Okay, so now I'm going to talk on Senne's understanding of koan, what koan means to him. So ko means to be public. And to be public means, according to Senne, is to equalize and equal conditions. When there are some unfair conditions, make change and equalize. Deal all people equally. That is the meaning of public, not private. As a private, we can say, I won't do this or do that, or I think this is right or wrong. But as a public person, we have to consider all people equal.

[01:10]

So to be a private person and to be a public person or an official person are different. And here, core means to be a public. not to be private or individual, please. So public might also be any kind of authority, person with authority, mayorship? I think so. So to rule over people, with benevolence is to equalize unequal condition, to rule over people. This is a kind of a Chinese idea of politics. Now government rule peoples, but if not government, but emperor, administrations. But if emperor or ministers are not public, are not benevolent, and if they use their authority in their own personal purpose, society becomes unfair and disorder.

[02:29]

So to be public means to think of all people equally and do things, take care of things on that basis. That is the meaning of being public, according to Senne. And he said, to keep one's lot is called an. I don't know to keep one's lot is good English or not. A Japanese or Chinese expression is bun. Is there bun here? Maybe not. Bun is a kind of very important word in Japanese society. Keeping one's road is the translation of shu bun. Shun to keep or to protect.

[03:37]

And what is bun in English? Bun literally means a portion. Then we divide one piece of pie into several pieces. Each portion or each piece is called bun. And, you know, in Japanese, I think Chinese too, in the society, each person has one's own portion. Share. [...] think of government offices in China. Emperor, and high officers, and elite officers, and low-class officers.

[04:44]

And each person has a position. In fact, one has a responsibility and Station. Station. So, you know, each person has its own job or position. And if I do something more than my responsibility or duty, that means I violate the other people's responsibility. So we have to keep our own position in order to make entire organization work with.

[05:49]

Is this the Lotus Sutra, the Dharma position? Yeah, I think that is my understanding. So as a public, a person, we have to think as an entire society or a world or a universe as one equal thing. So how could you use the word purview? Purview. Purview. No, what does it mean? I can't. Which one's area of responsibility in a job? Yes, yeah. You know, you have to take care. But in this area, you can do as you think this is the best way. But there is like a job description for each place too, so each portion is defined as well as... Yes, within our entire structure of urbanization.

[06:58]

Each position, each person... Has a definition and a limit. Right. To maintain one place in the existing order of things. Yes, so in a sense, Ko and An are kind of contrary. Ko is a whole community, and An is Shubun. If I need Shubun, I keep one's position, which means I might divide you. I cannot do something this person have to do. So the koan is equality and different . is hierarchy or individual. It's not a hierarchy, but each one's unique. Can I say unique? General role?

[08:04]

Role, yeah. You need role. So within an organization, all people have to work for certain purpose, same purpose. But each person take care of different part of the work in order to carry out public work. I think that should move. or keeping a lot of beings. So here, ko and an, according to Senne's definition, means there are two sides of one reality. So in a sense, there's nothing private because we are connected with all beings. We are all public persons, right?

[09:08]

And yet, I am mine, you are new. So, within definition, the portion that you have, the place you have, and your role, what you do, and the... Yes. That comes from... Where? I mean, you guys... I think it comes from the reality of interdependent origination, in the case of Buddhism. So that comes from yourself. Yes. But there's also that... That comes from outside. Yeah, I think it comes from... The emperor tells you to do this, the shogun says to do this, the... Yes. Yes. That is the meaning of shubhant in the so-called mundane world. Okay. In the mundane world, it's that. And in this world, in the private, common world, the shubhant is the portion that you find for yourself.

[10:16]

That is, that you just... Let me read a little more. She will talk about this means as a... So to give one caution or one position is un. Doing anything to keep one locked and not create confusion is most un. So Kenzo do Kenzo's duty, and Ino does Ino's duty, and they don't. that kind of work within the social structure is kind of a meaning of in a so-called mundane one. So there are two sides of, I think,

[11:23]

of one reality of this person to the public and to the one's own uniqueness. And in my understanding, the shōhō jissō was the reality of all beings. According to my understanding of the Lotus Sutra, the expression shoho jiso, or the reality of all beings, came out of the Lotus Sutra. And it says, according to the Kumara Jiva's translation, there are ten suchnesses. suchness means reality and those ten suchness are first four is tai so I forget now but first four is kind of a uniqueness of each being

[12:34]

And next five is a connection with other beings, like cause and second cause and result and secondary result. I think primary cause and primary result is a connection. Within time, a seed becomes a fruit. And the secondary cause for a seed, like humidity and temperature, And all other condition is a secondary cause for bearing fruits. So this secondary cause is a connection with all other beings.

[13:38]

And secondary result is like for a seed to bear fruits and produce seed for the next generation. is primary result. But when a flower blooms, somehow the flowers makes us happy. The flower doesn't bloom to make us happy, but somehow those function. And this is called, I think, secondary result. So the reality of all beings means uniqueness of each and every being, and also interconnectedness with all other beings, both in time and space.

[14:41]

And that side is ko, and unique side is an. So as a koan, as a compound, I think this word express the reality of all beings. That is my understanding. I wonder, speaking of the two quarters of it, Do you feel the notion of a final cause? A final cause is, as I understand in my logic, the final cause of the plant might be the flower, and it's a final cause, because it's for the sake of the flower, because of the flower, as it always takes place beforehand. That would be a final cause. What comes next? It's determined by the result it's going to be.

[15:47]

Final cause. Final cause. I'm not sure. Pardon? Purpose. Well, for a seed, you know, to produce next generation is a purpose, right? And I'm not sure it's the same thing or not. But anyway, what I want to say is each being has its own uniqueness and connection with all other beings. And that is reality of each and every being. And each one of us is not an exception. And that reality include individuality, uniqueness of each being, and connected with all beings.

[16:59]

In that sense, there is no such thing called individual. That is public. So within this expression koan, the reality of two sides is expressed. So is this similar to sando? Sando kai. Sando in sando kai? Yeah. I think so. That is my understanding. Okay. Anyway, I don't really understand this sentence. But next sentence. Because of this, these 75 chapters are all genjō koan, manifestation of reality. though the titles and wordings are different.

[18:01]

So this, according to Senne, in all the chapters of Shōbō Genzo, Dōgen is trying to express and explain this reality, include universality and individuality. And we should understand the sentences about the Dharma and interpret them as one absolute meaning. Dogen Zenji is talking only about the reality of total function. This is a translation of Dogen's, not originally Dogen's, but Dogen liked this expression, Zen-ki. total function that has no separation between subject and object, this and that.

[19:03]

OK. So koan is reality of total function, according to Senne. I think Katagiri Roshi translate this Zenki as total dynamic work. So this total dynamic work, totality, entirety of total dynamic work is koan, according to Senne. So in this first chapter, Genjo Koan, Dogen expounds the same meaning that pervades until the 75th or final chapter of Shobo Genzo, Shukke. Shukke was the 75th chapter of Shobo Genzo. So he said, Dogen is really writing on only one thing.

[20:13]

That is koan. That is the reality of all beings. And he continues, first of all, if we understand in terms of wordly meaning. So what I said was a wordly meaning of ko and an. This expression equalizing an equal condition and keep one's lot. It is not in accordance with the original meaning of Dogen Zenji. So we should not understand koan in a mundane world meaning. We should see the meaning of koan as Buddhadharma. And that is what he is going to talk, what that means. He said, it is difficult to determine what is unequal condition in Buddhadharma, he said.

[21:17]

Unequal condition means in uniqueness of each things. We are different. In our body, I have head and I have face, neck, torso, and hands, and legs, and feet. Each part has different shape and different function. And it's difficult whether feet is more important, our head or legs or feet. Usually we think our head is more important. But, you know, it's very difficult whether head is more important than feet. And what can we use as a criterion to define equalizing inequality?

[22:18]

Whether he had a question to be equal is really a good thing or not. I mean, head is head, feet is feet, hands are hands. We don't need to make evaluation. They are just as they are. So, as Buddhadharma, we have to be careful about this, as Buddhadharma. Once we understand that to be equal and to be unequal are one. To be equal means to be public, and to be not equal means to be private. And he said, these two are one. So I think this is the same idea of . Same-ness and many-ness or diversity are one. Excuse me.

[23:23]

It is not possible to say that we equalize inequality In Buddhadharma, we cannot say we equalize inequality. If we use the expression, keep one's lot, as if there is a fixed distinction in our lot, it cannot be the Buddhadharma we are discussing now. So what I said about the entire organization and part of that entirety as an individual person is a kind of a mundane or worldly understanding. But as a Buddhadharma, there's no such distinction because everything is really connected and functions all together.

[24:27]

And what koan means should be inequality and keeping one's lot within the total function. So this is Senrei's definition of what koan is. Inequality and keep one's lot within the total function. But it sounds like he's going back and saying what he just said isn't is. Yes. Yes, he is. So inequality, you know, inequality means different. Head is head, hands are hands, feet are feet. These are not equal. And he said that is okay in Buddhadharma, not in the world. as a reality in the Buddha Dharma, each things are not equal. And he said, that is okay.

[25:32]

Well, that is reality. And keeping one's lot, so that means keep one's own uniqueness. And yet he said, within the total function, this total function is being public, interconnectedness. That means I think each finger has different shape, and the size are different, and function are different. But as a total function, each of my finger function as a whole, as a total function, as one hand. So it's kind of difficult to say whether this is five fingers or one hand. It's both. This is only one thing, one being.

[26:34]

But we can call this five fingers, a collection of five fingers. But also, this can be called one hand. When we call this one hand, there's no separation or distinction among the fingers. Everything is really one hand. But each finger has different shape and different function. And I think that is what sender means. by saying the koan should be inequality and keeping one's lot within the total function. Any question? You used the word moustache with the hand in the explanation of the character.

[27:36]

Does that relate to anything to your definition of what you just said about I think this an, the second an, means to place one's hand to something. And this can be, can mean massage, means to treat something or healing. So I think koan also means the way each one of us function or work for the sake of all beings. I think. So this is a kind of a treatment, a practice as a treatment to heal the pain or injure of ourselves and also the society or a group of people or community. I think that is what Senne is trying to say about what koa means.

[28:40]

OK? Any question, please? There's total function . If you have a part, that's gold. We have . I think so. But you don't have the, but the parts then are not the same, or reapportioned. If you have Zenki at hand, and function, [...] this will go away. We still have Zenki at hand? I think so. The total function of four fingers. But even the Zenki is now a different Zenki. Well, if we think it's different, yes. Things are changing because it's impermanent. So, you know, if I die right now and disappear from the world, this is what?

[29:49]

Zenki is always changing. The reality is impermanent. I was thinking you were saying, I wasn't sure if you were saying that all five thinkers were less than seven. No, I don't think so. Doesn't zeki in Japanese conversation mean feeling good? Well, that's genki. Oh, genki. Okay, then I'm going to... going to the first three sentences of Genjō Kōhan. And I think for many people, these first three sentences are the most difficult part of Genjō Kōhan to understand. The first sentence of Genjo Koan, I think as you know, is, When all dharmas are the Buddha dharma, there is delusion and realization, practice, life and death, Buddhas and living beings.

[31:17]

This is right. And comment on this. When all dharmas are the buddha dharma, refers to the time when we expound that all phenomenal beings, each and every phenomenal beings are, without exception, the Buddhadharma. So each and everything is Buddhadharma itself. And I have a question about what Kyogo is saying, next part. From delusion and realization, to living beings. Dogen Zenji picks up seven kinds of dharmas in this sentence.

[32:24]

So he said, Dogen picks up seven dharmas out of the media dharmas. Although all dharmas should be listed, it is not possible to write all things, so the rest of all things are omitted. So Dogen only picks up those seven dharmas out of a million dharmas. Although the number of the things Dogen Zenji wrote are not many, we should not say that it's not enough. Simply, when we penetrate the one dharma of, for example, delusion, that is the first thing Dogen picks up. Though we don't discuss many other dharmas, we are not against reality.

[33:27]

So that means when we really penetrate one dharma, one thing, we can penetrate or all other beings, all other dharmas. This is because we should not be caught up in the dichotomy of one and many." So he said, each and everything is beyond separation or distinction of one and many. But I have a question about this commentary. I mean, I think Fen Dogen wrote Genjo Koan as a piece. I think he wanted to say something as a message.

[34:29]

And I think those seven are not miscellaneous or picked freely out of, you know, myriad things. But he picks those seven things because he thinks these are important. And in this entire writing, he discusses Fatih's delusion. and what is enlightenment, and what is living beings, and what is Buddha, and what is practice, and what is life, and what is death. So those are the points Dogen is going to discuss in this entire writing. These are not examples of media dharmas. That is my understanding. So I don't really understand why he, I mean, saying in this way. Please.

[35:32]

You're saying that what he seems to be saying is that these just are meant to represent everything? I think so. But I don't agree with, at this point, I don't agree with them. These are the topics Dogen wants to discuss. And actually he does. He did. Let me go to the next sentence. When ten thousand dharmas are not fixed selves, there is no delusion. and no realization, no Buddhas and no living beings, no birth and no perishing. This is Dogen's sentence.

[36:34]

And Kyogo's comment is as follows. This self is the self of all beings, This is not a person's ego. This self is not an ego, but the self of all beings. The word, there is no, no means no, and is not non-being, that is separate between beings and non-being, who and who. Although Dogen said there is delusion, there is enlightenment or realization, there are Buddhas and there are living beings, but this are, or being, or to be, doesn't mean, doesn't refer to the being which is opposite of non-being.

[37:50]

We say, you know, when we say woo and moo, what there is and there isn't, we discuss whether, you know, this is a piece of chalk, whether this chalk is here. But then, you know, I used this joke, and so this disappeared. At that time, when we say the joke doesn't exist, now it exists. And it stopped to exist. That is our usual usage of the word to be. But... Senrei or also Dogen also, I think, when they used, I mean, Dogen used the word be or existence, like woo or moo. Dogen said that is not what he meant.

[38:53]

in fact he's discussing, or these people are discussing, is not whether this chalk exists now and yet when this goes somewhere else, it doesn't exist here. In this case, we don't question whether this really exists at this moment. In Buddhism or Zen, when we discuss about mu or mu, or being and non-being, it's about this reality. I mean, when we say there is a choke, we don't question the choke is here. But the masters or Buddhist teachers discussing about being or non-being doesn't mean that. It means how this is. Is this being or is this non-being?

[40:00]

I mean, in this case, this is a chalk. Piece of chalk. Does this really a being as a chalk? Is there really a being or stuff or thing that is called chalk or not? At this moment, all of us are watching, looking, seeing this being, whether is this really being or not being. I mean, a chalk. Chalk is just a name of this being at this moment. Because I use this to write on blackboard, I call this a chalk. or because I use this being to keep some water or tea and to drink, I call this is a cup.

[41:05]

But is really a cup exist or not? It's there, but is this a cup, really a cup or not? When I drink tea from this cup, this is a cup, but I can put some water here and put a flower in it, then this is not a cup, it's a flower piece. And when this cup, you know, fell down and broken, we don't call this a cup anymore. But it's there. But it's not a cup. It's a junk. So the name only describes the function but doesn't describe the being? Well, whether this being is really being. I mean, this body, this is me.

[42:11]

But, you know, now I think now this is me, shohaku. But suppose, you know, if I, you know, die right now, that means my brain doesn't function. Not only brain, but all part of my body doesn't function. But body is there. Is this shohaku or not? Is shohaku then, you know, fat really shohaku is? This body is not shohaku, right? When I die, you know, this body remains, but no one call this shohaku. But fat is different. Fat is lost. Mind? I don't think mind is not me. Mind is just a way this body as a thought functions.

[43:16]

So we are not sure whether shohak really exists or not. But somehow it's there. Somehow I think I'm here. And you also, I think you agree shohak is here. But Is this really exist or not as shohak? What is shohak and what is a cup and what is a desk and all beings? What is this? Is this really exist or not? So Shohaku is here, but Shohaku is not here. Shohaku is nowhere.

[44:20]

This is shohaku, but since shohaku is just a collection of causes and conditions, actually there's no such thing called shohaku. So we can say both. Shohaku is here, but shohaku is not there, not here. This is what Sennie or Dogen is discussing. We can say, we can call this genjou koan as u, either u or mu, being or non-being. And also, neither being nor non-being. He u, he mu. And neither being nor non-being means emptiness. So emptiness includes both being and non-being, who and who.

[45:23]

How about absolute and relative? absolute and relative is two ways to see this one reality, which can be a said being or a known being, or neither being nor known being. Does that make sense? I'm not sure. So you say here, you've translated Genjo Koan as a manifestation of reality. And Kaz translates it as actualizing a fundamental point. And Carl, how are you translating? You haven't got to yet. So in the first sentence, Dogen said there are these, those seven things.

[46:33]

And in the second sentence, Dogen said there isn't, in this case, those six things. One thing is missing, and that is practice. I think, you know, in the third sentence he said, since Buddha way, since Buddha way, in the first and second sentence he said, Dharma. In the first he said, when all dharmas or all beings are Buddha dharma. And in the second sentence, he said, since ten thousand dharmas. So these first two sentences are about dharma. And the third sentence, again, he said, they are reeds, those six things. But in the case of the third sentence, he said, put away, not dharma.

[47:37]

But in fact, Ucchiamuro mentioned, you know, The topic Dogen is talking in the first two sentences and the third sentence is different. In the first two sentences, Dogen discusses about dharma, the way things are. And the third sentence, and the rest of the Genjo koan, is talking about the Buddha way. The Buddha way is practice. And in the second sentence, if there's no delusion and no enlightenment or realization, there's no practice. Practice is, in a sense, practice is the process or path which leads us from delusion to realization.

[48:39]

But if there's no separation between delusion and realization, there's no practice needed. So in the second sentence, there's no practice. Because everything is reality as it is. There's no distinction, no separation between delusion and enlightenment. and living beings and Buddhas. Living beings means deluded beings, and Buddha means enlightened being. So that's why I think Dogen did a good practice in the second sentence. Might it be a reasonable paraphrasing that the phrase, when 10,000 dharmas are not fixed self, that means when life is as it is?

[49:44]

I think both, first and second, is when things are as they are. There's dharmas and there's Buddha dharmas. In the first one, dharmas are all buddhata, and in the second, they're dharmas. It says 10,000 dharmas. And somewhere else, I think Dogen said 10,000 dharmas is buddha dharmas, because buddha dharmas is the way all dharmas are. Okay, how true is it? Yes. Both are always. Not certain time. No. That is not what I think Dogen meant. And Senni, I think, clearly says so. Yes.

[51:01]

So, can you sum up then, what is, maybe I'm just missing something, what is the difference between when all dharmas are the Buddha dharma and when ten thousand dharmas are Gnostic self? What is the essential difference between those two? I think there's no essential difference. Both are always. But when you see things in this way, they're like this. When you see them in this way, they're like that. It's the same time. Yeah, OK. For example, Senne says in the next comment on this second sentence, he says, we can say that when all dharmas are the Buddha dharma, there is no delusion. and no realization, no Buddhas and no living beings, no birth and no perishing.

[52:04]

So what he's saying is those two sentences are the same thing in the positive way and negative way. Not way, positive expression and negative expression. In Senne's comment on the first sentence, it said, the first sentence, all dharmas is, what is the thing that has come? This is a famous expression from one koan. When the Huinan, the sixth ancestor, first met with a young monk, Nangaku Ejo, Nangaku visited Huinan. Huinan asked, where are you from? And Huinan said, I came from certain place.

[53:12]

And then Shuinan said, that's not what he's asking. And he said this thing, what is the thing that has come? In Japanese we read, what thing does come? More directly, what thing how come? And this is not a question according to Dogen. This is a statement to express the reality. The thing, what things means the thing that cannot be defined, cannot be grasped, has come in this way. So this is one expression. Such things has come in this way. And Nangaku didn't understand at all.

[54:21]

So after, I think after eight years or so, after he practiced with Nangaku, Nangaku first understood the fact he didn't question many. And he visited Huinan and asked and said, now first I understood your question many. And Huinan asked the same question, what is the thing that has come? Then Nangaku said that 10,000 dharmas have no. If I point out one thing, I am of the mark. That is Nangaku's expression. Such thing thus come is kind of a positive expression. And when I say something, I'm off the mark.

[55:22]

It's a narratively expressed the same reality. And according to Senne, the first sentence and second sentence is the same. He tried to express one reality using positive expression and negative expression. And according to Senne, this is the same as Basso's saying, Basso or Mazu, the mind is itself Buddha, and neither mind nor Buddha. Do you know that story? Mind itself is Buddha, and no mind, no Buddha. And according to Sennhe and Dogen, these two are two different expressions of one reality.

[56:27]

So that is basic understanding of these first two sentences of Genjo Koan according to Senni and Kyogo. These two are both not certain time, certain occasion, but these two are both always as the reality of all beings or reality of our own life. Since I don't have much time, I'd like to go to the second sentence. I mean, third sentence. The third sentence is, since the Buddha way by nature goes beyond the dichotomy of abundance and deficiency.

[57:38]

Abundance and deficiency is something positive and something negative. So this means the first sentence and second sentence. I think what Dogen is saying is the Buddha way, the actual way we practice, the actual way we walk, using our legs as our day-to-day actual life, transcends or goes beyond those two expressions, abundance and deficiency. We're like Kai. Kai and something, right. Yes, actual reality in which we have to do something, not idea or understanding of dharma or reality. We have to do something, practice using our body and mind.

[58:41]

That is buddha way. And this buddha way is beyond those two sides of reality. And he said, there is a rising and perishing, delusion and realization, living being and Buddha. Therefore, flowers fall down because we love them, weeds grow because we dislike them. Please. I just wondered about the word, because. Is it caused by, or is it... Regardless of whether we like it or not. In my original translation, I translated, I think, although. Ah, very different. Yeah.

[59:42]

And in this translation, I changed because of Sene and Kyoho's comments. I see. Oh, so this would be their version. Yeah. Oh. Are you still stick with although? Yes. Yes. But I'm not sure which is right. Which Dogen really meant. But the word is ie domo. Ie domo means and yet or however. No, I'm sorry. In this case, It can be either. Literally. Yes. And both Senne and Kyowo's comment on this sentence is, you know, that this paragraph has nothing special to discuss.

[61:02]

And Senne also said, well, So we should just understand this as it is. Kyogo says, here Dogen Zenji again says that there is arising and creation, delusion and realization. This there is, or being, or wu. refer to arising and perishing, delusion and realization, living beings and Buddhas discussed on the ground of all dharmas are Buddhadharma. So what he is saying is what he said in the first sentence and what he is saying in the third sentence here is the same thing. This is also another point I don't agree with Kyogo.

[62:09]

Because here, in the third sentence, Dogen is talking, discussing about practice. And he said this practice, Buddha way, is going beyond what transcends. First two sentences. Could this be like at first mountains are mountains, and then mountains are now mountains, and then mountains are mountains again? That is one interpretation, I think. Some sort of masters interpret these three sentences in that way. But I don't think so. It's not like a step or stage. First we understand there is delusion and enlightenment, or there is mountain and rivers. And in the next stage, we negate it. There is no such things. And in the final stage, we go back to the central reality.

[63:13]

That is a kind of common understanding of these three sentences. But I don't think that in the case. Still a little confused about the real way being interpreted as practice, because butsudo, it must, butsudo, doesn't butsudo, does butsudo exist before practice? Butsudo is a practice. It still is practice. It cannot exist separate from practice or... Yes, of course. There's no life without our actual living activity, right? Right. So Buddha Way is a concrete activity we do. Buddha Way is not kind of a ready-made highway. Yeah. But Buddha Way is the way we live day by day, moment by moment. Even if we're not consciously practicing?

[64:17]

I'm not sure. We have to be careful. I mean, we need kind of a discussion what the fact that means. And if we say yes, we might create some problem. If we say no, we create another problem. The expression abundance and scarcity is very strange. I don't have any particular feeling for it. It's like words that come out of nowhere. I never run across it in any other Dharma discussion, that expression of abundance and scarcity. I would appreciate it if you could give me some idea where this expression came from and what the feeling of it is here. Well, the dog expression Dogen used is ho and ken. Ho is to be rich or to be abundant, and ken is to be deficient or not enough.

[65:26]

And those two, ho and ken, are something positive and something negative. In the case of those three pairs, delusion is something negative, and enlightenment is something positive, something we want. Delusion is something we don't want, and Buddha is something positive, and living beings, deluded beings, are something negative, both two sides. Ho and Ken, and also first and second sentences. When Dogen said, there are those things that is positive, that is ho, and there aren't, as expression negative. I think those are whole and can be something positive, meaningful, valuable. Can be something not meaningful, not desirable.

[66:32]

Well, in Japanese language, does this flow very smoothly? Does it seem completely smooth and expected that we might use this kind of expression? In English, it's a little unexpected. It's almost jarring. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Do you have some idea? Do you think there are some better expressions to express this idea? I don't have any idea that better translate what Dogen Zanjin said. I trust the translation. I'm just kind of surprised that building Zenji's choice of language and wondering whether it feels, being Japanese, a completely natural thing to say. How many times the effect is coming out of nowhere? Maybe because I'm too familiar with Genjo Koan.

[67:37]

It flows well, and it's very natural. Please. I always sort of saw that as a reference to the heartbeat problem. Where it says all diamonds are not deficient, not complete, not defiled, not immaculate. Well, I think in the Heart Sutra it said, fuzo fugen fuku fujo. Do you remember, Mr. Seiji? I'm sorry.

[68:41]

My mind doesn't work well. Yeah. I was hoping that you would say more about mountains are mountains, mountains are not mountains, mountains are mountains. He has a common understanding of how this might be parallel, but you don't agree with it. And I wanted to hear why. What is your... I think, as I said, those are kind of a stage.

[69:42]

First, we study Buddhism. We say, you know, we see, we understand we are deluded. We have a problem. We have pain, suffering. And there's something called enlightenment or nirvana. that is Jairagun. And we practice, start to practice in order to escape from delusion and reach nirvana. I think that is very common understanding of Buddhist practice. And yet, when we actually really practice in that way, we find there's some contradiction there. My aspiration, or I think aspiration and desire is the same.

[70:43]

My desire to become free from or escape from delusion and reach to nirvana is also delusion. And in actual reality, there's no such distinction where we cannot escape from our delusion. So we have to find nirvana within samsara. I think that's the second kind of a stage. So there's no distinction between samsara and nirvana or delusion and enlightenment. and we think this is a kind of a little higher understanding. And yet we need to go back to the actual day-to-day reality. So there's something called delusion and something called enlightenment, and we have to practice.

[71:49]

Is the difference between seeing them as simultaneous and as…? So if we think those three attitudes, as three stages. That is something different from what Dogen is saying, and it's different from my own practice. Those three are three part of one reality, one reality of my practice. That means in my practice of, for example, just sitting, Those three points are all included. It's not like when I was young, at a certain point I thought there's practice and delusion and enlightenment, and at certain times I realized there's no such thing, and I practice in that way.

[72:55]

But recently I found that it's not the right way to practice, so I return to it now. you know, the reality. But within my practice at this moment, those three are included. This practice is half from delusion to samsara to nirvana. And yet within this practice, this same practice, same action by this person, there's no such thing called sansara or distinction between sansara and nirvana. And yet there is. That is my practice. Within my practice, not within my idea or my understanding, but within reality of this person's practice, all three points are always there. Does it make sense?

[73:57]

Yes. And that is what Dogen is saying in these three sentences. That is my understanding. It's not a matter of stages. First sentence is kind of a starting point, and second is a little higher stage. And as a friend, you are really mature. You have to come back to the actual day-to-day, ordinary reality. That's the kind of core understanding of Zen practice. But... as my understanding of the entire teaching of Dogen. Dogen's practice or Dogen's teaching is different from that kind of step-by-step practice. OK? If I may make a comment, I really appreciate you qualifying everything you say as my understanding.

[75:01]

And going back to Stuart's comment about abundance and efficiency and its translation from Japanese, I know in Farsi, when I read Persian poetry and when I read that same poetry as translated in English, there is always an essence that gets that's lost yes that's only you can get it from the original language so i appreciate what you said when i tried to work on translation often and sad because the important point to me is not convey our lost in the process of translation But sometimes I'm really happy, you know, there's something common. Something what? Common in Japanese language and English language.

[76:05]

But that is true. And I think that is what I can contribute. as a person from Japanese culture to explain what is missing in English translation. Well, we don't have much time. We finished at five, right? So we have ten more minutes. I don't think we have time to discuss next sentences, so if you have questions or comments or whatever you want to say, please. Please. I have a feeling that the sport has been seen to have been deeply influenced by Nagarjuna. I'm wondering if there's any much is known about the extent to which Dogen would have studied regard for the role that might have played in that writing?

[77:19]

Dogen was first ordained in Kendai school and I think in Tendai teachings, there's some influence from Nagarjuna, like two truths. In the case of Tendai, they say three truths. Of course, there's some influence from Nagarjuna to Dogen. There's no record he studied Nagarjuna or not. But maybe he did. It said while he was at Mount Hiei, he read entire of Buddhist sutras and commentaries. Since he was very brilliant person, I think he did.

[78:23]

OK. I'm interested to know, what is it that was best for you? I think it would raise, responding to some questions, maybe a teacher says your question is self-explanatory. And I wonder if this is a kind of turning point, or is this a self-explanatory one, that there is no answer out there. The answers entirely are not separate, and yet it's hard to understand. Well, Dogen Zenji's interpretation of this expression or koan, not only about this koan, but his interpretation of koan story is very unique.

[79:30]

Sometimes he ignores grammar. And if someone else did it in that way, people think that's a mistake. But somehow... Dogen was very talented. And even by making mistakes, talented, even by making mistakes or twisted, he had the ability to express the reality deeper than the original sentence has. very amazing. That is one of the kind of attractive points of Dogen's writings. He twisted original sentences and expressed much deeper things.

[80:37]

So, you know, because we have certain concepts about certain expressions, By reading Dogen's writings, our concept is kind of destroyed and allow us, enable us to see the reality deeper or broader perspective. That is really amazing. And I think I have same experience through Zazen. by practice continuously, the same thing seems completely different way. I don't know why, but that is my experience. So Togen's writings and my own Zazen, sometimes, in some way, the same thing to me.

[81:42]

It breaks or destroys my own understanding or clinging to my own understanding. When I read Dogen's writings, the same writings, in this case, Kenjo Kowa. First I read Kenjo Kowa when I was 17 years old. So more than 30 years ago. And since then, I have been reading this for many times, hundreds of times. And I think each time, my understanding is still different. I hope my understanding is getting deeper, but no guarantee. Maybe just changing. And also, recently, I changed my understanding at least one part of Genjō-kōan almost completely by kind of influence from scholars, scholars' study.

[82:59]

I think that point is about mirror and reflection or moon in a water. Traditionally, or according to Gosho, this commentary, that is... Oh, it's section seven. Page, yeah. In seeing color with body and mind and hearing sound with body and mind, although we perceive them intimately, it is not like reflections in a mirror or the moon in water.

[84:01]

When one side is verified, the other side is dark. I think I'm going to talk on this section tomorrow, tomorrow morning. But according to this commentary, traditionally, until recently, this is a description of enlightenment. Enlightenment. Reflections in the mirror or in water? It is negative. is separation of subject and object. And seeing the color with the whole, our entire body and mind, is enlightenment, or real, true practice. But Sageson was one of the scholars. They think this is a description of delusion. It wasn't clear to me until recently.

[85:10]

So my understanding is also changing. So don't trust me. Read and understand for your own. My talk is just one kind of interpretation. It isn't a delusion, though, that we're going to start at 9.30 tomorrow. Thank you very much. 9.30 in the morning. Isn't it 9 o'clock? No, 9.30 to 12. Good. Thank you very much.

[85:37]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_83.4