Good morning. Good morning. I started to talk on section 9, page 26. Before I start to talk, I'd like to ask you one thing. If I'm sure my English is not sometimes not clear. So if you have a question about my English expression, or if you can't hear my pronunciation, or if you need more clear explanation, please give me a question. But a question from somewhere else, please wait until I finish talking. We have question and answer time. for 30 minutes.

[01:03]

Otherwise, we cannot finish. In the case of study group, we have every week on Monday. It's an ongoing thing, so I don't care about it. We don't need to finish it within a certain period. But in the case of Genzoe, I'd like to finish of my desire. Finish this within five days, so please be patient. Section 8 was about the things of the Enkan Sai Ant, and its saying was, All living beings have pure nature, or are in pure nature.

[02:06]

In Section 9, Dogen comments on isan, isan's sense. All sentient beings or living beings have no buddhahechi. First, let me read that section. Chan Master Khaidon of Mount Kakui once said to the assembly of monks, all sentient beings have no good nature. Among those who heard him in the human world and in the deva, deva realists were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in Those thrown into wandering doubt by it were not unknown either.

[03:16]

Shakyamuni expanded, all sentient beings, without exception, have the Buddha nature. Takpe expanded, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. The world has and does not have. are totally different in principle. It is understandable that doubts should arise as to which utterance is correct. But in the Buddha way, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature, is alone preeminent. With his words have the Buddha nature, Yankan seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old Buddha Shakyamuni. Nonetheless, it cannot help being a case of two men holding up one staff.

[04:19]

Now Takei is different. In his case, one staff swallows up both men. Of course, national preacher Ien Kwan was a child of Matsu, and Takei was Matsu's grandchild. Yet, in the way of his Dharma grandfather, Dharma grandson Takei proves to be an old greybeard. and in the way of his Dharma father, the Dharma son Yen K'an, is still a Ka'o youth. The principle at work in Tāke's words is the principle of all sacred beings have no Buddha nature. That does not mean that Kākei's no-Buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition, for it is present right there.

[05:24]

Received and maintained in the scriptures, he embodies within his own house. It should be brought further. How could all sentient beings be Buddha nature? How could they have a Buddha nature? If a sentient being had a Buddha nature, he would clone with the devil heretics. It would be assuring in a devil and trying to set him on top of a sentient being. Since Buddha nature is just Buddha nature, sentient beings are just sentient beings. It is not that sentient beings are from the first endowed with the Buddha nature. Here the essential point is even though you seek the Buddha nature, hoping to endow yourself with it, Buddha nature is not something to appear now for the first time.

[06:35]

Do not imagine it is a matter of chan, drink, and re-getting drunk. If sentient beings originally possessed the Buddha-nature, they would not be sentient beings. Since they are sentient beings, they are not the Buddha-nature at all. This is why all chants sell. To preach that sentient beings have the Buddha-nature is to disparate Buddha. Dharma and Sangha. To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha nature is also to disparage Buddha, Dharma and Sangha. Therefore, whether it is have Buddha nature or have no Buddha nature, both end up by disparaging the free treasures.

[07:39]

But regardless of the disparagement, You cannot get by without making an utterance. Now, let me ask Take and Po-chan. It may well be disparagement, but has the Buddha nature been really preached or not? Even granting it has been preached, wouldn't the Buddha nature be totally implicated in the preaching? Any preaching of it would have to occur together with the hearing of it. Moreover, I must ask Kake, even though you articulated that all sentient beings have no Buddha nature, you did not say all Buddha natures have no sentient beings, or that all Buddha natures have no Buddha nature.

[08:45]

Still less could you have seen even in your dreams that all Buddhas have no Buddha nature. Now let's see if you can come up with a response. through those through the masters. For all Buddha, all sentient beings, or all living beings, in this case, the original word is shu-jo. I think living beings is better than sentient beings. Sentient beings is a translation of yu-jo. The word used here is shu-jo. It means all living beings. For all living beings, how to the nature is a traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching from the Parinirvana Sutra.

[10:01]

And until 19th century, many Buddhist believed that all those sutras, including Mahayana sutras, were the actual record of Shakyamuni Buddha's sayings. So it's very kind of difficult to, you know, doubt that the fact is written in the sutras. So until then the sutra has pretty much authority. But somehow this Zen Master Kisan Reio said the opposite thing from the Karinibara Sutra or even from the Buddha said within the Karinibara Sutra. that these sentient beings have, all sentient beings without exception, have Buddha nature.

[11:03]

But here, Dai Isan said, all living beings have no Buddha nature. They have no Buddha nature. So, among those who have him in the human world and in the deva realms, were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in it. There might be some people who are glad to hear this teaching of no-buddha-nature, that those thrown into wandering doubt that it were not unknown is rather more natural to question why all living beings have buddha-nature. Shakyamuni expanded. All sentient beings, without exception, have double damage. Take, Take's isan, expanded.

[12:08]

All sentient beings have no double damage. So again, good damage and good damage. Good and good. So somehow there are two heavens, two signs, two pieces in Buddha-lajapur and the moon. This is a point of this Andoven's discussion about Buddha-nature. And the words have and do not have. are totally different in principle. I think it's very clear. And if we say both at the same time, we are confused because our way of thinking doesn't like contradiction.

[13:20]

It is understandable that doubts should arise as to which utterance is correct. When we hear two contradicted things, we want to figure out which is right, which is correct, which is not correct. Then Dogen said, but in the Buddha way, All sentient beings having no buddha-nature is alone preeminent. That means Isandeyu is saying or expounding that no buddha-nature is superior to all buddha-nature. What Shakyamuni is saying, all sentient beings have buddha-nature. And with his words, have the Buddha nature, or all Buddha nature, Yenkan was a person who said the history of all living beings, all Buddha nature, in Section 8, seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old Buddha Shakyamuni.

[14:51]

So ,, so is the same thing with the Buddha. ,, nonetheless, it cannot help being the case of two men holding up one staff. Two men holding up one staff means and holding this one This expression, two men holding up one staff, came from, I think, from a record of Rinzai. Somewhere, I don't remember, but there's some story. Rinzai and another Zen master hold one staff and disappear. Something like that. But here, Dogen said about Isan's no-buddharity. Now, Tāke is different.

[15:58]

In this case, one staff swallows up both men. So in this case, in the case of Mugusa, both men use shakyamuni and enkan, but swallow with staff that is Buddha nature. So these two men disappear. Only the staff stays. that you look at only Buddha nature still. So he took and placed take or essential things, no Buddha nature. And this expression, once that's followed up, it came from one koan story, not a story, but a koan. that is the same as Unmen, or Unmon in Japanese.

[16:58]

So I'd like to introduce that poem. It is K-60, called Blue Crystal Road. The title of this poem, in this translation, is Young Men's Staff Changes into a Dragon. So, when Wingen gave a formal Dharma discourse at the Dharma Hall, he had a staff, and this staff changed, transformed into a dragon. The main case is as follows. This is a very short one. The young man, or un mong, showed his staff to the assembly. So he showed his staff to his disciples and said, the staff has changed into a dragon.

[18:13]

So this staff became a dragon. and swallowed the universe. So this stuff became a dragon and that dragon swallowed the universe. Mountains, rivers, the great earth, where are they to be found? One star becomes a dragon, and that dragon swallows the entire universe. It means that the entire universe becomes the star of the dragon. In this case, it's Umo. Umo swallows the entire universe, so this entire universe becomes Umo. This is the expression of, you know, Jinsai Jiko, or all-perverting self.

[19:20]

So we are all living beings within entire universe. It's one thing. Then, if so, a fair human self, Mountain, river, the great earth, where are they to be found? This can be interpreted in two ways. Therefore, there is no such thing as mountain, river, the great earth as the object of this person. Those have become part of you, part of my life. possible interpretation is, umon is kind of a question. If this entire universe is one with that person, why there are mountains and rivers and great earths and all the other things?

[20:27]

With which we have to work together. What are they? So here the point is the oneness and two or more-ness, duality or many-ness. There are many things within this world and I am only one of them. The entire universe is one entity, like one body. One body has billions of cells and different parts like hands and eyes and head or feet. If this is one thing, each part disappears.

[21:30]

This is just one thing. And yet, hand cannot be head and foot cannot be stomach. These are different. So the point is, in the introduction of this case it said, Buddha's uncentered being, fundamentally there is no difference between them. So Buddha's uncentered being, enlightened Buddha and deluded Buddha. sent to the beings that are migrating within samsara and live with a lot of suffering. One thing. And mountains and rivers and the ones all cells, how could there be any distinction? So each one of us coming and going within mountains, And one thing, there should be no distinction.

[22:36]

We are one with the mountain. Why then is it all divided into two sides? In this case, Wu and Mu. Somehow we have to divide into two sides. They never use any word. We divide one entire reality into two. If all is together as one, or Buddha and human beings, religion, enlightenment, all these dichotomies, then we use language, any words or concept, And we cannot think without using those words and concepts. That means how we use our brain is to make distinction into two or more.

[23:46]

And with the separation, I'm not you, you are me. This is a three-dimensional glass. That means this is not a book. and this is not a glass of water. If we don't think in this way, we don't need to practice. Because we think in this way, somehow we feel the way we are living, our condition is not healthy. It's full of problems. and there should be a better condition or a better situation. So that's why we start the way. We start to, you know, find the better or healthy way of life. If we don't think in this way, there is separation or negation or question about our condition, how we live, what is the condition of our life at this moment.

[24:55]

and we don't think this is right or healthy way of life therefore we find better way of life and at least that was how Buddha left his palace and practiced and found a way so there is a kind of separation between who we are and how we live and who we want to be what we should be and And we try to find a path. How can we reach there, from here? That is, you know, all of our Buddhist teachings. And not only Buddhist teachings or spiritual practice, but in any other human activities. The point is, we are not satisfied, we are not happy now. So we want to be better, become better

[25:57]

to accomplish something. This kind of activity is possible because we can think of the better condition, better way of life, better place than here. If we can only see that now like here, then there's no way to say they're not a better place and we must go there. So this is a starting point, I think, is civilization or human culture. Kind of creating a dream or vision or idea and we are not there yet. so we don't want to make effort to go that way, that direction. And this is the same in both cases of seeking satisfaction of our desire and seeking nirvana or enlightenment or liberation from the desire.

[27:18]

In both cases, the things happening in our mind are the same. Now we are not so good, so we want to become better. This separation from where we are, and how we are, and where we want to be, or how we want to be, and how we should be. So there are three things. Who we are. we want to be and who we should be. I think that's a very basic condition of all human activity. And of course, in this case, the masters, or Buddhist masters, discussing in terms of liberation from suffering, or being liberated from transmigration within sasara, that is, from suffering.

[28:25]

And as we studied, The third link of causation, Buddha taught, the cause of suffering is this dichotomy of consciousness and nama-rupa. And contact, nama-rupa is the object of consciousness, this dichotomy. And these two, contact, and we have present or unpresent sensations. Therefore we want to be something present and we don't want to be together with something unpresent. So we chase after something present and we try to stay away from something unpleasant. And this something, somehow, they, you know, turn away more often.

[29:29]

So I want to escape from that. This chasing after something and escaping from something creates suicide. Sometimes we are so successful and we are so happy like heavenly beings. And more often, we are not so successful, and sometimes we feel our life is failing. We feel like a hell-dwellers, and no condition lasts forever. So I find that we live in this attitude. Our life, you know, become transmigration within many different conditions. In traditionally in Buddhism, there are only six realms of samsara, but not only six, many more and numberless.

[30:31]

And each moment, not only from previous lifetime to this lifetime, and this lifetime to the next lifetime, but in each moment within this lifetime, it has migrated within different conditions. And there's no time to be peaceful, settle down at this moment. And if we ought to be liberated from that condition of transmigration, somehow we have to work this dichotomy of contact. And one way to avoid that transmigration is to avoid contact. One possible way. And we can avoid contact with objects certain degree.

[31:34]

You know, we can give up any possession, so we don't need to compete with other people to get more, or we can be free from responsibility of family or society, and live in a monastery or mountains or forest, and that's it. and meditate and study how our mind works. There are so-called Mahayana Buddhists that try not to pass you data to avoid contact, but somehow they think, Mahayana Buddhists think, you know, within contact, we need to go beyond this dichotomy.

[32:36]

And this is the part all those Buddhist teachers and also Zen masters are talking about oneness of self and all beings, instead of avoid the contact with object. If we see oneness of self and all the object, then we don't need to chase after something or escape from something. But we can increase together with those objects. And at that time, nama rupa ceased to exist as a nama rupa, as an object of this person. But we see that all beings within this network of interdependent origination as one body. And in some, in his poem Dogen described, you know, described, expressed this way of life.

[33:45]

You know, one person living within the mountains. So in this case, mountain is the entire network of inter-telemental origination. And we are coming and going with the mountains. And Dogen said, the person who is in the mountain should love the mountains. And I think this love means to be one with the mountains. So mountain is this person's body. So mountain and this person is not subject and object. When we think, using our logical way of thinking, this person's self is subject and mountain is object. And with something, this is just a basic structure of how we think.

[34:48]

I do something, or I think about something. So subject, object, and some kind of relationship between these two. And when they discuss about oneness, or in this case, a star or a dragon, a star or an entire universe to become free from this kind of structure. But we wake up the reality that we are already within the mountains, within the network of interdependent ordination, and we are connected with all beings. So, therefore, we cannot say, I am here and all others are objects of my desire, of my thinking. That is what one's sorrow after the entire universe means.

[35:52]

So we are, we see, not we are, but we see that we are part of the mountains. we see that I am only part of this interconnectedness. So there is no such thing called me, or subject, or self. That is to swallow up the entire universe means. So the self and all beings become one. Not become, but It is from the very beginning one thing. And that reality going to Mahayana Buddhist teaching against Buddha nature. Because we are one with all beings. We are free from the self and into me, only this person.

[36:53]

That's the basic idea of Buddha-nature. And yet here is another problem. That means, so this is interdependent origination. It's interconnected. So this person, each one of the beings is interconnected, so there's no independent entity. that is cut oneness means. But still, mountains, mountains, and this castle, and this castle, cutting this, that is two or more. You know, the word interdependence is very interesting to me. Within this one word, interdependence, those independence and dependence are included. If we are not independent, we cannot think of interdependence.

[38:01]

And if we are completely independent, there are no such things called interdependence. So in order to be interdependent, we need both independence and dependence. That is the source of these two heads, who are genuine. I'm one with everything and yet still I am I, you are you. Maintain and divide your divorce. I am I. So, one staff swallows two people. In this case, it means Shakyamuni and Enkwam. But this is interpreted as this one statement. Swallow up Mu and Ur.

[39:04]

And yet, in Shōbōgenzo Uji, being time, Dōgen said, not only swallow up, but also vomit. So we should swallow up and also at the same time we should vomit. That means we should clearly see the separation or interdependence of each and everything. I am not you, you are not me. I am not this. That means I'm not a Christian or a Christian. So that separation is also part of this interconnectedness. That makes the discussion kind of very complex. It's not so simple like we should give up all our independence or duality and become one with everything. Buddhist teaching is not so simple.

[40:09]

That is the topic we are discussing. We are one with everything and yet we are different. That is the source of the problems or difficulties to understand this reality we are living in. And that's why this reality is called wonder's journey. If we grasp one way, we miss another aspect. If we grasp that way, we miss that aspect. So we need to hold both Wu and Nu, or Wu and Ba. And if we keep them separate, then that is another problem. There's no fixed answer. This is within our life, the process of searching the way.

[41:12]

We need to go through this difficulty. We may go this way, and next moment we may go that way, and grasp that thing, and we are caught up in that aspect of life. So we open our hand, and try to return and yet next time, next moment we go that another way and grasp something else and we are caught up. So we need to open again, open the hand and return to the reality before any such separation or separation between oneness and duality or manyness. And what Dogen is doing here is using words. He tried to be liberated from the limitation of words and logic.

[42:13]

Anyway, I'll return to the text. Of course, national teacher Ienkan was a child of Marx. Takei was Marx's grandchild. Yet in the way of his dharma grandfather, dharma grandson, Tarkai, goes to be an old great-grandfather, that means very mature. And in the way of his dharma father, the dharma son, Yenkan, is still a cow-youth. That means Dogen prays or appreciates Isamu's Knyugusyo, or no-buddhanaja. than income through Buddha-nature. The principle at work in target words is the principle of all sentient beings have no Buddha-nature. This does not mean that

[43:20]

In her case, no-buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition. This boundless and lacks definition means simple oneness. There's no distinction or definition. The original expression, though, is without. Zhou Bok, Zhou Bok is, you know, Traditionally, a Japanese carpenter, not only Japanese, but Chinese carpenter also, used a thread with ink to make a straight line, to write a straight line. That is jōboku. And that, jō means thread or rope, and boku is ink. So in order to make a straight line, to make it clear that this is important and outside of this line it is not important.

[44:38]

So, making things clear means making separation. In fact, Dogen is saying about this more Buddha nature, this more Buddha nature is not simply oneness without any distinction or definition or line or function of our mind that makes separation. But this is the way. Dogen said. For it is present right there, received and maintained in the scriptures he embodies within his own house. His own house means his own life. And the scripture is sutras. So when he tried to express

[45:39]

what he lived in the sutras within his life. That means, you know, our life is a sutra. And when we try to read the sutra, then we study the Dharma, we study how we are, how we live, what life looks like. And this is the way he expresses what he reads in the sutra within his life. Not within, but the sutra is itself his life, or his life is itself sutra. That means this expression, more Buddha nature, is the way he understand and express, expound how life is, how our life is. And so from this sentence, Dogen Zenji kind of plays an eternal expression of no-buddhah nature,

[46:57]

and then he discussed what Ubuddha-mecha means. It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be Ubuddha-mecha? How could be Ubuddha-mecha is full with show. How could they have a Ubuddha-mecha? And another way of reading this Ubu should have Ubuddha-mecha. So, what Dogen is saying is that living beings cannot have, cannot be something that is not living beings. And Buddha-nature is a concept. Living beings and Buddha-nature are two things. And if we say all living beings have or are Buddha-nature, we try to make these two things into one. It's connected. But once it's separated, it's not possible to connect and make it one thing.

[48:06]

If a sentient being had the Buddha nature, he would belong with a daily heretics. Now, if sentient beings have such things called Buddha nature, beside one's own, how can I say, life or being as ascendant beings. That, I think, is something like a devil heretics. Because something extra. It's not a real thing. That means, Buddha nature is simply Buddha-nature, 100% Buddha-nature, and living beings are 100% living beings. There's no way to add something, even that is a Buddha-nature. It would be assuring in a day-dream and trying to settle on top of sentient beings.

[49:14]

Since Buddha-nature is just Buddha-nature, Sentient beings are just sentient beings. If sentient beings are really Buddha nature, we don't need to say, as Dogen said, about emptiness and form. If sentient beings are really Buddha nature, we don't need to say sentient beings are or have Buddha nature. This, you know, activity of thinking you know, putting sentient beings and Buddha nature as an object of this person's mind, thinking mind, and try to make a connection with these two. That kind of activity is against, not against, that is, how can I say, fictitious. We are creating fiction that all sentient beings have Buddha nature, and we feel good.

[50:17]

and we feel that is a good idea and we like it. This kind of activity is in our mind, is really kind of a, in Japanese expression, floating from the ground. We are already separate from the reality itself. It is not that sentient beings are from the first endowed with the Buddha-nature. So Buddha-nature is something sentient beings can have as a possession. And also, here, the essential point is, even though you seek the Buddha-nature, that means we don't have Buddha-nature yet. Now, at this moment, we don't have our Buddha-nature. So we want to get one. If we, because of this desire to get Buddha nature, start to practice and study, even though we practice in such a way, Buddha nature is not something to appear now for the first time.

[51:39]

So he negates both ideas, Buddha nature From the beginning, we have Buddha-nature. But Buddha-nature is something we need to attain as a result of our practice. So he emulates both possibilities. So do not imagine it is a matter of Chan drunk and Lee getting drunk. Chan and Li are very common family names in China. So that means common people. And when one person drinks beer, another person becomes drunk. That means it's Buddha nature and living beings are two people, two separate people.

[52:41]

and and one person drink here there's no way another person drunk that means these two are completely independent and here completely one thing then both are true we cannot say you know this person drink and We like a kind of a oneness, that means when I drink beer, that person is drunk. It's really kind of a nice thing to think, but it's not real reality. I have to practice for my own, and you have to practice for your own, and you need to find, you need to awaken to that reality for your own. My practice and my awakening, my understanding cannot be yours.

[53:44]

So you have to practice, you have to study, you have to awaken by yourself. But what I'm saying, what I'm talking now is my understanding from my own experience of practice and studying. So I cannot share with you. What I'm talking now in front of you is part of your life experience and from that you develop or cultivate your understanding and practice and find the way for your own. So, you know, he is moving back and forth, complete independence and complete oneness.

[54:45]

and try not to avoid a kind of duality. So finally he says, if sentient beings originally possessed the Buddha nature, they would not be sentient beings. They are Buddha nature. Since they are sentient beings, they are not the Buddha nature at all. And then Dogen then quotes sayings from Hyakujo. Hyakujo said, To preach that sentient beings have the Buddha nature is to disparage Buddha Dharma and Sangha. To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha nature is also to disparage Buddha Dharma and Sangha.

[55:47]

I'm not sure disparity is a good word or not here. I think it's more like a slander. Slander or abuse. Yeah, maybe slander is the best word. If we say we have all living beings, heart or air, Buddha nature, we slander the Buddha Dharma or three treasures. And if we say we have no Buddha nature or we are not Buddha nature, then we surrender the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha also. Yes? Is this the same word as the precept that we always have to recite? Fubo sangokai, yes. So that means we violate the tenth precept, or the ten major precepts. If either we say we are sentient beings, are Buddha nature, or we have Buddha nature, or we don't have Buddha nature, either way we violate the precept and we surrender the free project.

[56:58]

Therefore, whether it is have Buddha nature or have no Buddha nature, both end up by disparaging or slandering the three treasures. Whichever we say, we slander the three treasures. That means both enkan and isan, slandering the three treasures. That is against the Buddhist precept. for Bodhisattva's reason. But Dogen kind of questions to both Isan and Hyakujo. But this Parachan is Hyakujo, Hyakujo Ekai, Isan's teacher. and also over the teacher. But regardless of the disparagement or slandering, or even if that is a slandering, you cannot get by without making an utterance.

[58:21]

Even if we slander or are against the Bodhisattva precept, we have to say something. And when we say something using words, it must be woo or moo. That means, you know, when I receive ten major precepts from my teacher, which I know he said, during the precept ceremony, the teacher, preceptor, read each of the ten major precepts. And the recipient has to say, and the preceptor asks, do you hear this or not? And I have to say, yes, I will. And in the case of the false preceptor, that is, do not make false speech. And Ucchara was saying, if you are asked that you keep this precept or not, and if I say, yes, I will, he said, that is the first violation of the precept.

[59:33]

And I think that is true. And so as a Bodhisattva, we have to break the precept. And I have to say, yes, I will keep. the precept of not telling the lie. And that is a lie. So even if we have to break the precept, still we have to say something. That is fat-dogging sin, whether woo or noo, and both are not true. And Dogen asked to Isan and Hyakujo. And the first question to Hyakujo, it may well be disparagement or slandering, therefore it's a violation of a precept, but has the Buddha nature been really treated or not?

[60:41]

I mean, before Dogen kind of a, complained, you know, in all those sutras and question and answer among the masters, they only discussed whether living beings have Buddha nature or not. But they don't discuss what is Buddha nature. And according to Dogen, that is more important question than whether we have Buddha nature or not. And woo and noo is Dogen's answer to this question. That means woo and noo are the two sides of one reality. This reality is itself Buddha nature. Nothing else. It's not a matter of we have or we not have. So Dogen's question to Hyakujo is, And in the next section, Dogen quotes Hyakujo's saying, and I think he still did.

[61:51]

And Hyakujo did. Even granting it has been preached without the Buddha nature being totally implicated in the preaching. Any preaching of it would have to occur together with the hearing of it. This means saying something about Buddha nature is the function of Buddha nature. And if someone talks about Buddha nature, someone is listening to that Buddha-nature, both the person who is speaking and the person who is listening are Buddha-nature. So there is no way we can get out of Buddha-nature and think about Buddha-nature, because everything is an expression or manifestation of Buddha-nature, even question about it, even negate about it, even fight against it, that is all Buddha-nature.

[63:08]

Next question from Dogen to Take. Even though you articulated that all sentient beings have no Buddha nature, you did not say all Buddha nature have no sentient beings. He asked the same question to M. Kahn. all Buddhas have no sentient beings or that all Buddha natures have no Buddha nature. Still less could you have seen even in your dreams that all Buddhas have no Buddha nature. This is Dogen's logic. You change all the parts of the sentences and question from each and every angle. And he didn't give us the answer.

[64:19]

So he's showing us how to question and we need to inquire as in our practice. So what he's writing here is not a set of truths we have to believe, but he is showing us how to inquire the truth. That can't be written. So now let's see if you can come up with a response or not. This dog is saying to us, and don't think he's saying to Hyakujo or Western, that this is to us who are studying or reading this writing. What do you think? How do you express? And whatever you say is a lie. And yet we have to say. We have 20 more minutes, so I'd like to talk on Section 10.

[65:35]

In this section, Dogen Zenji quotes another saying of Hyakujo Ekan. And it seems Dogen Zenji likes this saying, so he didn't question so much, but he just followed. Chan Master Tachi of Mount Korachan, this is Hyakujo, addressed the assembly. Buddha is the highest vehicle, the highest of all victims, the person who maintains the Buddhahood. It is Buddha being Buddha nature. This Buddha being Buddha nature is butsu-u bushyo, So it can read, Buddha has Buddha nature, or Buddha is being Buddha nature, or u-bushu.

[66:44]

I think he quotes in order to show this interpretation, Buddha has Buddha nature. That is a kind of answer to Dogen's question to Isan. whether all Buddhas have no Buddha nature or not. And Hyakujo said Buddhas have Buddha nature. It is a guiding teacher. It means Buddha. Being able to utilize a way That is utterly unhindered. It is unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect.

[67:49]

It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. It is the vehicle that carries on cause and effect. Negotiating life, it is not held back by life. Negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. Negotiating the five standards, it is like a gate freely opened. It suffers no restriction by the five scandals. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters unhindered. Inasmuch as it is thus, distinctions between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, are

[68:52]

immaterial. And since this is the same even down to the body of the tiniest ant, all is a wondrous land of purity beyond our comprehension. This is the saying of Hyakujin. So he's talking about Buddha, but this Buddha is not a Buddha as a person. but Buddha as a reality itself. And this reality is a highest vehicle. Vehicle means like a car, which carry as human, deluded human beings or living beings into nirvana from samsara. And this is a biggest vehicle, most luxurious vehicle. which all living beings can get on and being carried.

[69:54]

That's why it's called the highest bhikkhu. So this is Vidagam Mahayana. The highest of all wisdoms, because it's reality itself, and wisdom is the ability to see the reality as it is. The reality it is, is highest wisdom. the person who maintains the Buddha way. So Buddha is the person, Buddha is the Buddha way itself. And it is Buddha being Buddha nature, as an entire network of interdependent origination. That is Buddha, and that is also Buddha nature. And it is a guiding teacher. This entire network of interdependent ordination is our guiding teacher.

[70:57]

And actually it is part of it. It is being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhealed, that means very liberating, free. in all this it readily utilizes cause and effect within this buddha as a reality cause and effect or cause and result or cause and conditions this causality or interdependent origination within time and space is really working within it. It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. Enlightenment and enlightening others is a bodhisattva activity or Buddhist activity to awaken to the reality, life itself, and guide all people to awaken to the same reality.

[72:10]

So practice for one's own sake and also to help others is Buddha's and also Bodhisattva's practice. And it is a vehicle that carries on cause and effect. So this is the same thing as he said before. Negotiating life, it is not held back by life. That means we are living, we are born and live and die. And so during our lifetime we need to negotiate with our life. But it is not held back by life. It is not impeded or hindered or obstructed by life. Negotiating death, the process of life from birth and death, is also a process of negotiating life.

[73:20]

And yet, at the same time, this process of life is a process of negotiating death. That means any time we may die. So negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. So we use life and death freely. This is fact. You know, Arthur Breivon wrote a book on five Zen teachers in Japan, Saki Roshi, Chiano Roshi, and Yokoyama Sodo Roshi, and Kato Kozan Roshi, and one Japanese woman, a very Zen teacher whose name was, I forgot her name. Anyway, He entitled the book, Living and Dying in the Zen. Our common sense is we practice the Zen within life and death, but those people

[74:27]

practice is a little different. They didn't practice within their life and death, but they live and die within zazen. That's the difference. That means their practice is not to escape from life or from death, but he and they, all of them, participated life and death, living and dying within zazen. That is the expression of freedom. Even though we live and die, we are not hindered by life and death. But we use the process of living and dying for the sake of Dharma or to practice. So our process of living and dying is a process of practice. Negotiating the five standards, it is like a gate freely opening.

[75:36]

It offers no restriction by the five standards. This means, even though we are, you know, five standards and objects are also root materials and other things, even though we are negotiating, we are living together with objects, but we are not obstructed by the objects. It goes and stops at we. Leaves and enters unhindered. Unhindered. This is forever we are. You know, we cannot stop. But we are coming and going. And maybe we can stop for a while, but we have to move again. But this is a process of... From one side, this is a process of transmigration, but from another side, this is a free movement of five scanas with dharma.

[76:48]

Inasmuch as it does, distinctions between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, are material. those differences or classifications or dichotomies, good and bad, enlightened delusion, are not so important. And since this is the same even down to the body of the tiniest ant, the tiny insect, so the life of ants and the life of human beings are the same thing, according to Whether we are born as an ant, whether we are born as human beings, or any other form of life, we are just freely coming and going at Five Scandals. We just know it as a part of the universal movement of all beings within this network.

[77:56]

All is a wondrous land of purity beyond any comprehension. This beyond any comprehension is the same as a glass puddle or wondrous. So if we can live with such an attitude, this life or this world becomes really a Buddha land. That is the fact. I actually sing. And the rest of this section is Dorin's comment on this thing. I think having it is enough to knock out this. Such are portions for Hyakujo's words. five standards is this present indestructible body of ours. This body and mind are five standards.

[79:02]

And here Dogen called this is undestructible body of ours. Undestructible body means blood body. But he said this, our body, This concrete body, that is a collection of five scanners, are undestructed. This expression came from another koan of Joshu. Joshu, someone asked Joshu, what is the undestructed nature? That is Buddha nature. And Joshu said, five scanners. Four great elements and five skandhas, she had gone. But the monks asked again, those are destructive, those are allies, stay for a while and disappear. So those five skandhas cannot be the undestructible nature. So the monk asked again, what is undestructible nature?

[80:08]

Then Josh again said, four great elements and five scanners. So this is Buddha's body that is undestructed. That means this does never appear and never disappear. As Heart Sutra says, no arising and no perishing. No coming and no going. And yet we are coming and going. We are born and die. Our present activity moment to moment, so our very concrete activity in each moment, are gate freely open. The gates of five standards are very freely open. does not suffer impediment from the five skandhas. Five skandhas that didn't obstruct five skandhas.

[81:12]

They are so free, always changing. But only this person is not like it. I don't want to change. That is the basic problem. I love being like this, so I don't want to disappear. That is our most basic problem. As living beings, we are born, and within our lives as living beings, we have two very basic, contradicting natures. I don't know that word, but that is all living beings have to die. That is one undeniable reality. And another reality is all living beings don't want to die.

[82:18]

We want to live forever, but we have to die. This is what Uchenro said. most fundamental contradiction in our life. As living beings, we have to die. No one can deny this. And yet, as another undeniable reality, we don't want to die. This is the first cause of problems we have to face. So the answer to this, to the problems about life and death is very kind of easy, and that is Hattō Genzenji to us. That is, completely utilizing life, it cannot be held back by life.

[83:21]

Completely utilizing death, it cannot be obstructed by death. Do not vainly cherish life. Do not foolishly dread death. They are life and death. They are where the Buddha nature is. This process of life and death is where Buddha nature is. So clinging with attachment to life Shrinking in abhorrence from death is un-Buddhist. So if we are Buddhist, we should not cling to our life and we should not be afraid of death. Life and death is how Buddha nature works, functions. In Shogogenzo Shoji, or Life and Death, Dogen Zenji clearly describes about this point.

[84:35]

So if you are interested in Dogen's teaching about this, please try to read Shogogenzo Shoji. Actually, I filled up a copy of the English translation. I don't have time to talk about it. And it's not so difficult. Anyway, to realize that life and death are a combination of conditions manifesting themselves before your eyes is to be able to utilize a way that is totally unkindled. and this universal movement in which all beings are connected and coming and going, are clear, safe for a while, and disappear. This reality of impermanence and interconnectedness and no-self. And she said, this is the Buddha.

[85:38]

This is the Buddha of the highest deku. This reality of network is the Buddha. And this is where this Buddha is. This is where Buddha is. This reality itself is Buddha. And there is the wondrous land of purity. This is Buddha's land. That means we are already within Buddha's land. I think that's all I have to say this morning. Any questions? Please. You left me in the dust yesterday, so I wondered if you would like to go back to bed. Okay. It was the same as say, ka-sho.

[86:41]

What? De-ka-sho. What? And then, uh, this is a blue shawl. It seems to me that we're being, like, we're what? And I'm meaning it with this. Excuse me. There. And color. There is this. Color is far. And the shawl. Oh, I have the other one where it was show of name. It was going to be four. Yes. The flat and the show on the left seem to be more of a duality.

[87:31]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_85.43