is something to do with what Dogen is saying, the phrase I talked this morning. It's a little long, but let me just read. Maybe you'll understand without any explanation. It's not a difficult sutra. But I think it's very important. And Buddhist scholars think this section of sthanipārtha is important to see, to know the older form of Buddha's teaching of interdependent origination. In the case of early Buddhism, interdependent origination is not correct expression. The dependent origination or dependent arising is not interdependent. The idea of interdependent origination is from Nagarjuna in the Mahayana Buddhism.

[01:11]

Number 11, Karahavi Vada Sutta. The number is 862 to 877. The title of this sutta in English is Disputes and Contention. Disputes and Contention. And in the parentheses it said, the causes of anger and attachment. Said, sir said a questioner. So this is a question from someone. Whenever there are arguments and quarrels, there are tears and anguish, arrogance and pride. and grudges and insults to go with them.

[02:19]

Can you explain how these things come about? Where do they all come from? So this person is asking, what is the cause of this human problem? Not only 2,500 years ago, but we still have the same thing. And Buddha said, the tears and anguish that follow arguments and quarrels, said the Buddha, the arrogance and pride and the grudges and insults that go with them are all the result of one thing. They come from having preferences, from holding things precious and dear.

[03:20]

Insults are born out of arguments, and grudges are inseparable from quarrels. But why, sir, this is a person who questions, but why, sir, do we have these preferences? Why do we have these preferences? These special things, why do we have so much greed and all the aspirations and achievements that we base our lives on? Where do we get them from? I think this is a very important question for us too. The preference is the precious things, said the Buddha, come from the impulse of desire, impulse of desire. So too does the greed and so too do the aspirations and achievements that make up people's lives.

[04:34]

So our lives came from impulse of desires. And from where, sir, comes this impulse of desire? From where do we derive our theories and opinions, our philosophy? And what about all the other things that you, the wanderer, have named, such as anger, dishonesty, and confusion? The impulse of desire arises when people think of one thing as present and another as unpleasant. That is the source of desire. It is when people see that material things are subject both to becoming and disintegration, arising and perishing, that they form their theories about the world.

[05:49]

So we create our picture of the world, our philosophy based on our like and dislike. Anger, confusion, and dishonesty arise when things are set in pairs as opposite. Two pairs, dichotomies. The person with perplexity must train himself in the path of knowledge. The recluse has declared the truth after realization. Another quick question again. But why, sir, is it that we find some things present and some unpleasant? What could we do to stop that? How can we stop it?

[06:51]

And this idea of becoming and disintegration, could you explain where that comes from? Buddha's answer. It is the action of contact, action of contact, contact between sense organs and their object. Contact. It is the action of contact, of mental impression, that leads to the feelings of present and un-present. we have present and unpresent because of the contact between sense organs and the object of sense organs. Without the contact, they would not exist, of course. And as I see it, the idea of becoming and this disintegration also comes from this source, from the action of contact.

[08:06]

Again, question, so far, sir, does this contact come from? and the grasping habit. What's the reason for that? Why we grasp things? Is there anything that can be done to get rid of possessiveness and anything that could be eliminated so that there would be no more contact? How we can avoid contact? It's a very good question, I think. And this is something about what Dogen is discussing here, I think. And Dogen, not Dogen, but Buddha says, Contact exists because the compound of mind and matter exist. Compound of mind and matters.

[09:11]

Compound of, you know, our self and all other beings. And that is a fat dogma called the mountain. Excuse me, so is our mind and matter compounded together in the same compound or are mind and matter separate? I'm not sure. Let me read further. So, contact exists because the compound of mind and matter exists. The habit of grasping is based on wanting things. Desire. If there were no wanting, If there's no desire, there would be no possessiveness. It's very logical, I think. Similarly, without the element of form of matter, there would be no contact.

[10:16]

So, if neither desire or form or object doesn't exist, there's no contact. I think it's very logical. Very understandable thing. No contact. That is what I want to know about. I think we want to know too. And Buddha said, Where is a state? There is a state where form ceases to exist. Buddha said, there is a state where form ceases to exist, said the Buddha. What kind of state is it?

[11:18]

And he says, I think this is the most important point. He said, it is a state. It is a state without ordinary perception. And without disordered perception. And without no perception. And without any annihilation of perception. So there is no... you understand? Annihilation of perception. without ordinary perception and without disordered or mistaken perception. And without no perception means there is perception. So not to get rid of perception. So without no perception and without any annihilation of perception.

[12:21]

It is perception, consciousness that is a source of all the basic obstacles. So, I think what Fat Boykin is saying, you know, perception is a source of problem, but annihilation perception is another source of problem. So how can we be free from this contact between the sense organs or our mind and the object of the mind? About this point, you know, there are many different ideas and theories in Buddhism, from early Buddhism to Mahayana Buddhism and also in Zen. And one way or one idea is to negate the object and see only consciousness.

[13:31]

That is the teaching of Yogacara. Only consciousness. No form. No object. That is one way. Another way is to get rid of mind and only form. Understand? Only form, or object. So, get rid of our mind, our thought. Yeah, that is another, I think, approach. And third is to go beyond this dichotomy of self and others. or sense organs and objects. I think that is the third approach. How can we go beyond this contact?

[14:33]

That is the source of all the problems, please. When you say get rid of mind, in my understanding, if our mind is a creation, it's not getting rid of mind, it's not to create and recreate it. It's not going to the point where we create it, not get rid of anything. It's not to create. I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. No, it's coming to me that when you say get rid of, in my understanding, you sort of know, because you get rid of something that is there. But most of our perception is not there. So it's not so much get rid of something that is there, but to stop creating that darkness, to stop creating. Not to create, leave it as it is. Do you see what I mean?

[15:37]

Maybe so. That's my understanding. That's what I mean when you say get rid of, because I think if you get rid of something, you have to struggle. But if you only have to stop creating, maybe, you know, it's different. point of view, easier in my understanding. Could you say more? What is the difference? In getting rid of and not creating. That when you talk about getting rid of, you have already created it and you are giving it such an entity that you say, this is it, this is me. It's mine. But when you don't create it, you stop before that. You only have not to create. So it's a matter of different stage. Before creation and after creation. To get rid of what is already created.

[16:41]

That is the meaning of get rid of. It's not giving too much power to the mind. It's there. I really believe we are creating and recreating it constantly. So it's stopping before creating it. Not just taking it as religion. This is it, you know. Now we need to get rid of it. Can we stop creating it? I think that is what Buddha is saying. We stop creating our ego. How can I say? man-made picture of the world, or our own, my own, how can I say, idea, based on the contact of present and un-present, and because of that, like and dislike. My point is when you say, can we talk,

[17:45]

You don't like the word to get rid of because we have to make effort. I think we have to make effort. I think. I think. I'm not sure about this. I'm not sure about the meaning of the English word. Please. There is no one to control what is arising. But there is something about this clinging process that kind of reifies things, makes them solid, gives them life. And the effort, actually, is not so much getting rid of something. It's not creating something, because you can't necessarily control what arises. There's this process of not clinging or letting go.

[18:54]

I'm sorry, I'm not sure. Anyway, yes, please. How can I fix? Okay, thank you.

[19:59]

I forgot. It is perception, consciousness that is the source of all the basic obstacles. And one, two, three more sections. Okay, let me read this. Another question. Sir, you have explained to us everything we have asked you about. There is one more question we'd like you to answer for us.

[21:05]

Do you learned scholars of the world say that this is the highest purification of the individual being, or do they say that there is some other kind of goal? Buddha says, There are scholars and authorities, replied the Buddha, who say that this is the highest and the purification of the individual. There are others who maintain that the highest purity is to be found in the complete eradication of the five components of the person. That means the five skandhas. And there is also the Muni. Muni. What is Muni? The wise man. Muni, maybe. Yeah, Muni. It's not Muni. Yeah, Muni in Shakyamuni. I was surprised.

[22:08]

He hasn't realized. He has realized which things are dependencies, and he knows that these are only clutches and props. And when he has realized this, he has become free. He does not enter into argument, and so does not enter the realm of endless becomeings. What I wanted to say is, you know, these three approaches to kind of escape, not escape, avoid or go beyond the contact of self or sense organs and object, or self and the world, or media dharmas,

[23:21]

One is to kind of... How can I say? Let's see. Seeing without thinking. Seeing things with no mind. And another is... seeing that everything is only the mind or consciousness. Consciousness only. So there's no object or myriad things. That is the fact that Yogachara taught. And I think third is, as I said, go beyond this dichotomy and embrace this as one thing. And I think that is what Nagarjuna tried to do.

[24:27]

You know, he always, you know, bring up two things, two sides, dichotomies. And this one pair negate each other. And he negate both by negating both. he shows something beyond this dichotomy. I think Dogen is doing the same. Please. This one? Sutta Nipata. Sutta. S-U-T-T-A. N-Y-P-A-T-A. Nipahta, Sutta, Nipahta. This is very important sutra in Pali canons. No.

[25:30]

It's separate. It's part of the 1, 2, 3, 4th Nikaya. Anyway, I'll go back to Dogen. Question? Please. Are you going to explain how this Sutanipata concept relates to what you're... Yeah, I think it has... Buddha said Sutanipata has something to do... Dogen said about beyond or middle path between thinking and no thinking. That is, without ordinary perception, without mistaken or disordered perception, and without no perception, and without annihilation of perceptions. That is, what I wanted to say was, that is what we are doing nowadays.

[26:34]

You know, we have no ordinary perceptions by letting go. So there's no disordered perceptions. At least we don't take action based on our disordered perceptions. And we don't negate or eliminate perceptions. So maybe third and fourth is the same thing. So we really just sit. Within this just sit, you know, we do what Buddha is saying. That is the state of being free from this conduct. And being free from like and dislike. That means preferences. So now we go back to the water. This discussion about water, Dogen's discussion about water, has also something to do with this, you know, going beyond dichotomies.

[27:48]

Paragraph, this is 17. Page 13, the first paragraph of Under the Dot. Water is neither strong nor weak, neither wet nor dry, neither moving nor still, neither cold nor hot, neither being nor non-being. Neither delusion nor enlightenment. Frozen, it's harder than diamond. Who could break it? Melted, it is softer than milk. Who could break it? So Dogen is saying water is beyond these dichotomies.

[28:57]

So, Dougen is discussing using this word, water is the reality of a life beyond not only these particular dichotomies, but dichotomies of everything. So, water has really no self-nature. It's changing in many ways. Sometimes it's wet, of course, but sometimes it's very dry. Snow in Minneapolis is very dry. No wet at all. It's like a flower. Right? Yes, it is. And neither moving nor still. Sometimes move, sometimes don't move.

[30:01]

And neither cold nor hot. Water is, you know, sometimes cold, sometimes hot. Neither being nor non-being. This means form and emptiness. No self-nature. There's no such thing actually called water. And neither delusion nor enlightenment, of course. And this is not only about the water, but about ourselves. We are beyond these dichotomies. And next, this being the case, we cannot doubt the many virtues realized by water. We should study the occasion when the water of the ten directions is seen in the ten directions. This is not a study only of the time when humans or gods see water.

[31:08]

There is a study of water seeing water. Water practices and verifies water. Hence, there is a study of water, telling of water. We must bring to realization the road on which the self encounters the self. we must move back and forth along and spring off from the vital path on which the other studies and free comprehend the other. So he is saying, Water is beyond these dichotomies.

[32:13]

So, also beyond the dichotomy of self and others, or self and all media dharmas, that's why water studied water. I think including self and object, both. Actually, he is discussing about the self which includes self and others. You know, one mind is all things, and all things is one mind. That is the self Dogen is discussing about. Oh yes, so this is about the reality of all beings, all existence.

[33:20]

That is what is said in the Lotus Sutra. So... Those, you know, wet or dry, or soft or hard, or being and non-being, or being still and moving, and enlightened and deluded, according to Togen, are virtues realized by water. So water has, you know, these virtues. you know, same virtue as the mountain had. And we should study the occasion. The water of the ten directions is seen in the ten directions. That means we usually see something from my point of view, from this side.

[34:26]

Otherwise we cannot see. This is the source of dichotomy. source of separation between self and others. And among others, we separate something we want, something we don't want, something desirable, something not desirable, something valuable, and something not valuable. And we want to get this side, and we try to, you know, push this side away. That's the way we create samsara. You know, we try to be on that side alone, and sometimes we are successful and we are happy, but more often we are not so successful, so we suffer. And we try to escape from something we don't want or we don't like.

[35:27]

We think it's not valuable, so we try to escape. Even though we escape, they come somehow. So our life becomes chasing after something and escaping from something. And this creates sansara. Please. Is this when you could see interdependent horizon? Yeah, that is what Dogen is saying. When we see with karmic consciousness, that means this person is subject and things are object, then here is a contact and here is a preference. But when ten directions 10 direction, water of 10 direction is seen in the 10 direction means not from this person's particular position.

[36:34]

But this means I think there's no separation between seeing a person who is seeing and water which is seeing. That means water is seeing the water. This is basically the same thing. Yeah. Use the different word. But yeah, I think mountains and deep waters are the same thing. Please. I hope I'm not too far off. You know, you were talking about earlier, the eye cannot see itself. Yeah, so this is a contradiction. Yes. [...] So I think what he is saying, when he said, water is seeing water, that means, to me, that means let go of thought.

[37:44]

Let go of thought. Opening the hand of thought. We, of course, we see things only from my eye. And I cannot, my eye cannot see my eye, so I cannot see, I cannot say self is seeing the self. But by letting go, you know, what I see doesn't, how can I say, doesn't form the view. It's just perception, please. It's also like Tozon saying, wherever I look I see myself. Right. That means that what we are seeing is myself. That kind of, that is what Tozo meant with the word intimacy. Intimacy means self and the object of the self are one thing. That means, so when we let go of our view, our perception, then the self and all beings are one thing.

[38:52]

Because actually, from the beginning, we are part of the universe. Only our perception, our view, our thinking, thought, arise from this contact or separation, and to separate things' contact, we create some view. And when we take action based on this view, then this person and all millions of things are separated. But when we let go, you know, actually we are part of the world. We are the part of the universe. We are just five scanners, same as all other things. So we are really, actually, when we let go, we are really connected with all beings.

[39:53]

That is what interdependent origination means. But we create separation. by viewing things and forming things from this person's point of view. Anne, please. I'm thinking that it's coming to me that it's not even our own view. It's usually the view that our parents, our culture, you know, it's not, usually I think we think it's my view, so it's very personal. Yeah. But I think when we look at it, it's not so personal. But I think that's our view. Or a human view. Our convention in human society. That is a view. From not this person, but as a member of the human society.

[40:56]

That is part of it, but that is not all we have. I mean Buddha or Dogen doesn't necessarily speak about our personal view. You know, we have some particular personal view different from other list of people, that is personal view, individual view, but also, you know, view as a human beings. You know, we think money is important in this society, that is a view within this society, that a convention, that is a rule, it's not a reality, right? So that's not my view, but the view from human point of view, human position. So that is, you know, same thing. To make the discussion simple, these are the same thing.

[42:03]

Let's see if here we are. So he's saying we should, not we, but we should study the occasion when the water of the 10 directions is seen in the 10 directions, not from our personal or human point of view. This is not a study only of the time when humans or God see water. So there's no separation between human point of view or God point of view and the things viewed. Therefore, he said, there is a study of water, water seeing water. So here is a paradox, how water can see the water, as you said. I think this means, maybe I said this morning, you know, we are part of the universe, right?

[43:17]

And somehow we human beings start to think and start to view things, but still we are part of the universe. So in a sense, you know, by, because, how can I say? Our doing things and trying to understand things is, in a sense, the world. This universe is trying to understand the universe itself. So, do you understand what I mean? That is what I think Dogen is saying, water sees water. That means this universe sees the universe through human beings. But from human point of view, I see things. I see the universe, and we separate as subject and the universe as object.

[44:22]

But when we go beyond, our realities already go beyond this dichotomy. So that means water being water. and human beings being human beings, and this entire universe being entire universe. That is the way, you know, the world sees the world, water sees the water, and human beings see human beings. I think that is what he is saying. Water practices and verifies water. Hence, there is a study of water, telling of water. So only water. No dichotomy between self and the water, or observer and the water as observed. That's how water practices and verifies the water.

[45:32]

And the self practices and verifies the self. And the entire world practices and verifies water. I mean the world. And we must bring to realization the road on which the self encounters the self. We must move back and forth along. and spring off from the vital path on which the other studies and fully comprehend the other. So here he is saying there is a way we can comprehend ourselves and others can comprehend others. You know, by just sitting.

[46:35]

You know, by letting go of any dichotomy or any thought. You know, the self is just being the self. And a frog is just being a frog. And a wind is just being the wind. Water is just being the water. And this universe is just being the universe. That is the way we go beyond. We go beyond even the Buddha. And this reality of going beyond is the Buddha way. Do you have something to say? That was Dogen's question, I think, when he was 15 years old.

[47:39]

Why we have to practice, you know, from teachers. And in order to understand why we have to study the teacher, he tried to find a teacher. And I think this process of having a question and try to find the answer is a process of... so our process of our searching the truth or reality or whatever is a kind of this world trying to search the reality of the world and there's nothing else I think and that is I think, transmission. So, in my case, I think, I learned or studied or found who I am by studying with my teacher.

[49:01]

So I didn't receive anything actually. But I found I'm the one with all beings. And that was what he taught through his way of life, that he's one with all beings. And somehow it's a very strange thing, you know, we are one with all beings. In the human convention, we are all different. We are all independent. So, that is how we are educated. So, in order to find or search that truth, that is a truth, you know, from the very beginning, before we have such a question. But somehow we have to find it, or we have to make effort. And I think that is a process of studying and practice.

[50:07]

Okay? Let's see. And next, he again discusses that there are many different views depending upon our karma. In general, then, The way of seeing mountains and waters differs according to the type of being that sees them. In seeing water, there are beings who see it as a jeweled necklace. This does not mean, however, that they see a jeweled necklace as water. How then do we see what they consider water? This is about a kind of a... How can I say?

[51:13]

Not a metaphor, but an example used in the Yogachara teaching. You know, it said, of course, human beings see water as water. And heavenly beings see water as a jeweled necklace. And a hungry ghost sees water as a, what is it? A path, a raging flame, or as path and blood. And of course, not of course, but dragons and fishes see the water as their palace or their dwellings, their house. So, you know, depending upon our karma, our karmic consciousness, we see one thing called water as many different things.

[52:28]

So heavenly beings see what we think water is as a jeweled necklace. But Dogen is saying, this does not mean, however, that they see a jeweled necklace as water. That means the thing we see as a jeweled necklace You know, those heavenly beings don't see our jeweled necklace as water. Then, how do they see our jeweled necklace? That was Dogen's question. And their jeweled necklace is what we see as water. So those heavenly beings see jeweled necklace is what we see water.

[53:38]

And some see water as miraculous flowers, though it does not follow that they use flowers as water. So some beings see the water as a flower. But they don't use our flower as water, or we are not sure. So we really don't know. Among our human society, as a convention, we call this water. And we use this as water. But heavenly beings see this as a jeweled necklace. And fat is their water. We don't know. Pardon? Out of our perception.

[54:46]

I'm sorry, I don't understand your question. Those are different perceptions and views based on perceptions. And also, each one of us, not only among those four kinds of living beings, but each one of us, because we have a different seat in our consciousness, we see We support the same thing, but we see in different ways. So it's a perception and also we create perception and views and make a judgment and try to choose which is good for me. that kind of things.

[55:49]

So within human society, we have certain, you know, common sense. We share certain conventions. So we think water should be seen in this way or that way, or paper is used for this sake or that sake. So we share something. But if we take more a close look at what we see might be completely different. I mean, for example, one of my Dharma brothers, Tom Wright, Dai-tsu Tom Wright, he is a translator of the book, Refining Your Life. He has some problem with his eyes and he cannot make distinction between orange and brown.

[56:53]

You know, there's some karmic thing there. So, yeah, karmic thing. And so he cannot read the, how can I say, in the subway station in Kyoto, the price is written in brown on orange color. So he couldn't read it. You know, we have such a thing. And I wonder if You know, we think because many people, more than people who have such a, I don't think it's a problem, but such kind of eyes. Because more people have different eyes, we think he has a problem.

[57:59]

And he cannot make distinction between orange and brown. But we have an assumption that there's a distinction between orange and brown, but he cannot see. But this is, I think, a very good question, whether such things really exist, brown and orange, for him. If people like him, or if more people in this society has the eye like him. You know, no one, people who could see the difference is something very special. And people think you have a problem. So it's a matter of, you know, numbers. Right?

[59:01]

And you know, our eyes not only people like him, but our eyes could see only certain range of, how do you call, wavelengths between ultraviolet and ultra-red. We can only see this range and also we have some range for hearing, too. you know, some animals can hear, you know, more wider range. So even when we think it's quiet for those animals who has, you know, larger, wider range of hearing, it must be very busy, I mean, noisy. And if we If our eye can see the ultraviolet or ultra-red, this world must be completely different.

[60:12]

But because all of us don't see it, we see this is normal, this is the way it is. Actually, we don't really know whether this is really it is or not. It's a kind of even, you know, the color or sound is, in a sense, human convention. And we create our kind of a conventional picture of the world based on this convention. But, you know, many of human beings have certain capability of insight and hearing and tasting those things. So actually, nothing is really, you know, have been fixed. That is another, I think, way of explaining the emptiness.

[61:13]

We think because based on our capability to see between, you know, the range of ultraviolet and ultrared, we name each color. But, you know, if we have more accurate eyes, you know, not only orange and brown, there must be much difference between orange and brown. But we, as our human convention, orange, brown, green, blue, and red are kind of a, how can I say, in a sense, convenient to name it and to use it. That's why we use it. And we create our picture of the world based on such a convention.

[62:16]

So how we see the world and how we understand the world is not really, we are not sure whether that is true, really there or not. Right? So we don't really know how, you know, heavenly beings see this world. You know, there are many different ways of viewing things. And yet, because, you know, we have kind of a, how can I say, consensus as human beings, you know, the world is like this. and about values. This is important and that is not important. And we try to follow it. And that is the way we live as human beings, as a member of human society, and that is okay.

[63:21]

But still, that is a kind of a karmic way of life. It's not, you know, absolute truth. If the hungry ghosts and the human beings both see water, but they see it in different Here, Dogen is discussing we can see things only based on our karmic consciousness. So, again, he is saying our view is limited, conditioned. So, we don't know. We really don't know how hungry ghosts see the water. We even don't know whether hungry ghosts really exist or not.

[64:24]

So this is one way of viewing things. And Dogen tried to go beyond. How can we be released or liberated from this karmic view? I think that is the point. So here he is saying our view is limited. And later I think he discussed how we can be released from that limited views or go beyond that limitation. So, hungry ghosts see water as raging flames or as thirst and blood. Dragons and fish see it as a palace or a tower, or as seven treasures or the money gem. And others see it as woods and walls, or as a dharma nature of immaculate revelation, or as the true human body.

[65:42]

or as the physical form and mental nature. Those are kind of a Buddhist views, using Buddhist words. When we see things, you know, we can call, you know, things or part of the things as dharma nature or immaculate liberation. or true human body. This is a Zen expression. The full expression is ten-direction world is true human body. Entire ten-direction world means entire universe is true human body. Or as a physical form and mental nature. These are all views.

[66:43]

And humans see these as water. We see water as water. And these different ways of seeing are the conditions. These are all conditions under which water is killed or given life. I don't really understand what this means. Maybe it means affirmed as water and negated, this is not water. And given that different types of beings see is different, we should have some doubt about this. Maybe doubt is not a good word, some questions. We have to inquire what this means. He said, is it that? So he is trying to get into more, or try to take a closer look at this, you know, karmic views.

[67:55]

Is it that there are various ways of seeing one object? That means here is one object. and different beings seeing from different perspectives. Please. In this discussion, in this paragraph and the one before, all these different beings having different ways of perception, not seeing things, that's one thing, but at the same time, all these cases still have a distinction Yes, that is what Dogen is saying. Within the karmic way of doing things, depending upon how we are conditioned, there is dichotomy. So the point is whether such condition or such idea, or water as water, or water as a jeweled necklace, or water as a person's blood, or water as water, or water as a castle or palace, really exists or not.

[69:27]

And that is what I think he is discussing in this sentence. whether there is one thing, really there is one thing, and many different living beings view in different ways. And he is questioning whether there is such one thing or not. Is there such things called water, which can be seen in different ways by, for example, four kinds of living beings? Are they really seeing one thing or not? Or is there such things called water, which can be seen in different ways? And this is a good question, I think. And so he is asking. He is not answering.

[70:30]

He is good at asking. And he asks us to find the answer. Or is it that we have mistaken various images for one object? Our views are mistaken, but there is one object. Is this true? or not? How we can know there is such one thing if our view is only karmic, only limited? How we can know there is such one thing called water, really, or water is our view but maybe H2O? Is there such a thing called H2O or not? Yes, yes, same thing.

[71:33]

So he's talking, so she's not talking only about water, but only she's talking about everything including this being. whether such a thing, such a being called Miish, or Shohak, or human beings, or Buddhist priest, or deluded human beings, or enlightened Buddha. Are those things really exist or not? It's a good question. And we are confused. We don't know how to say, please. In the last sentence of the previous paragraph, or given life. Again, is that not our perception? So we can look out and see over land and say it shines, so it will be water. But it isn't, but we've given it life in our perception.

[72:35]

So when we read this kind of writing by people like Dogen, we become confused. And that is his purpose. To deconstruct our lady-made fixed view. So that was his purpose. So he's not trying to offer another view. He is trying to destroy our views. That's the way we become kind of released or liberated from my fixed way of viewing things. So... From getting more confused? Yes. Yeah, so this is his view.

[73:49]

So, you know, he doesn't say his view is absolutely true. But his view is his view. But that is the only view he could see. And that is the only way we human beings can see. But it's not necessarily true. That is the point I think he's saying. Not only Dogen, but also Nagarjuna. He negated the fixed idea, but he affirmed that this is the way we see from a human point of view. That is the way we are kind of liberated from my craving, my grasping of my view as an absolutely correct, right, true, way of doing things and don't listen to others.

[74:51]

Does it make sense? I hope so. Anyway, someone raise a hand, please. The sense about being killed or gone on, it seems to me that while mountains and rivers always flow, always flow on, a kind of human element of consciousness in Buddhism, in which Buddhism relies upon for the articulation of mountains and birds walking. So, you understand what I'm saying? It's a very egocentric view that our praxis is important for the continuation of this understanding.

[76:00]

Do you think that's true? I think that is what Dogen is trying to do. Yes. If we say that is still selfish or self-centered, that is true, I think. So the idea of being killed or not seems to be that he's talking about the sense that If we are completely immersed in the conventional, never carry through like Mapa. Like what? Mapa? Mapa. What's that word? I'm trying to say the degenerate ages. Mapo. Oh, Mapo. Like Mapo. If Mapo happens, then Buddhism dies. So that's why I'm asking is maybe that's what leads us in that place. I'm sorry, I don't understand. I don't understand the point.

[77:06]

Well, I think basically that is what Dogen is trying to do by transmitting his teaching. But I'm not sure whether that is what he's saying here in this sentence. We need to go. We need to walk faster. 10 more minutes. So, he is asking whether there is such one thing which is seen by many various ways, by various beings. And so, he said, therefore our practice, our practice and verification

[78:22]

Our pursuit of the way. Pursuit of the way here is translation of ben-do, or in another translation, wholehearted practice of the way, must also be not merely of one or two kinds. And the ultimate realm, that means Buddhahood, ultimate realm, must also have a thousand types. and 10,000 kinds. So the way we practice, and we think there is one goal, and if we reach the goal, all of us become Buddha as alike. All Buddhas are the same Buddha. That is a kind of a common image. for us, but he said, our practice is different, and even after we become Buddha, we are different.

[79:28]

It's a kind of strange but unique saying, even in Buddhism. But, you know, that's also true. In Mahayana Buddhism, there are many different Buddhas. depending upon their vows, each buddha land has its own characteristics. So, in that sense, what he is saying is true in Mahayana Buddhism. So we cannot say there is one fixed way of true practice, or we can say this is only true practice. But that is what I've been saying. If we reflect further on the real import of this question,

[80:36]

Although we say there is water of the various types, it would seem there is no original water. Original water means a water which can be seen in various ways. Is there such original water or not? No original water or no water of various types which are real thing. The original water or the various perceptions we have, various perceptions about the water, which is a real thing. Is there such things called the original water? And that is a true thing, but our views are all incorrect or illusion. Is it correct or not? So this is another asking. And what he is saying is, nevertheless, the various waters, in accordance with the types of beings, do not depend on the mind.

[81:52]

He is saying something, you know, different, or opposite even. Do not depend on the body. depending on mind and body means doesn't really depend on our karma of these beings. They do not arise from different types of karma. They are not dependent on self. They are not dependent on others. They are liberated dependent on water. This is what Dogen wanted to say. Water, any kind of water, or viewed water, or even our view, is liberated, dependent on water. Means, how can I say? He said, yeah.

[82:57]

Everything is liberated from everything. That means a baby is liberated from babyhood. A Buddhist is liberated from Buddhist-hood. You know? Yeah, you know. For example, a baby. A baby is a baby, of course. But a baby is not a baby. Because baby has a life power which negates the babyhood. That's why baby can become a kid. So within babyhood, there is something which negates to be free. Something which is free from being a baby. That's why, you know, a baby cannot be a baby forever. But at this moment, baby is 100% baby.

[83:59]

But this 100% baby is liberated from babyhood. Is it strange? Yes, it is. So this baby is liberated from being a baby. Not only baby, but this deluded being is really liberated from delusion, from deluded being. and Buddha is liberated from Buddhahood. This is Dogen's expression of emptiness with no self-nature. Everything is really the interdependent origination. Nothing is fixed. This is real how can I say, real reality of all beings according to Dogen. Nothing is fixed, but everything is in the opposite side, dwells in the Dharma position at this moment.

[85:07]

Even though we are staying, dwells at certain Dharma position, still we are liberated from that Dharma position. That means we cannot stay there. So we have to go somewhere else next moment. So this constant changing, constant flowing, constant, you know, how can I say? I'm losing English vocabulary. Anyway, this is from According to Dogen, this is the reality of our life. We are deluded human beings. We are not deluded human beings. And Buddha is not Buddha. Everything is free. Everything is liberated from itself. I think it's really an incredible way of viewing things.

[86:10]

It allows us to liberate our fixed idea, fixed concept of ourselves and human life and our point of view or system of value. You have something to say? Dependent only on the water. Only is not their original sentence, but I think that's okay. Same thing. Meaning the same. Please let me a few more sentences. Let's see. Therefore, water is not the water of earth, water, fire, wind, space, or consciousness.

[87:22]

It is not blue, yellow, red, white, or black. It is not form, sound, smell, taste, touch, or idea. Idea is an object of mind. Nevertheless, the water of earth, water, fire, wind, space and the rest have been spontaneously appearing as such. So they are liberated from everything, from itself, but still it is itself. So he is saying both sides of being, how can I say, being at rest, constantly being at rest, and constantly walking. That is two virtues of the mountain. Two more sentences. This being the case, it becomes difficult to explain by thought and of thought the present land and palace are made.

[88:29]

To say that they rest on the wheel of space and the wheel of wind is true. neither for oneself nor for others. It is just speculating on the basis of the suppositions of an inferior view and is said only out of fear that without such a resting place they could not abide. You know, this wheel of space and the wheel of wind is two layers of this illustration. The bottom, the foundation of this world. So we want to have, you know, this kind of foundation, safe, steady, fixed foundation. Otherwise we feel unsafe, you know.

[89:35]

But Gogen is saying, you know, this can be a fiction too. So everything is really moving around. Everything is liberated. And, you know... Since, when we read this kind of teaching or writing, I think we have fear. We are frightened. And that is very true. I was frightened when I read the Heart Sutra. It's really frightening. No eyes, no ears, no tongue, no anything. What is this? So basically what Dogen is saying here is the same as, you know, the Heart Sutra is saying. There is nothing fixed.

[90:36]

And that is a revelation. But we have fear against this kind of revelation. We want to have certain safe foundation, please. Yeah, yeah, I think so. That's a strange thing. Well, thank you. Go back to the Zen.

[91:07]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ