten hold of his grasp, catch, same as Isan Reiju said about the story between Obaku and Nansen. And Obaku caught the tiger. So here Dogen said, this monk who made this question called on Joshu. So again, this monk wins and Joshu loses. It's completely opposite understanding.

[65:34]

We thus see that making utterance and posing questions So question and answer about the Buddha nature is, he said, ordinary life eating, tea drinking that we do every day. We eat, you know, rice, not in this country, but in Japan, three times a day. and we drink a lot of tea. So this means Buddha nature is something we should really study and practice and understand and express within our day-to-day lives. It's not a philosophical topic for only Zen masters or Buddhist philosophers. We have to do it in our daily lives as our ordinary meal and tea.

[66:46]

So nothing special. Anyway, Joshu said, Uu this time. And the manner of this, this not house, I think this is Uu, dealing. The manner of this being or U is not the U or being employed by abdicate of the doctrinal schools. It is not the U posited by the Sarabasti-Baden scholars. This means this U used by Joshu. In Chinese character wu, can be, not can be, is one of the translation of Sanskrit word vada. That means being or existence.

[67:50]

And in Buddhist Adhigarma, the Abhidharma Masters, analyzes this being, in the case of Abhidharma Kosha, into 75 beings or dharmas. And this particular school called Sarvabhasthi Bhadon, Sarvabhasthi Bhadon literally means people who insist that being the being really exists in past, present, and future in three times. So they said being is not empty. It has fixed nature. And what Dogen said, Joshu's U, or being here, is not that kind of U. that Dogen, not Dogen, but Joshua discussed is Buddha being, butsu-u.

[69:05]

You must go beyond them and learn the Buddha being, butsu-u. Buddha being. And he said, Buddha being, Buddha being, is Joshu's being. And Joshu's being is Dog's being, or U, Dog's U. So in this part, Dogen talks about U, not Mu. So Buddha as U, or Uta U aspect of Buddha, it's there. And Buddha has function. So it's not Buddha. is not a fixed entity. Buddha is impermanent, same as Buddha-nature. So Joshu-u is Buddha-u.

[70:09]

It's impermanent and without fixed self-nature. And Joshu-u is Dogu-u. And Dogu-u is Buddha-nature's u. So these are all Wu, same Wu. That is Wu actually working, functioning, and living, such as... You know, this being is not a fixed entity, but often there are examples such as a waterfall is used. This being is like a waterfall. There's no, for example, Niagara Falls. There's no such thing called a waterfall. It's just a, that is just a, how can I say, correction of the certain shape of the land and

[71:12]

flow of water. So Niagara Falls is just the main of this happening. It's not a fixed entity or existence. It's always changing. So we cannot say there is Niagara Falls as a fixed entity. But as a concept, Niagara Falls is always Niagara Falls forever. It doesn't change. And yet the real thing is always changing. The water is different. Each moment the water that makes the fall is different. And the shape of the land is always also little by little changing. So there's no fixed entity called Niagara Falls. So it's not there. And yet, you know, the actual Niagara Falls and the picture of the Niagara Falls are different.

[72:20]

This is really, or Niagara Falls in my imagination and actual one are different. It's really there. And the photo or picture or my imagination is not really there. So it's not really fiction. It's there. It's there, really there. And it's moving and changing and living and practicing. And yet there's no such fixed entity called Niagara Falls. And this U or Dutsu U, Joshu U, Buddha's U or Dogu's U are the same U. It's there, and it's always changing. It's actually living and practicing. And in order to do so, this Buddha-woo or Joshu-woo or dog-woo needs a skin bag or shape.

[73:31]

In order to do so, a dog or Buddha or Joshu need a skin bag, a bag of skin. That means form and karmic consciousness. with these five scandals, we saw happening these five scandals and this karmic consciousness. And that is what he is saying the most. The monk said, if it already has the Buddha nature, what is the use of it pushing into such a bag of skin? So somehow Buddha nature that might be formerly pushed into the bag of skin and become a dog. So why Buddha nature needs to get into that skin bag?

[74:42]

Why a bodhisattva needs to give other karmic person called shohaka? And this is also a problem. The next question is . Another marker? Oh, thank you. So the translation is already there. If it already has the Buddha nature, if the dog already has Buddha nature, again, for what reason the Buddha nature or the dog's toe is to push?

[76:13]

And new is enter, so push into. That is the meaning of pushing. So why Buddha nature needs to be pushed into the skin bag of the dog? If it's Buddha nature, it has no form. It's not limited. And it has nothing to do with south or north. not an individual's thing. Why Buddha nature needs such a skin bag as a dog in this case? And again, Dogen's way of reading this sentence is different. He said, I'm sorry, I'm speaking in Japanese. This monk's Atalants asked whether Joshu's being, Joshu's U, is present being, past being, or established being.

[77:23]

These present being, past being, or established beings come from this word, kin U, already being. Already being is... that is the word established being. So if the dog already has Buddha nature, he said, the Buddha nature is ki-u, already there, already being, or established being. And he asked, is this established being, is present being or past being? Established means it's already there before this present moment. So it has some process. So it's not simply present being at this moment.

[78:27]

And yet it's not a past because it's present. So what is this established means? is his question. And this is the same question as whether living beings have Buddha nature from the very beginning, or Buddha nature appears only when we practice, if what this cue means. And Dogen narrated both right before. Buddha-nature is not something we have from the very beginning. And Buddha-nature is also not something we can get when we practice in certain way at certain time. Then, what this kini means, it's there.

[79:32]

But is it really there? from the beginning or only this moment. And we would have to reply that the original being, original being is also the translation of ki-u. In Joshu's utterance, So Dogen, this, you know, Joshu's saying, not that dog has a Buddha nature, but Buddha nature is king wolf. It's already being or established being, and yet it's not existence from the very beginning, and it's not something we can gain at certain times when we practice some particular things. And this translator translates this here as original being.

[80:42]

I'm not sure this translation is good or not. But original being in Zosyo's utterance appears to refer to one being among various other beings. But in fact, it is an ordinary being shining alone. Shining alone means, you know, this being is only one thing. The expression he used in the beginning of this Bhagavad Gita is entire being. entire being is shining alone. That means nothing else. So we cannot say it exists here, or it was there, or it was, will be in the future.

[81:48]

But it is always already there. And this is shining, shining alone means nothing else. This is only this moment, this moment, this moment. As Dogen said in Uzi, only this moment. And the next moment, again, this is only moment. And again, next moment, that is only moment. So this is only thing which is shining. Should originally being, this q, Being, original being, be something that pushes into by this original being, or already being, or established being, that is Buddha nature, being something that pushes into.

[82:50]

This is your question. Or should it be something that does not push into, into this skin bag of a dog. And somehow, he or her original being, as Buddha nature, is enter the skin bag. Later, Dogen said, this enter is a problem, because this original Buddha nature and a skin bag is one thing. It's not a matter of this enter that. But this is one thing, and this is our practice. Buddha-nature practice using this skin bag, this skin bag. So the act of pushing into, and this is pushing into, act of pushing into means this is our practice.

[83:51]

Somehow Buddha-nature pushing into this shogun's skin bag and do something. This is practice. The act of pushing into this bag of skin is a case of erroneous striving. So whatever we do is erroneous, mistake. But it is not, therefore, in vain. This is really unique. So whatever we do is a mistake. And this is Dogen's. Not only Dogen, but in one of the famous sayings in Zen, from one mistake to next mistake. That is process of our practice. So we are mistake. And our practice is mistake. Keep making mistaking.

[84:52]

If we know that whatever we do is mistake, then we don't need to cling to, you know, we did so much, or we did such a great thing. So we can be humble, be peaceful, and just keep going. Please. The other day you were saying that, you know, the body of a man is like a house for either the Buddha nature or spiritual intelligence. So when I'm giving you the point that you're saying, like, you know, Buddha nature and the dialogue scheme are one, so how would you compare that to the previous statement? That is the idea of the so-called center, non-Buddhist teacher. There's a sort of, it's like an owner of the house, and the house is burned, the owner get out and buy another house.

[85:56]

That is not Buddhist idea. Here, though, we are, our Buddha nature is not like the owner of the house. Okay? I don't know. I don't know. That is, I think, one of the points discussed in the next section. Yeah, as one copy to two. Well, it's time to stop. I hope I can finish tomorrow morning. We want to move from here to your little thing. OK. Just keep making mistakes.

[86:53]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_88.75