I vow to chase the truth that Tagata's words. Good morning. Morning. Okay. So I said that after we did the bowing, bowed the male hand to Buddha, then that was enough, you know. could leave. And actually, there are many stories where actually that's what happens. But we're kind of kind here.

[01:04]

I'm not sure we're kind to people. I'm sure we're so kind to ourselves in proceeding to go on and make this bad mistake of giving a talk. So this is a mistake on purpose, and my mistake before was not on purpose. So we're in the aspects of practice period and it's nice to practice together in this way, both with the old students and the new students. old and new, and new and old, and so on. And we've chosen as a topic, when we had a discussion about what we were going to focus on this practice period, two themes came to people's minds. And one was to do the, read from and study the book of Suzuki Roshi, Not Always So.

[02:11]

And then the other idea that somebody brought up was to maybe highlight some of the not so known teachers in the Chan lineage. And so that kind of caught my attention. And so I decided to focus on Pai Chang, Hyakujo. And I came across this book by Charles Luke, The Transmission of the Mind Outside the Teaching. It's not very common, but sometimes you find it. And basically has stories and actual writings from various of the Chinese Zen teachers. So he actually has translated the sayings of Pai Cheng. And, you know, we study, I mean, this is the transmission of the mind outside the teaching.

[03:21]

Although Dogen says that Ryujin, his teacher, told him there was nothing such as being outside the teaching. You know, when we read the sutras, we read it with a whole body and mind in zazen. And when we sit sasen, we sit with the sutras. Not with our thinking mind, but with our whole body and mind. So there isn't that duality between sasen and the sutras. And I think that's the teaching of Dogen. And actually Bodhidharma also had some writings where he actually said precisely that. So Hyakujo, or Pai Chang, what drew my attention to him is he's the one who is known for having said, one day of not working is one day of not eating.

[04:31]

And he was the student of Matsu, of Baso. And Baso was a student of Nangaku. And Nangaku was the student of the sixth ancestor of Daikan Eno. And this is the Rinzai lineage. And Dogen also said that the Soto schools, neither Soto nor Rinzai, neither Hinayana or Mahayana, is just Buddhism. although Pai Chang has an elaborate way of talking about the Hinayana and the Mahayana vehicle that I hope to read to you further on. So Eno, then Nangaku, then Matsu of Baso, and Matsu is a pretty well-known figure of Chan in China. And Matsu was a contemporary of Sekito Kisen,

[05:33]

Sekito Kisen is the one that wrote the Sandokai that we recite every week here. And Pai Chang was a student of Matsu, and so was Leimen Pang. So Leimen Pang and Pai Chang or Hyakujo were the two well-known students of Matsu. So he's known because he is the one that introduced working into the practice of Zen monasteries. And we have work practice in our practice in two ways. One is we have actual work period of Samu. That's one way in which he introduced the work into the monastery and the other way is that we actually carry the work of practice into the work in

[06:45]

everyday life or ordinary life or various works in society that we all do, whether it be in a hospital or a clinic or a school or a corporation or wherever that may be. That's the work in the field, so to speak, whichever field you're in and how do we realize the field of work that we're in as a Buddha field. And I feel that that has been Sojin's teaching to us. And so that, and the work period within the context of practice is one of the ways in which we realize the non-duality of the stillness within activity and the activity within stillness. But this got started by Hyakujo.

[07:48]

And it is said, if I can have certainty in the words of, in the translation of Charles Luke, you know, we're always relying on what somebody else says, but it kind of makes sense with our experience. So we believe in it. So it is said that Zen escaped the destruction of the emperor, Chinese emperor in 1845, destroyed 40,000 temples. and 4,600 monasteries. and that actually by single-handedly, Hyakujo saved Zen from total annihilation by having this practice of working in the field so that the criticism that monks were parasites of society didn't apply to them and their practice. He said that primarily the monks should live on their own labor,

[08:51]

and only secondarily on alms begging or charity. And he insisted that their crops should be subject to taxation on an equal basis with those of lay people. So, and we have that practice here too. I mean, a lot of us, even priests, you know, have regular jobs. So, you know, we have both forms of practice. You know, some priests are supported by the temple and the sangha and the laity, but other priests, you know, support themselves. So that's where that saying comes, one day without working is one day without eating.

[09:58]

And there's a famous dialogue between Dogen and the Tenzo that he first met when he went to China, where the Tenzo, he was saying, well, you know, why are you so old? Why are you still working in the kitchen? Why don't you retire and have a nice, relaxed time? And he said, you really don't get it, do you? And he sort of quoted this statement to him. In so many words, about one day without working is one day without eating. And then Hyakujo also appears in the Book of Koans, in the Mumonkan, and there's two very well-known koan stories that I will briefly mention without getting into the full commentary of the koan but just to give you a flavor of his teaching and then that will then will also throw some light on the sayings that I will read after that.

[11:09]

But the The first koan, there's a story between, it's actually, yeah, it's the koan between Nangaku and Baso Matsu, who was Hyakujo's teacher. And so Matsu was sitting in Zazen, and Nangaku comes to him and says, well, what are you doing? What are you trying to accomplish, sitting in Zazen? What are you doing this for? And so he says, well, I'm trying to become a Buddha. And so Nangaku then grabbed a brick and started grinding a brick against a rock. You know? And so then Baso asked him, well, what are you doing? That seems a little strange.

[12:12]

I forget Zazen being a little strange. What about grinding a brick against a rock? And he said, well, what are you doing? And he says, I want to grind it into a mirror. So then he says, well, how can you hope to grind a brick into a mirror? And then Nangako comes back with him and says, well, how can you sit to become a Buddha? He's trying to sit to become a Buddha of something outside himself. And sort of this is what Pai Chang then will call the, sort of the, talks about the incomplete teaching and the complete teaching or the partial teaching and the complete teaching, which is his way of talking about Hinayana and Mahayana Buddhism, which is understandable because in the way of the world trying to do something for a purpose

[13:15]

That's what most people do. They're, why are you doing something? Well, I'm doing this. I'm going to school because I want to study this or that subject because then I will get a degree and then I will be this or that and then I will have a job and then I'll be able to support myself. Is that a good enough explanation? And that makes total sense, of course. Right, so that's sort of the, it's the way of the world, of the way of conventional reality of, or phenomenal reality of relative truth, as Nagarjuna would call it. So when we're dealing with Buddha and the practice of Zazen, that doesn't quite fit, doesn't really do justice to what it is. So something else is required. If you would have said, well, I'm sitting with Buddha, that might've been a little bit different.

[14:25]

or I am realizing Buddha, almost. And then this sort of goes into the second story that he's known for in the Mugonkan, where he asks his teacher Baso, what is Buddha? And the response that he gets is, this very mind is Buddha. And then he comes back. Okay, that's a good answer. But he comes back and says to him, well, why do you say that mind is Buddha? And then Baso says to him, in order to stop the crying of little children, So this is sort of the religion of childhood.

[15:28]

Sort of a little bit like the Genesis story, you know, that we all grew up with. You know, it's a story to stop the crying of little children. But it makes total sense on one level. And one may also be surprised, well, what is he? I mean, what else is there? So then he says, well, when the crying has stopped, well, what then? And then Baso says, this mind is neither mine nor Buddha. This mind is neither mine nor Buddha. So this is an example of what Pai Chang will elaborate in his sayings about the incomplete teaching and the complete teaching. He says the first answer is the incomplete teaching, and the second answer is the complete teaching.

[16:36]

But it's very kind of discordant. It's abstruse. It's perplexing. So you only give that kind of an answer to a student that you you're not concerned that they're going to feel like totally, oh, this is ridiculous, bye, I'm leaving, you know? So to different students, you give different kinds of answers, or to the same student, you give different kinds of answers at different times, according to where you may see that they're at, where their understanding may be. But the second is like the koans, it's abstruse, it's perplexing, disconcerting. because Pai Chan calls this disconcerting expressions or discordant expressions, but that are necessary to realize the full teaching. So in the sayings he says, the incomplete teaching

[17:48]

explains the defilement in impure things in order to eliminate the profane. And the complete teaching explains the defilement in pure things in order to eliminate the sacred. So this more radical teaching of eliminating the sacred has the mark of emptiness of the Mahayana teaching, and which is what kind of really draws our attention, because we're used to the other teaching of making a distinction between good and evil, which is also part of Buddhism, but it's the incomplete teaching. But we're not so drawn to that, because that sounds very familiar to the Judeo-Christian ethic, whereas the secular world has been trying to get rid of the sacred, right? God is dead, and so on and so forth.

[18:50]

But in a way, that's the fulfillment of the teaching of emptiness, or the Mahayana teaching. And he says eliminate the sacred, but I don't think he really, he doesn't mean it literally. That's like Bodhidharma's answer to the emperor, you know, emptiness, nothing, holy. What's the highest meaning of the holy truth? Emptiness, nothing, holy. It's the same kind of teaching. You know, and since Paichang, I said, no, his teacher, Baso Matsu, was a contemporary of Sekito. And Sekito, you know, in the Sandokai, he says, there's enlightenment, you could say there's enlightenment in darkness or there's enlightenment in delusion, but don't see it as light. This relates to the first

[19:55]

teaching, which is, there's a light, there's a spark of nirvana in desire, but don't see it as light. You know, desire has this promise of happiness and fulfillment. You know, the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow, this object of desire, you know, will make us happy. but don't see that light in darkness as light, because it will turn into suffering. So this is the first teaching. And then, and then the Sankhya says the opposite, which is, in the light there is darkness, but don't take it as darkness. So this darkness in the light is the dual of the partial teaching.

[21:00]

But Sekito, it's kind of cautioning us. Thank you. My Spanish is coming through there. or my no English. It's cautioning us to not set a duality between Hinayana or Mahayana or the Northern and Southern schools, which was the current, you know, controversy in China at that time was between the Northern school and the Southern school. And he said, don't see it as wrong. So he calls it the incomplete teaching, which is, it's right, but it's not the full story. So it's not that it's wrong. So there's darkness in this light, but don't see it as darkness. But Pai Chang gives us a list of problematic holy desires, which is kind of interesting.

[22:08]

And the first one is if you desire to live only among monks and nuns and devotees. You know, sort of to live kind of in seclusion, to understand the Dharma in that kind of dual way between the profane and the sacred, the monastic life and the lay life. And you want to kind of find refuge in the in the seclusion of only living within the Buddhist realm. Whereas the full teaching, you don't hold on to the raft. And you don't hold on to the raft means not only in your understanding, in your idea about Buddhism, but also in just mixing with ordinary people. And which is related to the other desire, which is wanting to be recognized as an Arahant or a saint, which goes together with that other one.

[23:15]

You know, that you have some kind of mark of distinction, you know, of enlightenment or something like that. But emptiness has no mark. So part of the teaching of emptiness is you mixed in the world with ordinary people. like the sixth ancestor who used to be a cook for hunters and would cook his vegetables in the soup with the meat, but he wouldn't eat the meat, he would just take the vegetables and eat them. So, you know, at some point, you know, we experience this real duality between the life of samsara, of suffering, what's been dissatisfying about the world and about life or work or marriage, whatever it may be. And we seek refuge in the Dharma and in the three treasures. And then we want to dwell there. And this is the first teaching.

[24:19]

This is what he calls the first good. But this first good is good, but it leads you to want to dwell in emptiness and in samadhi and in this kind of realm of enlightenment and nirvana. But that's a mistake in the bodhisattva way. So we have to kind of let go of that. even though it's also important. You know, if you go to a monastery or you go to a place where a lot of people are practicing a lot of Zazen, the feeling is very strong. It's like when you do Zazen, And you come into the Zen dorm slowly at night and everybody's been sitting all day. The feeling is very strong, very concentrated.

[25:23]

And that's very good and it's very important. So the teaching of not dwelling in emptiness should not lead one to disparage the partial teaching or the teaching of emptiness. which is the mistake that disciples make in the intermediate good. To think, oh, you know, it's really about being in the world and let's just be in the world, you know, and that can lead you to kind of disparage formal practice. You know, so it's a very subtle teaching. This is a teaching of non-duality. So even though the feeling of practice is very strong in a monastic setting or in a setting where a lot of people are doing a lot of Zazen and are very focused and intent on practicing and concentrating, it's wonderful. But you also walk away from that, don't dwell in that, and you just go into the busy marketplace.

[26:34]

And it's difficult to be in the busy marketplace and maintain that concentrated awareness. Because it's a different kind of, hey, how you doing? What's happening? Que pasa? It's like you want to engage people. You're not sitting there like a statue. People say, come on, loosen up. Don't be so rigid. What's the problem? What's your problem? Well, I'm a Buddhist student. I'm a Zen student. I do Zazen. Relax. Just relax. Sometimes you think you've been sitting for 20 years and some person will just come off the street and tell you, what's your problem? Why are you so unhappy? Take it easy. Relax. Here, drink some water. Have a cup of tea. So that's the other side. Or, you know, having lunch with people at work.

[27:38]

You know, do you stay in your room, in your office, you know, concentrated and full awareness, you know, or do you, you know, just forget that and just go and have lunch with everybody where everybody's talking, yeah, what's happening and laughing and this joke and this joke, you know, and then how to do that engage but at the same time not you have to be able to either maintain your You know, because that conversation can very easily also turn into suffering or some conflict, people's edges start rubbing off and conflict emerges and so on. So how to be engaged in that and at the same time be able to turn it towards something that is harmonious for everybody. So let me read you a little bit.

[28:48]

How are we doing with time? Do we start with questions at 11? No, we end at 11. Sometimes, okay. Thank you for your answer. Come on. Okay, so, let me read. See, she, and I've used, transferred, changed the she and he, you know, we have to translate the translation a little bit. She who, when confronting desire and anger, dwells in them, develops the awareness of a living being. she who when confronting good dwells in it develops the shravaka awareness the shravaka is the ascetic or the moral ideal the arhat ideal so she who when confronting good dwells in it develops the shravaka awareness she who considers

[30:09]

her non-dwelling in the duality of good and evil, to be correct, develops the Pracheca Buddha awareness. Let me repeat that. She who considers her non-dwelling in the duality of good and evil, to be correct, develops the Pracheca Buddha awareness. So this is sort of not dwelling in good and evil. This is like being a, you know, the Pracheka Buddha is like a liberal intellectual, you know, like, like a, like a sort of a beyond good and evil, sort of like Nietzsche's Saratustra. Nietzsche was kind of like a, like a Pracheka Buddha, Saratustra. And then, he who not only keeps from dwelling in the duality of good and evil, but also forsakes the concept of this non-dwelling, develops the bodhisattva awareness.

[31:26]

So the bodhisattva doesn't use intellectual understanding as an excuse not to practice the practice of the arhats. Sometimes intellectuals use the intellect to say, well, you know, I don't believe in that, I don't do that, or that's like, you know, dualistic, or it's, you know, like Mark saying, you know, religion is the opium of the people, or Freud saying, religion is the obsessional neurosis of humanity. So that's like the Pracheka Buddha. Freud and Marx are like Pracheka Buddhas. The Bodhisattva doesn't use intellectual understanding as an excuse not to practice the practice of the Arhats. But nor does a Bodhisattva reject intellectual understanding. And then he says, he who not only keeps from all dwelling, and also from this idea of non-dwelling, develops the Buddha awareness.

[32:41]

So Buddha doesn't have fixed postures or forms. There's sitting Buddha, there's standing Buddha, there's walking Buddha, there's lying down or lay Buddha. Lying down or laid back Buddha. aspects of practices of laid back Buddha, light, practice period light, you know, lay Buddha. It's the Buddha on the couch. So Buddha doesn't cling to his or her understanding. even though Buddha may have some understanding, doesn't cling to his or her understanding. So, Pai Chang says that's like taking the excrement outside the body. If you don't cling to understanding, it's like having your shit together.

[33:48]

Going to the bathroom, you know, and fully evacuating emptiness. Whereas if you hold on to your ideas and your understanding, that's like being obsessional, you know, and being anal retentive, you know, having constipation. That's probably enough. Do you have any questions or would you like to say anything? Ellen. the body so that we can carry it.

[35:13]

really appropriate practice for the kind of life that you've been laying out? I think the one we have here, this is a very appropriate practice. And I think we all feel that way about it and that's why we do it. Because it allows us to cultivate samadhi or full awareness and at the same time not remain mindful of samadhi or full awareness or buddha nature. Because being mindful of samadhi, it's a problem. So mindfulness can be a problem. Sometimes Buddha has to be unmindful, forget all about Buddha.

[36:57]

Yes? I think not everybody may be familiar with the more conventional understanding of Pratyekabuddha. Maybe you could explain that. Well, the Pracheka Buddha traditionally is the person who lives more or less, it's not the Sravaka, it's the Arhat. The Arhat is the ascetic who goes off to the forest or to the monastery to realize a personal enlightenment. The Pracheka Buddha is in the world and leads a, you know, a moral or orderly life, but relies more on intellectual understanding and an intellectual understanding of Buddhism. And it's kind of beyond good and evil in that way, whereas the Sravaka can be dualistic about morality. but the Pracheka Buddha doesn't have the full practice of the Arhat.

[38:06]

They are nevertheless all Buddha. Yes, all Buddhas. We're all Buddhas. Yes, Baika? What was it about Pai Chan that interested you? You mean other than what I said? Sorry, couldn't help myself saying that. But yeah, everything, you know, that I've been talking about, but it's this practice of non-duality. And it seems like a beautiful expression of what we're actually doing here and what Sojin's teaching has been. So it seems like, you know, it seems like an uninterrupted line from Sekito and Matsu and Suzuki Roshi and Sojin. Yes?

[39:15]

You mentioned about maintaining harmony when you were talking about having lunch with your co-workers. Yes. And I was wondering if you could Could you talk a little bit more about that? That's an area that I would be benefited very much from. Actually, it's very present right now for me as to how to maintain awareness in a social context and not give myself away and at the same time not back off from it. Could you talk a little bit more about that? Well, you have to stay open and not have any fixed ideas about what's the right way to be or the right way to think about things and sort of be able to have that flexibility to maintain that balance between being engaged and yet staying centered and being helpful.

[40:28]

Because you want to be helpful. Because if you're adding more wood to the fire, I mean, sometimes you have to say discordant things. And saying discordant things, sometimes, you know, it's like when sometimes it tends to give you these answers, you know, that are kind of, you know. leaves the student feeling perplexed or unhappy or something like that. Sometimes that's necessary. But if you say that and then you feel bad about it afterwards, then it means that there's something else there that wasn't very helpful. So, you know, that's the four methods of the Bodhisattva, the four methods of guidance of the Bodhisattva. is to be helpful, to use kind words, and to create harmony in the situation for yourself and your co-workers. So you can feel good about working there and being there, and you don't create more contentiousness or division or feeling like you don't want to be there.

[41:40]

or you don't want to be with them, or it becomes an us and them kind of situation. I don't know what else to say other than that. I mean, every case is different, you know, so everybody's different, so every circumstance is different. Yeah. Well, it's true. I mean, it's not altruism. It's not, I'm going to do something to help you. It's just helpful action. That's it. And that's helpful, not just for them, that you're doing something for them, you're doing something to help yourself in that moment, to be more real in the situation. Yes?

[42:43]

Did you say mindfulness of samadhi is a problem? Yes, that being, you have to forget, that's the non-dwelling in emptiness and then even forgetting about having a teaching about not dwelling in emptiness, that's the final good according to Pai Chan. I was thinking about that. I was a little sleepy so I wasn't sure if I heard you right. But I was thinking it's not a problem because Maybe this doesn't disagree with you, but you could be mindful of your breathing, or you could be mindful of your anxiety or your grasping, but you couldn't possibly be mindful of somebody, so it's not a problem. Well, yeah, that's like, not recognizing things in the dark. I think we should end, no?

[43:49]

One more question? Yeah, we don't forget it and I think you don't mean forget it that we don't practice the form. We just, that the form itself is emptiness. That's forgetting the form. Not that we don't practice the form, but we realize that the form itself is emptiness. So we're very grateful for the form. Thank you so much. Beings are numberless.

[44:46]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ