That's always helpful. Okay, we have an hour and 17 minutes left. Will we get to the moon in the water? Are you there? So, shall I continue or...? Are there any questions that we want to make sure we cover before he goes on? OK.

[01:10]

I'd like to go to the water and moon. So I go quickly, 5 and 6. In section 5, Dogen says, those who greatly realize their religion are Buddhas. Those who are greatly deluded in realization are living beings. Furthermore, there are those who attain realization beyond realization, and those who are deluded within delusion. So in this section, Dogen makes a definition of what is Buddhas. And he said, those who greatly realize delusion are Buddhas. And his definition of deluded living beings is those who are greatly deluded in realization are living beings.

[02:24]

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

[03:29]

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

[04:45]

Understand or against, or don't agree. So I think what Dogen is saying is more straightforward. Dogen is saying those are Buddhas and those are living beings. Hyogo is saying those two are the same thing. And I don't understand why we have to say those two are the same. Of course, those two, living beings and Buddhas, are not two separate groups of people. But depending upon our attitude towards all beings, we are sometimes, or not sometimes, We can be a Buddhist, or our practice can be a Buddhist practice, or our practice can be my selfish practice. Even if we sit in the same posture, or even when we do the same thing.

[05:46]

So, what Dogen is saying, practice and realization, or enlightenment, is depending upon our attitude toward our actions and toward all beings. Yes. The usual translation I've seen of the second sentence is deluded about realization. About? You said, greatly deluded in realization, which implies that there's realization, but they're still deluded about that realization. Is that what you were trying to imply? Dogen said, Go is enlightenment. And he said, Ni doesn't mean about. Ni means even though we are within realization.

[06:52]

Realization means in the reality. We don't see that reality. That is the meaning of even though we are right within realization. I think we're embedded in realization. Right. Would it be more true, say, reality than realization, though? True reality? That's easier to understand, but what Dogen Zenji uses is Go, that is realization. So we can interpret in that way, and that is my understanding. So it's the go part of realization which is the confusion. So it's like knowing that you're confused is an enlightenment. Yes. And knowing that in this kind of like thinking that your past confusion is an illusion. Yes. So you can never pass your confusion. Pardon me? You never really can go.

[07:55]

Knowing that you don't know, knowing that you are confused is a realization. Yes. That's the first part of it. And then for those who are deluded in realization, that part is like, think that they aren't confused. In a sense, yes. Ours can't be enlightened because they don't know they're confused. Right. If we think we are, we understand it, we really clearly see we are, that is delusion. So, in a sense, realization is realization about our delusion. The more we practice, the more it becomes clear that we are deluded. That is wisdom, I think.

[08:57]

In section 6, Dogen says, when Buddhas are truly Buddhas, they do not they don't need to perceive that they are themselves Buddhas. However, they are verified Buddhas, and they continue verifying Buddha. This verified and verifying is a translation of Sho. Their comment on this part, I think, is OK. I have no question. I have a question. Please. This seems like a really kind of basic confusion here to me. His first sentence is, when Buddhas are Buddhas, they don't say, I am a Buddha.

[10:02]

Well, our story is about Shakyamuni Buddha. He's always saying, I'm the Buddha. I'm the world-honored one, blah, blah, blah. Do you think he really said so? I don't know. I don't know. It's written in a sutra, but I don't think Shakyamuni Buddha really said so. That would make me feel a lot better about his wisdom if he didn't actually say that. I think so. Of course, I don't know. Well, I've always thought it was kind of an interesting thing and that maybe he did say so when it was appropriate to say so, so that he was standing up in his reality and simply saying, you know, I actually am awake. And, you know, when somebody would say, no, you're not, or why should I listen to you, or something like that, that he might say, just say it as a statement of fact, not as boasting.

[11:06]

But, you know, just saying, no, this is who I am. I think he thought, you know, he awakened to something, he found something. But I don't think he said, because of that discovering, he said, I'm the only person worthy to worship. Oh, no, I didn't mean that. I don't mean that. But there's that statement when Buddha was born, he pointed his finger and said, I alone am the World Honored One. I've only been able to find that in the Japanese traditions. I've not been able to find that in any other place, which I wondered about. I tried to find the original of that sentence. I think there's something in Chinese. Chinese? Not Indian.

[12:08]

I don't think so. Do you know, Seijun-san, where does the word Yuiga Dokuson come from? It doesn't appear in Indian literature, does it? He agreed. What? Buddha didn't say so. That's not even important. No, no. You spent 10 years hearing Buddha's always boasting about how fabulous he is. It'd be nice if somebody said, well, you know, he may not have actually said this. And you don't have to. You know, for Buddhists, you know,

[13:11]

Buddha should be something special. So Buddhists create those kind of myths. But for some Buddhists, he'd be more special if he didn't say that. I thought he was talking about his Buddha nature that we all have. That is one interpretation. That's the standard Zen Center lecture on or about April 8th. That is a kind of common understanding in Japan. Okay? So, I think section 6 is about how Buddhas are truly Buddhas. When they are buddhas, they don't think they are buddhas. But they just continue to verify the buddha nature or buddhahood.

[14:15]

I think this is... I mean, Dogen is talking about those who attain realization beyond realization. just keep going, just keep realizing the Buddha, or verifying the Buddha. That is section six. So, now we reach section seven. Yeah, it's not so much problem in that section. And section seven says, in seeing color with body and mind and hearing sounds with body and mind. Although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror or the moon in water.

[15:23]

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

[16:29]

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

[17:37]

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

[18:46]

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

[20:02]

That the whole moon is reflected in the water and the mirror accurately reflects what is seen by it? Well, that is another meaning of this analogy, using these two. I mean, later, Dogen used these two analogies, at least the moon in the water, when he described enlightenment. Right, so that's what I thought it was. So, if we understand as they did, this is kind of a problem. And they tried to, how can I say, justify it. Dogenzenji used the same analogy in two ways. In here, you know, this moon and water are two separate things.

[21:06]

But later, Dogenzenji used the same analogy as moon and water are the same thing. But it's kind of a strange thing. You know, in one such a short writing, you know, Dogen used the same image in almost opposite meaning. So you're saying they see it as opposite in this one from the one in Moon in a Dreamer. Yes. And that you had originally thought that that was true, but now it's... Yes. Yes. Thank you. That is the point. So now they understand their comments or their interpretation is at least problematic. I'm questioning. And if this is not, you know, the first sentence, in seeing color with body and mind,

[22:17]

and hearing sound with body and mind. Although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflection in a mirror or the moon in water." What this means? He said, we intimately see the color and hear the sound. And yet, he said, it is not like the reflection in a mirror or the moon in water. What this means? For one thing, the moon, if it's intimate, if it's a reflection of the moon in the water, like you say, there are two things. Please?

[23:33]

I just thought maybe you could talk about the intimate part of that. Because I was just reading that and saying that that's direct perception. We hear and we see the moon, and we open our hearing. We hear and we see, and we know it personally and directly. Or we could read, don't get it, and we can get enlightened as the moon and the water. Because you can get it indirectly. but they're not the same. You can have practice, hearing and seeing, and have that personally and directly, or you can go to the reflection of the moon in the water, the water being the text, maybe, or something like that, where you get that knowledge that it's not the same at all, it's not the same. And then that seems to make sense when you read a letter about the drop of moon, even if in a small example.

[24:36]

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

[25:41]

You mean section seven and eight? Yeah. Actually, in the original, there is no grave. Anyway, my understanding, my present understanding, is this seeing color with body and mind, and hearing sound with body and mind, is the description of what he said, those who are deluded within delusion. I mean, he said, to convey ourselves to all beings and carry out that enlightenment is delusion. And if we understand that this is delusion, that is enlightenment or realization. But when we think, you know... How can I say?

[26:45]

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

[27:53]

So, the section 6 is a description of those who are enlightened within or who attain Realization, beyond Realization. They grasp nothing, just keep practicing without thinking whether they are enlightened or not. But here, if we practice and think, now I get it. I experience hearing and sounding directly without thinking or making conceptualization. Then we feel we get it. we finally experience that reality. And according to Dogen, that is the way we are deluded within delusion.

[28:56]

That is my current understanding. Within delusion or within realization? That experience becomes delusion. You are deluded within delusion. Please. Two things. One is that The idea that Dogen would use a kind of metaphor or figure of speech one way in one sentence and another way in another sentence, that wouldn't surprise me. Because it seems to me that always he's turning and turning and turning. And in one sentence he says, it's this way. And in the next sentence, he will say with complete seriousness, it's that way. In itself, I don't find that very persuasive, that he would say it one way in one sentence and a different way in another sentence. Also, just by accident, I found in Bendoah, in question number two, a place where it seems to me that he uses reflection in a mirror.

[30:09]

I found that too. It's not number two. It's number five. where he uses, and it sounds like it's not complete praise to say, this is what is similar, what is reflected in a mirror or in water, but is similar to, or reflective of, but is not itself awakened. Yeah, actually, what he said in Bendo is... I wrote down. He used this analogy, mirror and reflection and water and moon, in negative sense. Then discuss about teachings of other traditions.

[31:14]

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

[32:27]

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

[33:31]

Yes. Please. It seems to me that the key to this path side is verified, the other side is dark, and I've used that as the sort of the crux for determining what he's talking about in the preceding line. To me it seems like that everything is mind only, that even though there's no duality between subject and object, it's still not the case that everything is just the mind, because although you see something, there's still a part of it that you don't see. And I think that's what he's saying. He says the other side is dark. So I think he's rejecting the position that there's only what we perceive and nothing else exists. So my understanding, I was

[34:38]

I'm going to address that line particularly. My understanding of that line is that this is dropping off of body and mind. What is it? What's this? We see in color with body and mind, hearing sounds with body and mind. Although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror or a moon in the water. mind. So the one side is illuminated, body and mind are bound. That is traditional understanding. And I thought that was my understanding until recently. I'm willing to change, but I don't see it yet. Well, I'm in the process of changing.

[35:42]

Now I don't understand clearly the Second sentence, when one side is verified or eliminated, another side is dark. What this means, if hearing sound or seeing color in this way is delusion, or deluded within delusion, what this second sentence means is not clear to me now. If it's delusion within delusion. And in Senrei and Kyogo's commentary, this sentence, when one side is illuminated or verified, the other side is dark, is a kind of a key sentence. They think this is a principle that one dharma or one thing includes everything.

[36:49]

Each and everything includes all other things. And that is the meaning of one side is illuminated, other side is dark. That means when body and mind, or the self, is illuminated, within this body and mind, all other beings are included. That is, I think, that is a traditional understanding of this sentence, came from Semyon and Kyogo's interpretation. And if it's not correct, then what this means, if we, if this, when one side is verified or eliminated, another side is that, is not doesn't mean the reality of all beings.

[37:51]

I think we pick one thing, we pick everything. To me it means that the delusion is from our perspective. That's what, when one side is verified, the other side is dark. We're not able to see the other side because we're seeing it from our perspective. The delusion is already Yeah, probably that is the meaning when we think this is delusion. You know, no matter how hard we try to see the reality as they are, still we need to take a position. We cannot see the reality from outside. We are already within the reality, within the world. We are born within the world and living within the world. We can't see the world objectively. We have to see the world from inside of the world.

[38:53]

So now I can see only this part of the world. So when I see this side, the other side is in darkness. So I cannot see the reality as a whole. It can be the meaning of when one side is verified or illuminated, the other side is in the dark. So this describes the limitation of our perceptions. Please. So maybe it means that in the realization of all beings, there is no self and other. So you don't see the other side. There is no other side. It's dark. There is the dark. You know the dark because you see the light. Right? So it's like you see the valley, you know there's a mountain, even if you don't see the mountain. So whenever you say something is illuminated, you know that other thing exists.

[39:59]

You don't see it, the sentient part. You don't see the first part of this. You don't see it, but you know it. So this is a kind of criticism from Dogen to those people who think they experienced in that way and that was enlightenment. But if you see something, you see this, it's not that that what you're seeing is not accurate. It's just that you're only seeing this and you're not seeing that. So that's not necessarily delusion about this, if you know that you're just seeing this and you're not seeing that. And then when it goes further, it says to study the self. The self is a particular viewpoint. But by studying the self, to study the limitations of the self, you can have the wider view. I think so. So next. section, he said, to study a self is to forget the self.

[41:02]

To forget the self means, I think, we don't cling to what we see. We should see that there's something in the dark we cannot see. I think that this is traditional understanding, but I want to ask you, there are two different things that come up for me. One is his way of talking, you know, we say form is emptiness and emptiness is form, and that sometimes you can think of Dogen as he'll just say form is form, and then implicit within that is form is emptiness, or that emptiness exists, but you don't, as soon as you say form is emptiness, you're separating them. So his non-dualistic way of saying it is to say form is form. So that if you're saying that, form is illuminated right now, and emptiness is dark right now, when you say it. Or it's like in the Sandokai, you know, in light there is darkness that can be confronted as darkness. So it's this knowing that the other side exists, but you can't see it.

[42:09]

If you're completely embedded in reality, you don't see the other side. Because that's how we deluded beings are, we can only see one side at a time. Now is that the traditional understanding? Well, it's difficult to tell. I mean, there are many different opinions. Anyway, that's how I understand. I think that is one possible understanding. But that's not what you're saying, I think. I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. Yeah, I don't either. Well, maybe this is just simply a comment saying this is a dualistic view. When one side is verified, the other side is dark. This means that, you know, if you look at things as having two sides, that's dualistic.

[43:15]

And so we can't get beyond the fact that we're always within delusion, that we're always, and you can't get outside of it, no matter what kind of, which is what he's saying up above. Okay. Previous understanding. I'm not sure whether my understanding was traditional or not. So my previous understanding is this is a description of the reality that self and all beings are one thing. Not separate. Self and object have no separation.

[44:17]

When I try to explain my understanding of this sentence, I use my experience when I was in Massachusetts. Let's see. We lived in a very small zendo in the woods in western Massachusetts. And we had no financial support at all. So we had to have some income. So we worked at a tofu shop. tofu factory.

[45:20]

There's a big macrobiotic group in Massachusetts and there was a tofu factory. Our job was cutting the tofu. And sometimes it's too small to serve. So we can take those tofu free. So we ate tofu almost every day. That was the main source of protein for us. And one day, I, with a friend of mine, went to a natural food store. And I found a poster that said, you are fat, you eat. And I said, then we are tofu. And that was a very interesting experience for me.

[46:24]

Anyway, we are fat. We eat in the poster at the natural food store. That means, you know, the fat we eat creates our body. So whether we eat healthy food or not, our physical condition changes. So we should eat natural food. That was what the poster wanted to say. But later I found this saying, we are what we eat. It was originally from a German philosopher, I don't know the pronunciation in German or in English, but in Japanese his name is Feuerbacher. and he was a materialist. So if materialist say, we are fat, we eat, means we are not, you know, I think he was against the word in the Bible.

[47:35]

You know, we don't live only with bread, but we live with, you know, words of God. And I think that philosopher want to say We are brave. We are living with brave. Mokpa, you know, saying, the word was the spirit of God. I think that was the point. But when we think, try to understand this thing, what we are eating, in Buddhist, as a Buddhist teaching, It has a very profound meaning. We are what we eat, or we are what we see, we are what we hear, we are what we feel. So the self and the things we experience, like hearing music,

[48:44]

or seeing the scenery, or seeing the color of the sky. Those are nothing other than this person. You know, actually, this person, like Shohei, is a kind of a collection of my experiences. So this person is created by what I saw, what I read, what I heard since my birth. So the object, or this world, or this world means the network of interdependent origination, is ourself. That was my understanding of hearing the sound with body and mind. So I really agree with what Kyoko is saying.

[49:50]

Kyoko says, body and mind and sound or color are one thing. That was my understanding of what Dogen is saying here. And my understanding of When one side is verified or illuminated, the other side is dark. When this side, body and mind, is illuminated, the entire other world is included. Because it's included in this self, it disappears. Hidden. It's in the dark. But it's there. But when we see the sight of sound and color, the self disappears or is hidden. But it's there. It's included within the sound and color.

[50:55]

So there's no separation between self and sound. Sound and color are two of the objects of five sense organs. According to this understanding, what this sentence is saying is, as the Heart Sutra says, there are no five skandhas, or five sense organs, and no object of five sense organs, like no eyes, no ears, no nose, no tongue, no body, no color, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touch. That was my previous understanding. And I was happy about this. But now I'm in the process of changing. If that is not what Dogen is saying here, then what does it mean?

[52:02]

It's still my kind of practice. And for now, I think this is a description of delusion, being deluded within delusion. And if so, for this sentence, when one side is very bright, the other side is dark, is something negative. That means we should clearly see the limitation of our perception, no matter how hard we try to see the reality as it is as a whole. We cannot see. I think that is another possible new understanding of mind. Please. When did you begin to have doubt about this understanding? Well, I I first read the criticism against Sene and Kyobo's interpretation on this sentence.

[53:18]

It's about, I think, about 10 years ago. One of my friends wrote her own commentary on Genjo Kohan. He said, she said, this is strange. This is a question number. Since then, until recently, I don't think that is the possible understanding. But last year, you know, Seijun-san came to Stanford and he gave me his thesis about Genjoko and his understanding of Genjoko And he said exactly the same thing. And this woman? Yeah. Not exactly. The point is different. But both thought this is a description of delusion. And that is the thing I seriously consider about this.

[54:27]

I was in Pittsburgh last November to read Sesshin, and I gave a lecture on this sentence. And kind of suddenly, I found that makes more sense. Please. Well, whether whichever direction our thinking goes in the first part of this section. Another way of looking at when one side is clear and the other side is dark, is that that is a description of delusion, that it's not a description of awakening. And it's a statement that when we carry the self forward, This is our circumstances. This is the description of what it is to be deluded.

[55:30]

We've been deluded. Delusion, that the light must not circulate freely, that there is only light going in one direction or the other direction. So when we're confused, when our body and mind is confused, or when we are in delusion, then only one side is illuminated. We see only the self, or we see only the object, but we don't see both sides. I don't know how, whether that could work in the way Japanese is written. I mean, I don't know that it could. It could be a disjunction, what comes before it. But it could be understood that way if you think that, if you agree with Sene and Kyoko, or if you hold a different opinion. Either way, you could say. that this part of it is a description of delusion within delusion. Well, that's interesting. Please.

[56:32]

If it is a description of, as we say, delusion, then would the description of the true experience of real evasion be just something as simple as not one and not two? I don't think I understand what you're saying. Could you say it again? You wrote here, I said, not one and not two, the same together. That's what I'm just saying. It seemed like various... Not one and not two. And not two. And you're saying... Well, this is sort of... You're saying not one and not two? When one side is verified, the other side isn't. You can only see all beings, or you just see the self. One or the other. You can't see them both at the same time. It's as if Hiroshi seems to be saying, you see them both at the same time, that's realization. We cannot see both at the same time is realization?

[57:41]

No, the opposite. Opposite. That means we can see both sides at the same time? Yes. Realization? Yes. Do you think it's possible? All beings and self. Self and other together, no separation. But also seeing the separation at the same time. That is realization. That's what I think. That's what I think. I think... But I'm asking, is that sort of What do you think? In that case, I think this sentence means, when we see oneness, we don't see not oneness. And when we see twoness, we don't see oneness. But oneness is in the dark. When we see oneness, twoness is in the dark. It's a kind of a traditional understanding. But seeing them all together,

[58:43]

At the same time. I don't know. Please. Are you saying, this is going to be really crude, but are you saying that as soon as you think or you believe that you're having a direct experience of reality, or when you think that, then that's a delusion. Yes. Because we don't. We just don't. So enlightenment is accepting that, might be. Enlightenment is? Might be called accepting that, that we don't really ever have a direct experience. I think that is our practice.

[59:51]

To see that limitation is entitlement in a sense. That means we cannot get realization is by our realization. But we try to manifest that reality through our practice. Not through our thinking or perception or personal experience. But within our practice, together with all beings, with all people, that is a manifestation of koan, or genjo koan. So, realization is not our personal psychological experience, but realization is within our day-to-day practice, together with all other beings. I think that is the basic teaching of Dogen. And if we are not against this basic teaching or understanding of Dogen, since Dogen's sentence is not so clear, not so logical, we can interpret it in different ways.

[61:11]

What comes up for me is actually a question from a child, a three-year-old, who asked, where does the darkness go when you turn on the lights? And that question keeps coming up when one realizes enlightenment, delusion is still there. Yeah, I just want to say, just restating again, you know, to me, this is very helpful in terms of practice. This is just this line, although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in the mirror. So no matter how clear we think we are being in, you know, how selfless we are, how much we've practiced and, you know, polished, the self is always going to creep in to whatever we perceive, and that we just have to keep remembering that.

[62:26]

I think so. You know, as Dogen said, our practice is like polishing a tile in order to make it into a mirror. And it's not possible. Tile will not become a mirror. But Dogen said, Within this polishing, the practice of polishing itself is mirror. It's, you know, continuous polishing. Just keep polishing. Just sitting, just practicing, just trying to be helpful for all beings. At least not to be harmful to all beings. In moment by moment, within each action, this is a polishing of time. We are a tile, we are not a mirror. But within this polishing, a mirror is already there. So a mirror is not something which we can produce from a tile.

[63:34]

But this practice of polishing is itself the mirror. So we should remember that no matter how long we practice, we are still tired. But polishing the tired is enlightenment, or is mirror. Is mirror enlightenment? Yes, if we use the word enlightenment. That is only possible enlightenment we can experience. To keep the mirror, to practice. That's why Dogen said, practice is enlightenment, and enlightenment is practice. So there's no such thing as enlightenment or realization or satori beside our polishing mirror, beside our day-to-day practice.

[64:37]

Is that what you mean by we endlessly keep expressing the ungraspable trace of the realization? Yes, I think so. We have 13 more minutes. We have a question about Genjokowa, not specifically on this sentence section. Penta-cone is often what is maybe the most important double fascicle, Do you think Dogen, and Dogen put it as number one or number two in the Shopa Genzo, so do you agree with that it is one of the most important, and that Dogen felt that way? This is a fact, Sennyama Kyogosen.

[65:40]

Genjo Koan is a basic principle of Dogen's teaching. throughout the 75 chapters of Shobo Genzo. Traditionally, almost all Soto Zen masters accepted. For example, initially, Bokke-san said Genjo-Koan, and Bendo-wa, and Bussho, or Buddha Nature, three most important fundamental writings express Dogen's basic teachings. And I think, I think that is true. What were those three again? Genjoko-an, Bendowa, and Busho, or Buddha Nature.

[66:43]

Decently. Many scholars doubt it. Please. This teaching of Dogen seems to be As far as the polishing of the mirror is concerned, the enlightenment is already enlightened. Right. In the poems, in the Platonic Sutra, it says there's no dust on the mirror, so we don't need to push it. In that sense, it's kind of Opposite. So is that the why we need to practice approach?

[67:55]

Yes. So Dogen tried to put emphasis on the actual day-to-day practice, not on certain kind of enlightenment experience or insight. One is saying we're already enlightened. He's saying you're deluded if you think you're enlightened. I think so. And that is enlightenment. So is this argument that the tile being polished is the mirror being anticipated? No, not anticipated. What's that? Not anticipated.

[68:57]

You anticipate turning it into a mirror. It's never going to turn into a mirror. But it is already a mirror. It is already a mirror. As it's time or... I'm sorry, I don't know the word anticipate. What does it mean? Expect. Expect. Anticipate. Expect. The mirror being a later condition that will happen from policy. Gaining idea. Gaining idea. I don't think so. I wonder if you could comment briefly on the question about firewood and ash, particularly the relationship between the firewood and the ash. It's kind of a difficult to talk. [...] It's It's kind of difficult to talk briefly.

[69:58]

Well, I think section maybe we should... 11. Section 11. This is a kind of a long section. Shall I read the section? Or do you know? Are you familiar with this section? So I don't need to read it. OK. I think, obviously, he's talking about life and death, using, for example, fire and ash. So until this section, he's talking about delusion and realization and Buddhas and living beings. And here he discusses about life and death.

[71:03]

And he is always saying there is enlightenment and there is delusion but there isn't a place of realization. And here Again, I think Dogen said, there is life and there is death, birth and death, or life and death. But there isn't, at the same time. And in order to discuss about this change, it's kind of a very crucial change for us, change from life to death. And in order to understand This change, we need to understand that it's time. Change, I think, means time. If there's no change at all, we don't see the time.

[72:08]

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

[73:10]

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

[74:15]

I think that is reality. But that is not the only way to see the reality. That is what he is saying, I think. It says, when firewood is firewood, it is within the position of firewood. As the reality of this moment of firewood, firewood has past or before, and firewood has future or after. Firewood used to be, I think, a tree. When tree is cut and dried, it becomes firewood. And when firewood is placed on the fireplace, is burned and becomes ash. So firewood has its own past and future.

[75:22]

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

[76:31]

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

[77:38]

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

[78:41]

Thank you. Thank you very much.

[78:42]

@Text_v004
@Score_JI