Good morning. This morning I start to talk on section 9, page 86. Before I start to talk, I'd like to ask you one thing. I'm sure my English is sometimes not clear. So if you have a question about my English expression, or if you cannot hear my pronunciation, or if you need more clear explanation, please give me questions. But the questions from somewhere else, please wait until I finish talking. We have question and answer time for 30 minutes.

[01:02]

Otherwise, you know, we cannot finish. And in the case of study group, we have every week on Mondays. It's an ongoing thing, so I don't care about, you know, I don't, we don't need to finish it within certain period. But in the case of Genzo-e, I'd like to finish But my desire is to finish this within five days. So please be patient. Let's see. Section 8 was about the sayings of Enkan Sai-an. And his saying was, all living beings have Buddha-nature, or are, or are without Buddha-nature.

[02:06]

And in section 9, Dogen comments on Isan. Isan's saying is, all sentient beings or living beings have no Buddha-nature. First, let me read that section. Chan Master Ta-Yuan, or Monk Ta-Kuei, once said to the assembly of monks, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. Among those who heard him in the human world and in the Deva, were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in it. Those thrown into wandering doubt by it were not unknown either.

[03:17]

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

[04:20]

Now Takei is different. In his case, one staff swallows up both men. Of course, national teacher Yen Kwan was a child of Matsu, and Takei was Matsu's grandchild. Yet, in the way of his Dharma grandfather, Dharma grandson Takei proves to be an old grey beard. and in the way of his Dharma father, the Dharma son, Yen Khang, is still a callow youth. The principle at work in Tarke's words is the principle of all sentient beings have no buddha nature. That does not mean that Tarke's no buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition.

[05:22]

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

[06:38]

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

[07:42]

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

[08:49]

Still less could you have seen, even in your dreams, that all buddha have no buddha-nature. Now, let's see if you can come up with a response. So Shogun is asking to those two Zen masters. So, you know, all Buddha, all sentient beings, or all living beings, in this case, the original word is 修浄, so I think living beings is better than sentient beings. Usually, sentient beings is a translation of 無浄, but the word used here is 修浄, that means all living beings. So, all living beings have Buddha nature, is a traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching from the Parinibbana Sutra.

[10:05]

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

[11:08]

But here, Dai I-san said, all living beings have no buddha-nature, or 無仏性. So, among those who heard him in the human world and in the deva realms were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in it. There might be some people who are glad to hear this teaching of no buddhanature, but those thrown into wandering doubt by it were not unknown either. That means it's rather more natural to question why all living beings have buddhanature. Sakyamuni expanded, all sentient beings without exception have the buddhanature. Takei, Takei's Issan, expanded.

[12:14]

All sentient beings have no buddha-nature. So again, u-buddha-nature and mu-buddha-nature. U and mu. Bussho. So somehow there are two heads, two sides, two pieces in buddhanature, u and mu. This is a point of this Dogen's discussion about buddhanature. And the words have, have, and do not have are totally different in principle. I think it's very clear. And if we say both at the same time, we are confused, because our way of thinking doesn't like contradiction.

[13:26]

It is understandable that doubts should arise as to which utterance is correct, which one is so. When we hear two contradicted things, we have to, or we want to, figure out which is right, which is correct, which is not correct. Then Dogen said, but in the Buddha way, All sentient beings have no buddha-nature, is alone pre-eminent. That means, Isan-ryū's saying or expanding dharma, no buddha-nature is superior to wu-buddha-nature. Well, Shakyamuni's saying, all sentient beings have buddha-nature. And with his words, have the buddha nature, or u-buddha nature.

[14:41]

Yen Kang was a person who said, isaishujo, all living beings, u-buddha nature, in the section 8. Seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old Buddha Shakyamuni. So, Enkan said, U Bussho. So, Enkan is... said same thing with the Shakyamuni, the Buddha. But Dogen said, nonetheless it cannot help being a case of two men holding up one staff. Two men holding up one staff means Enkan, Shakyamuni and Enkan holding this one Buddha nature. This expression, two men holding up one staff, came from, I think, from a record of Rinzai.

[15:43]

Somewhere, I don't remember, but there's some story. Rinzai and another Zen master hold one staff and disappear. Something like that. But here, Dogen said about Isan's no-Buddha nature. Now, Takehi is different. In his case, one staff swallows up both men. So in this case, in the case of Mu Bussho, both men, Shakyamuni and Enkan, were swallowed within this staff that is Buddha nature. So these two men disappeared. Only the staff stayed. That means only buddha-nature stayed. So he, Dogen, praised Tate or Isan saints, no buddha-nature. And this expression, one staff swallowed up, came from one koan

[16:53]

a story, not a story, but one koan. That is a saying of a unmon, or unmon in Japanese. So I'd like to introduce that koan. It is a case 60 of Blue Cliff Record. The title of this koan, in this translation, is, Young Men's Stuff Changes into a Dragon. So, when women gave a formal dharma discourse at a dharma hall, since he had a stuff, and this stuff changed, transformed into a dragon.

[17:57]

The main case is as follows. This is a very short one. It said, Yun Men, or Yun Meng, showed his staff to the assembly. So he hold his staff and showed it to his disciples and said, the staff has changed into a dragon. So this staff became a dragon and swallowed the universe. So this stuff became a dragon and that dragon swallowed the universe. Mountains, rivers, the great earth. Where are they to be found? One staff becomes a dragon, and that dragon swallows the entire universe, means the entire universe becomes the staff, becomes the dragon.

[19:12]

That means, in this case, unmon. Unmon swallows the entire universe, so this entire universe becomes unmon. This is the expression of, you know, are jinsai-jiko, or all-pervading self. So we and all living beings within the entire universe is one thing. Then, if so, how, if we are unmonstered, Mountain, river, the great earth, where are they to be found? This can be interpreted in two ways. Therefore, there is no such thing as mountain, river, the great earth as object of this person. Those have become part of me, part of my life.

[20:16]

But another possible interpretation is Umon is kind of questioning if this entire universe is one with that person. Why there are mountains and rivers and great oceans and all the other things with which we have to work together. What are they? So here, the point is the oneness and two or moreness, duality or manyness. You know, there are many things within this world, and I am only one of them. But if, you know, this

[21:22]

Entire universe is one entity, like one body. One body has billions of cells and different parts like hands and eyes and head or feet. If this is one thing, you know, each part disappeared. This is just one thing. And yet, hand cannot be head, and foot cannot be stomach. Each are different. So, the point is, in the introduction of this case, it said, Buddhas and sentient beings, fundamentally there is no difference between them. So Buddhas and sentient beings, enlightened Buddha and believed, sentient beings that are transmigrating within samsara and live with a lot of suffering.

[22:26]

One thing. And mountains and rivers and one's own self, how could there be any distinction? So, each one of us coming and going within mountains and are one thing. There should be no distinction. We are one with the mountain. Why then is it all divided into two sides? In this case, Wu and Mu. How, somehow, we have to divide into two sides? Whenever we use any word, We divided the one entire reality into two. If Wu is together with Mu, or Buddha and human beings, delusion, enlightenment, all these dichotomies, then we use

[23:40]

language, any words, or concept. And we can't think without using those words and concept. That means how we use our brain is to make distinction into two or more. And we make a separation. I'm not you, you are not me. This is a reading glass. That means this is not a book and this is not a glass of water. If we don't think in this way, we don't need to practice. Now, because we think in this way, somehow we feel, you know, the way we are living, our condition is not healthy. It's full of problems.

[24:42]

And there should be a better condition or a better situation. So, that's why we search the way. We start to, you know, find the better or healthy way of life. If we don't think in this way, you know, there is separation or negation or question how we... about our condition, how we live. That is the condition of our life at this moment. And we don't think this is right or healthy way of life. Therefore we find better way of life. And at least that was how Buddha left his palace and practiced and found a way. So there is a kind of a separation between who we are and how we live and who we want to be. what we should be, and we try to find a path.

[25:47]

How can we reach there, from here? That is, you know, all about Buddhist teachings. And not only Buddhist teachings or spiritual practice, but in any other human activities, The point is we are not satisfied, we are not happy now. So we want to be better, become better. We want to accomplish something. This kind of activity is possible because we can think of the better condition, better way of life. better place than here. If we can only see right now, right here, then there's no way to say there must be a better place, and we must go there.

[26:49]

So this is a starting point, I think, is civilization, or human culture, kind of creating a dream, or vision, or ideal, and we are not there yet. So we want to make effort to go that way, that direction. And this is the same in both cases of, you know, seeking satisfaction of our desires and seeking nirvana or enlightenment. or liberation from the desire. In both cases, the things happening in our mind are the same. Now we are not so good. So we want to become better. This separation from where we are and how we are and where we want to be or how we want to be and how we should be.

[28:01]

So there are three things. who we are, who we want to be, and who we should be. I think that's the very basic condition of all human activities. And, of course, in this case, those Zen masters or Buddhist masters discussing in terms of liberation from suffering, or being liberated from transmigration within samsara, that is, full of suffering. And, as we studied the twelve strings of causation, Buddha taught the cause of suffering is basic dichotomy. of consciousness and nāma-rupa.

[29:06]

And contact, nāma-rupa, is an object of consciousness. These are dichotomies. And these two, contact. And we have present or un-present sensations. Therefore, we want to be something present. and we don't want to be together with something unpleasant. So we chase after something pleasant and we try to stay away from something unpleasant. And yet somehow they come to me more often. So I want to escape from that. This chasing after something and escaping from something creates samsara. Sometimes we are so successful and we are so happy like heavenly beings.

[30:08]

And more often we are not so successful and sometimes we feel our life is a failure and we feel like hell dwellers. and no condition lasts forever. So, as far as we live in this attitude, our life, you know, becomes transmigration within many different conditions. Traditionally in Buddhism, it's only said six realms of samsara, but not only six, but many more, and numberless. And each moment, not only from previous lifetime to this lifetime, and this lifetime to the next lifetime, but in each moment within this lifetime, we transmigrate within different conditions.

[31:10]

And there's no time to be peaceful, settle down at this moment. And if we want to be liberated from that condition of transmigration, somehow we have to work this dichotomy and contact. And one way to avoid that transmigration is avoid contact. One possible way. And, you know, we can avoid contact with objects, certain degree. You know, we can give up any possession, so we don't need to compete with other people to get more. Or we can be free from responsibility at family or society.

[32:17]

and live in a monastery or mountains or forest and just sit and meditate and study how our mind works. And the so-called Mahayana Buddhists try not to pursue that. that path to avoid contact. But somehow they think, and Mahayana Buddhists think, you know, within contact we need to go beyond this dichotomy. And this is what all those Buddhist teachers and also Zen masters are talking about, oneness of self and all beings. Instead of avoid the contact with object, If we see oneness of self and all the objects, then we don't need to chase after something or escape from something.

[33:27]

But we can live in peace with, together with those objects. And at that time, Nama Rupa ceases to exist as Nama Rupa, as an object of this person. But we see, you know, that all beings within this network of interdependent origination as one body. And in some, in his poem, Dogen described that, not described, but expressed this way of life. You know, one person living within the mountains. So in this case, mountain is the entire network of interdependent origination. And we are coming and going with the mountains. And Dogen said, the person who is in the mountain should love the mountains.

[34:34]

And I think this love means to be one with the mountains. So mountain is this person's body. So mountain and this person is not subject and object. But when we think, using our logical way of thinking, this person self is subject and mountain is object. And we do something. This is the basic structure of how we think. I do something, or I think about something. So subject, object, and some kind of relationship between these two. And when they discuss about oneness, or in this case, a staff or a dragon,

[35:37]

Swallow up the entire universe means to become free from this kind of structure. But we wake up the reality that we are already within the mountains, within the network of interdependent origination, and we are connected with all beings. So, therefore, we cannot say, I am here and all others are objects of my desire, of my thinking. That is what oneness, sorrow of the entire universe means. So we are, we see, not we are, but we see that we are part of the mountains. We see that I am only part of this interconnectedness.

[36:40]

So there's no such thing called me or subject or self. That is to swallow up the entire universe means. So the self and all the beings become one. Not become, but It is from the very beginning, it's one thing. And that reality, according to Mahayana Buddhist teaching, is buddha-nature. Because we are one with all beings. We are free from the self-clinging to me, only this person. That's the basic idea of Buddha nature. And yet here is another problem. That means, so this is interdependent origination. Each thing is interconnected.

[37:44]

So this person, each one of the beings is interconnected. So there's no independent entity. That is the fact that oneness means. But still, mountains, mountains, and this person, this person. But in this, that is two or more. You know, the word interdependence is very interesting to me. Within this one word, interdependence, both independence and dependence are included. If we are not independent, we cannot think of interdependence. And if we are completely independent, there's no such thing as interdependent. So, in order to be interdependent, we need both independence and dependence.

[38:49]

That is the source of these two heads, Wu and Mu. I'm one with everything, and yet still, I'm I, you are you. Mountains are mountains, and rivers are rivers, and I'm I. So one staff swallows two people. In this case, it means Sakyamuni and Nkwang. But this could end up interpreted as this one statement, swallow up mu and u. And yet, in Shobo Genzo Uji, being time, Dogen said, not only swallow up, but also vomit. So we should swallow up and also, at the same time, we should vomit.

[39:50]

That means we should see clearly see the separation or interdependence of each and everything. I'm not you. You are not me. I'm a Buddhist. That means I'm not a Christian or Muslim. So that separation is also part of this interconnectedness. That makes that discussion kind of a very complex. It's not so simple like we should give up all the independence or duality and become one with everything. Buddhist teaching is not so simple. That is what Dogen is, you know, discussing. We are one with everything and yet we are different. That's the very source of the problems or difficulty to understand this reality we are living in.

[41:00]

And that's why this reality is called wondrous dharma. Wondrous dharma means ungraspable. If we grasp one way, we miss another aspect. If we grasp that way, we miss that aspect. So, we need to hold both woo and moo, or good and bad. And yet, if we keep them separate, then that is another problem. So, it becomes very dualistic. So far, is the point of this discussion. And there's no fixed answer. This is within our life, the process of searching the way. We need to go through this difficulty. Then we may go this way, and next moment we may go that way.

[42:07]

and grasp that thing, and we are caught up in that aspect of life. So we open our hand and try to return, and yet, next time, next moment, we go that another way and grasp something else. and we are caught up. So we need to open again, open the hand and return to the reality before any such separation or separation between oneness and duality or manyness. And what Dogen is doing here is using words. He tried to be liberated from the limitation of words and logic. Anyway, I return to the text. Of course, national teacher Ien Kan was a child of Matsu.

[43:09]

Takei was Matsu's grandchild. Yet, in the way of his Dharma Grandfather, Dharma Grandson Ta-Kueng, proves to be an old grey beard, that means very matured. And, in the way of his Dharma Father, the Dharma Son, Yen-Kang, is still a calm youth, that means Togen praises or appreciates Isan's no-bussho, or no-Buddha nature, than the intent of buddhanature. The principle at work in Tarke's words is the principle of all sentient beings have no buddhanature. This does not mean that Tarke's no buddhanature is a boundless and lax definition.

[44:11]

This boundless and lax definition means simple oneness. There is no distinction or definition. The original expression Dogen uses is that Jōboku, Jōboku is, you know, traditionally Japanese carpenter, not only Japanese, but Chinese carpenter also use thread with ink to make a straight line, to write a straight line. That is jo-boku. And that jo means thread or rope, and boku is ink. So in order to make a straight line, a carpenter is this tool. Making a line is making separation. To make it clear, this is important.

[45:16]

And from outside of this line, it's not important. So making things clear means making separation. And the fact that Dogen is saying about in-sanshin-mu-buddha-nature is this mu-buddha-nature is not simply oneness without any distinction, or definition, or line, or function of our mind that makes separation. But this is the way Dogen said. For it is present right there, received and maintained in the scriptures he embodies within his own house. His own house means his own life. And scripture, sutras.

[46:20]

So, when he tried to express what he read in the sutras, within his life. That means then, you know, our life is a sutra. And then we try to read the sutra. Then we study the Dharma. We study how we are, how we live. That is life looks like. And this move show, Isan's move show is the way he express what he read. in the sutra, within his life. Not within, but the sutra is itself his life, or his life is itself sutra. That means this expression, new buddha nature, is the way he understands and expresses, expounds how life is, how our life is.

[47:23]

And so, from until this sentence, Dogen Zenji kind of prays I-san's expression of Mu-Buddha nature. And then he discusses what Mu-Buddha nature means. It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be Buddha nature? How could be buddha-nature is wu-gu-sho. How could they have a buddha-nature? And another way of reading this wu-gu-sho is have buddha-nature. So Phap Dogen is saying that living beings cannot have, cannot be, something which is not living beings. And if buddha-nature is a concept, You know, living beings and Buddha nature are two things.

[48:32]

And if we say all living beings have or are Buddha nature, we try to make these two things into one, into connected. But it doesn't work. Once it's separated, it's not possible to connect and make it one thing. If a sentient being had a buddha nature, he would belong with the devil heretics. You know, if sentient beings have such a thing called buddha nature, beside one's own, how can I say, life or being as a sentient being, such a thing is something like say, Vedic heretics, because something extra. It's not a real thing.

[49:32]

That means Buddha nature is simply Buddha nature, 100% Buddha nature. And living beings are 100% living beings. There's no way to add something, even that is a Buddha nature. It would be a showing in a debut and trying to set him on top of sentient beings. Since Buddha nature is just Buddha nature, sentient beings are just sentient beings. If sentient beings are really, really Buddha nature, we don't need to say, as Dogen said, about emptiness and form. If sentient beings are really buddha nature, we don't need to say sentient beings are or have buddha nature. This, you know, activity of thinking, you know, putting sentient beings and buddha nature as an object of this person's mind, or thinking mind, and try to make a connection with these two.

[50:46]

That kind of activity is against, not against, but is, how can I say, fictious. We are creating fiction that all sentient beings have Buddha nature, and we feel good, and we feel that is a good idea, and we like it. You know, this kind of activity within our mind is really kind of a in Japanese expression, floating from the ground. We are already separate from the reality itself. It is not that sentient beings are from the first endowed with the Buddha nature. So Buddha nature is something sentient beings can have as a possession.

[51:46]

And also, here, the essential point is, even though you seek the Buddha-nature, that means we don't have Buddha-nature yet. Now, at this moment, we don't have a Buddha-nature, so we want to get one. If we, because of this desire to get a Buddha-nature, start to practice and study, Even though we practice in such a way, buddha-nature is not something to appear now for the first time. So, he negated both ideas. Buddha-nature is from the beginning we have buddha-nature. But buddha-nature is something we need to attain as a result of our practice. So he negated both possibilities. So do not imagine it is a matter of Chan drunk and Lee getting drunk.

[52:57]

Chan and Lee are very common family name in China. So that means common people. And when one person drink beer, another person become drunk. That means, if buddha-nature and living beings are two people, two separate people, and one person drinks beer, there's no way another person is drunk. That means these two are completely independent, in a sense, and yet completely one thing. When both are true, we cannot say, you know, this person drink. We like a kind of a oneness that means when I drink beer, that person drink.

[54:01]

It's really kind of a nice thing to think. But it's not really reality. You know, I have to practice for my own. And you have to practice for your own. And you need to find, you need to awaken to that reality for your own. My practice and my awakening, my understanding, cannot be yours. So, you have to practice, you have to study, you have to awaken by yourself. But, as Akira said, what I'm saying is, what I'm talking now is my understanding from my own experience of practice and studying. So, I cannot share with you. One, what I'm talking now in front of you is part of your life experience.

[55:02]

And from that, you... develop or cultivate your understanding and practice and find a way for your own. So, you know, this is moving back and forth, complete independence and complete oneness. And try not to avoid kind of a It's a kind of duality. So, finally he said, if sentient beings originally possessed the Buddha nature, they would not be sentient beings. They are Buddha nature. Since they are sentient beings, they are not the Buddha nature at all. And then Dogen Zenji quote sayings from Hyakujo.

[56:12]

Hyakujo said, To preach that sentient beings have the Buddha nature is to disparage Buddha Dharma and Sangha. To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha nature is also to disparage Buddha Dharma and Sangha. I'm not sure if discourage is a good word or not here. I think it's more like a slander. Slander or abuse. Yeah, maybe slander is the best word. If we say we have all living beings have or are buddha nature, we slander the buddhadharma, or three treasures. And if we say we have no buddha nature, or we are not buddha nature, We slander the Buddha, Dharma, and Sangha also. Yes.

[57:19]

Yes. So that means we violate the tenth precept of the ten major precepts. If we, either we say we sentient beings are buddha-nature, or we have buddha-nature, or we don't have buddha-nature, either way we violate the precept and we slander the Three Treasures. Therefore, whether it is have buddha-nature or have no buddha-nature, both end up by discouraging or slandering the Three Treasures. Whichever we say, we slander the Three Treasures. That means both Enkan and Isan slandering Three Treasures. That is against the Buddhist precept or Bodhisattva precept.

[58:23]

But Dogen kind of a question to both Isan and Hyakujo. But this Paachan is Hyakujo, Hyakujo Eikai, Isan's teacher and also Obaku's teacher. But regardless of the disparagement or slandering, or even if that is a slandering, you cannot get by without making an utterance. Even if we slander or are against the Bodhisattva precept, we have to say something. And when we say something using words, it must be u or mu. That means, you know, when I received ten major precepts from my teacher, Uchamara said, during the precept ceremony, the teacher, preceptor, read each of the ten major precepts.

[59:45]

And the recipient has to say, and the preceptor asks, do you keep this or not? And I have to say, yes, I will. And in the case of the false precept, that is, do not make false speech. And the Uchamara said, if you are asked that you keep this precept or not, and if I say, yes, I will, he said, that is the first violation of the precept. And I think that is true. And so, as a Bodhisattva, we have to break the precept. And I have to say, yes, I will keep the precept or not. Telling a lie. And that is a lie. So even if we have to break the precepts, still we have to say something.

[60:50]

That is Phap Dogen's saying. Whether U or NU, BUSHO. And both are not true. And Dogen asked to Isan and Hyakujo. And the first question to Hyakujo. It may well be disparagement or slandering, therefore it's a violation of the precept, but has the Buddha nature been really preached or not? I mean, before Dogen kind of complained. You know, in all those sutras and question and answer among Zen masters, they only discuss whether living beings have Buddha nature or not.

[61:52]

But they don't discuss what is Buddha nature. According to Dogen, that is more important question than whether we have Buddha nature or not. And wu and mu is Dogen's answer to this question. That means wu and mu are the two sides of one reality. This reality is itself buddha-nature. Nothing else. It's not a matter of we have or we not have. So, Dogen's question to Hyakujo is, Wu or Mu are surrendering the three treasures, and yet, have you said what is Buddha nature or not? And in the next section, Dogen quotes Hyakujo's sayings, and I think he did.

[62:57]

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

[64:01]

And next question from Dogen's to Takei. Even though you articulated that all sentient beings have no buddha nature, you did not say all buddha nature have no sentient beings. You know, he asked the same question to Enkan. all Buddhas have no sentient beings, or that all Buddha-natures have no Buddha-nature. Still less could you have seen, even in your dreams, that all Buddhas have no Buddha-nature. This is Dogen's logic. He, you know, changed all the parts of the sentences, and questioned from each and every angle.

[65:07]

And he didn't give us the answer. So he's showing us how to question. And we need to inquire as our practice. There's no... so what he's writing here is not a set of truths we have to believe. But he is showing us how to inquire the truth. That cannot be written. So now let's see if you can come up with a response or not. This Dogen is saying to us. I don't think he's saying to Hyakujo and Issan. But this is to us who are studying or reading this writing. What do you think? How do you express? And whatever you say is a lie. And yet you have to say.

[66:13]

We have 20 more minutes, so I'd like to talk on section 10. In this section, Dogenzenji quote another saying of Hyakujo Ekai. And it seems Dogenzenji likes this, his saying, so he didn't question so much. But he just follow. Chonmaster Tachi of Mount Po-chan, this is Hyakujo, addressed the assembly Buddha is the highest viku, the highest of all wisdoms, the person who maintains the Buddha way. It is Buddha being Buddha nature. This Buddha being Buddha nature is butsu-u-bussho.

[67:28]

So it can read, Buddha have Buddha nature, or Buddha is being Buddha nature, or u-busho. I think he called, in order to show this expression, Buddha have Buddha nature. That is a kind of an answer to Dogen's question to Isam. whether all Buddhas have no Buddha nature or not. And Hyakujo said, Buddha have Buddha nature. It is a guiding teacher. It is, it is means, it means Buddha. It's being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhindered It is unimpeded wisdom.

[68:33]

Unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect. It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. It is the vehicle that carries on cause and effect. Negotiating life, it is not held back by life. Negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. Negotiating the five skandhas, it is like a gate freely opening. It suffers no restriction by the five skandhas. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters unhindered.

[69:37]

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

[70:50]

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

[71:53]

And actually, we are part of it. It is being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhindered. That means very liberated, free. And it is unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect within this Buddha as a reality. Cause and effect, or cause and result, or cause and conditions. This causality or interdependent origination within time and space is really working within it. It is a free activity of seeking enlightenment and enlightening others. Enlightenment and enlightening others is Bodhisattva activity or Buddha's activity.

[72:59]

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

[74:02]

That means free. Negotiating this, you know, The process of life from birth and death is also a process of negotiating life. And yet, at the same time, this process of life is a process of negotiating death. That means in any time we may die. So negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. So we use life and death freely. This is, you know, Arthur Braveman wrote a book on five Zen teachers in Japan, Sawaki Roshi, Uchiyama Roshi, Yokoyama Sodo Roshi, and Kato Kozan Roshi, and one Japanese woman, a lay Zen teacher whose name was, I forget her name. Anyway, then he,

[75:04]

entitled in the book, Living and Dying in the Zen. Our common sense is we practice the Zen within life and death. But those people's practice is a little different. They didn't practice within their life and death. But they live and die. within the Zen. That's the difference. That means their practice is not to escape from life or from death. But he and they, all of them, have stated life and death, living and dying, within the Zen. That is an expression of, you know, freedom. Even though we live and die, But we are not hindered by life and death.

[76:09]

But we use the process of living and dying as for the sake of Dharma or to practice. So our process of living and dying is a process of practice. Negotiating the five skandhas, it is like a gate freely opening. It suffers no restriction by the five skandhas. This means, even though we are, you know, five skandhas and objects are also looper materials and other things, even though we are negotiating, we are living together with objects, but we are not obstructed by the objects. It goes and stops at will. Leaves and enters unhindered.

[77:14]

This is wherever we are. You know, we cannot stop. But we are coming and going. And maybe we can stop for a while, but we have to move again. But this is a process of From one side, this is a process of transmigration. But from another side, this is a free movement of five skandhas within Dharma. Inasmuch as it is thus, distinctions between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, and are immaterial, those, you know, differences, or classifications, or dichotomies, good and bad, enlightened delusion, are not so important. And since this is the same even down to the body of the tiniest ant, the tiny insect, all is... so the life of ant and life of human beings are the same thing, according to

[78:31]

Hyakujo. Whether we are born as an ant, or whether we are born as a human being, or any other form of life, we are just freely coming and going as the five skandhas. We just move as a part of the universal movement of all beings within this network. All is a wondrous land of purity beyond any comprehension. This beyond any comprehension is the same as ungraspable or wondrous. So if we can live with such an attitude, this life or this world becomes really a Buddha land. Hyakujo's saying. And the rest of this section is Dogen's comment on this saying.

[79:39]

I think five minutes is enough to talk about this. Such are Po-chan's or Hyakujo's words. Five skandhas is this present indestructible body of ours. You know, this body and mind are five skandhas. And here, Dogenko, this is undestructible body of ours. Undestructible body means blood body. But he said, this, our body, This concrete body, that is a collection of five skandhas, are undestructive. This expression came from another koan of, I think, Joshu. Joshu, someone asks to Joshu, what is the undestructible nature? That is Buddha nature. And Joshu said, five skandhas.

[80:43]

Four great elements and five skandhas. Chidai gone. But the monks asked again, those are destructive. Those are, you know, arise, stay for a while, and disappear. So those five skandhas cannot be the undestructible nature. So the monk asked again, what is undestructible nature? Then Joshu again said, Four great elements and five skandhas. So this is Buddha's body that is undestructive. That means this never appears and never disappears. As Heart Sutra says, No arising and no perishing. No coming and no going. And yet we are coming and going. We are born and die. Our present activity, moment to moment, so our very concrete activity in each moment, a gate freely opening, the gate of five skandhas are really freely open, does not suffer impediment from the five skandhas.

[82:09]

File scanners, these abstract file scanners, they are so free, always changing. But only this person don't like it. I don't want to change. That is the basic problem. I love being like this, so I don't want to disappear. That is our most basic problem. As living beings, you know, we are born, and as we have, as a, within our life, as living beings, we have two very basic, contradicted, nature, not nature, but, well, I don't know the word, but that is, all living beings have to die. That is one undeniable reality.

[83:12]

And another reality is all living beings don't want to die. We want to live forever. But we have to die. This is what Father Uchamara said. This is the most fundamental contradiction in our life. As living beings, We have to die. No one can deny this. And yet, as another undeniable reality, we don't want to die. This is the basic cause of problems we have to face. So, the answer to this to the problems about life and death is very kind of easy. And that is what Togendenji gives to us.

[84:15]

That is, completely utilizing life, it cannot be held back by life. Completely utilizing death, it cannot be obstructed by death. Do not vainly cherish life. do not foolishly dread death. They are, they are means life and death, they are where the buddha-nature is. This process of life and death is where buddha-nature is. So clinging with attachment to life, shrinking in Abhorrence from death is un-Buddhist. So if we are Buddhist, we should not cling to our life, and we should not be afraid of death.

[85:19]

Life and death is how Buddha nature works, functions. In Shobo Genzo or Shoji, or Life and Death, Dogen Zenji clearly describes about this point. So if you are interested in Dogen's teaching about this, please try to read Shobo Genzo Shoji. Actually, I brought up a copy of the English translation, but I don't have time to talk about it. And it's not so difficult. Anyway, to realize that life and death are a combination of conditions manifesting themselves before your eyes is to be able to utilize a way that is totally unhindered. And this universal movement in which all beings are connected and coming and going

[86:28]

appear, stay for a while, and disappear. This reality of impermanence and interconnectedness and no-self. And he said, this is a Buddha. This is the Buddha of the highest people. This reality of network is the Buddha. And this is where this Buddha is. This is where Buddha is. This is Buddha. Actually, this reality itself is Buddha. And there is the wondrous land of purity. This is Buddha's land. That means we are already within Buddha's land. I think that's all I have to say. this morning. Any questions?

[87:31]

Please. You left me in the bus yesterday, so I wondered if you'd advise me to go back. OK. It was the sentence, ZE KA SHO. Pardon? ZE KA SHO. And then, ZE KU SHO. It seems to me that reading it, there are words and meaning. Excuse me. Ze and ka. Ze is this. Ka is heart. And sho is nature. Oh, I have the other one where it's sho-ne. Oh, this one. OK. Oh, Ka is unnamed. And Sho is named. My question is if I take that direction,

[89:00]

The next sentence, which is zebu show, I don't understand why you add show in there. You don't? You didn't understand? What did you say? You didn't understand? Why I say show is why not just say zebu? For the next sentence. In other words, I never was good in math about A equals B. So that's my problem here. It seems closer with bija, or I mean, So I understand why you had to show that in here. This one? Yeah. The dirt and the gold, it's more the named and the unnamed.

[90:31]

It's how I see this. Named and unnamed. Yeah. Blame this concrete being, right? In that conversation, the boy. And the boy is Family name is ka. That is fat. That has no fixed condition or restriction. I still don't understand the point of your question. Buddha and Buddha nature.

[91:32]

I think I'm reading the sentence correctly, maybe, because when I see that, I see it said, and then pointing out the two sides of the lady, or whatever. And then I don't know, again, why you go back and say it's that. It seems clear to me. To me, there is something concrete that, therefore, it is fixed as a boy, seven-year-old boy. And car is something not conditioned. And those two are

[92:34]

The two aspects of the paint. And that is, in this case, that is buddha nature. So buddha nature has two sides, this and that. This is how I read. So I don't know how I get this. Ka? What? And I'll take that outside. Yeah, that is my understanding. Something conditioned and something unconditioned. Both. Or karmic and not karmic. I think. That is my understanding. Of course, you know, there are many possible ways of interpretation.

[93:38]

So you can, you know, develop your own interpretation. Okay. Please. Because in our day part, most of this stuff is about my head, so we understand. I work hard to think of a lot of things. So, from a point of practice, In my own practice it is important that I be in touch with some kind of buddha nature. Some kind of buddha nature. In practice you don't quite expect to be in touch with it. In practice it may or may not appear. In touch with, you mean buddha nature? Well, I think what Dogen is saying is Buddha nature is always appearing, always here.

[94:50]

Our each and every beings are Buddha nature within our practice. So, of course, sometimes we lose sight of it. But our practice is to return to that reality of interdependent cultivation. To me, sitting and working is not the same thing. Sitting and working. Yeah, it's different. And I would like to bring sitting to work. Yeah, me too. And working too. I mean, I think our daily activities, to me, is part of my life. Well, my part of it is one possible avenue is to not cling.

[96:01]

Not cling, yeah. Right. And that kind of an opening of a door, sort of. Yeah. But then, if the door opens, you don't cling to that either. You don't cling to the door opening? Yeah. OK. Is that a problem? Well, yeah, because the... I mean, I am bringing a certain preferred way of being, of practice into work. I'm saying I don't like work. I mean, I like to work in a certain way. So I'm kind of a bringing a certain way of being, as being the man of practice in everything. So that's the point. You like bringing? Well, I prefer, I mean, I choose to be in a certain way.

[97:03]

It can be clinging, but it can be the way things are. I mean, let's see. You know, you saw Oryokin 13 ways. And that is originally in Sotozen tradition, originally described by Dogen. And yet, you know, at each monasteries, they use in slightly different ways. And we have cleaning. To a certain way, we were first trained. Somehow, I don't want to change. This is cleaning. If we see that searching each and every form is not the point of this, you know, eating, then, you know, we can open our hand.

[98:21]

That means we can be free from clinging to certain fixed, particular forms. And yet we cannot be completely free from any forms. Somehow we have to make one form or choose one form. And this can be, of course, preference. I like this better than that. And that might be a problem. But as Dogen said, even if that is against Buddhist precepts, somehow we have to make a choice. So preference is not always a bad thing, I think. Somehow we have to make a choice, this or that. We have to say who or me, even though both are false statements.

[99:22]

Somehow we have to make a choice using Oryōki this way or that way. And both are clinging. But somehow we cannot eat without using some kind of form. Well, let's say the Latter Day Saints say things evolve naturally as they come out. So the idea of living under Dōden's tradition is that You let the life flow right through. And the outcome is to your best benefit. I think so. Yes. Well, I don't want to work there. It's up to you. I'm sorry. There's a fundamental distinction between making choices and exercising preference. Every second you're alive, a simple factor of being alive, of being me, is I have to make choices every minute.

[100:27]

I've slapped my hand up, started to talk, I made a choice. And now I just have to do that, right? But you then move on. So in your instance, you've got to choose to work. And then whatever the consequences of that are, you've then got to make choices on and on and on. There's a difference between making those choices, which is a factor of living, being caught, Yeah, you know, without making choice, we cannot do anything. And in order to make choice, we have to make distinction and make judgment fitted better. So I think what we have to keep examining is, what is the standard or yardstick of this choice? If this is my selfishness, then this is preference which creates samsara. But it might be the dharma. I mean, if we awaken to the reality of interconnectedness, that awakening requests us to do certain things in a certain way.

[101:45]

The basic, not idea, but basic point of meaning of dharma. Dharma is the things, and dharma is also the way things are. And also dharma is how we should behave. There are three basic meanings in dharma. So the things and the things, the way things are, can, not can, but request us to live or behave in certain ways. Because we are living together with all beings, connected and supporting each other, if we destroy something, we may destroy ourselves. So we should avoid that way of life. Why if we destroy or disturb other people, that means we disturb ourselves.

[102:52]

So we try not to disturb others. This try not to disturb others is a kind of a preference, but this is also a kind of a request or teaching from the way we are. So it's kind of difficult to tell which is which. So each time I think we need to examine what is happening inside of me when I make any choice or judgment. Well, arguably, the common part is that the choice is informed by one's practice in the decisions. And the quality of practice determines. Quality of practice? Yes. Whether you live with the decision or not.

[103:54]

Hopefully, if the practice is right, most decisions are in the right place. I would like to live away, which is quite clear. Choices are many. Hopefully there are a lot of choices. Yeah, I think that's all people want to give in that way. Yeah. But, you know, you have to come, in Sasson particularly, come to such a clarity all the time, you keep thinking, this is not it. I would like a little bit firmer, a little bit cleaner. Me too. I think that is why we practice. And sometimes we feel, you know, my practice works well. And my way of life and my way of thinking, my way of making judgment become more, little bit, even little bit more clear.

[105:13]

And that is one, that is possible. And sometimes I feel that way. But if that is a purpose of our practice, then more often we experience opposite, even opposite. Then is that not a practice or not? Is another consideration. So of course it's, you know, we practice, study Dharma and practice in order to make our life better, more peaceful, more harmonious. And, of course, that's fine in practice. Without, you know, this direction, you know, there's no reason to do it. Okay, please keep asking.

[106:15]

Please. Is this an accurate statement? Are living and dying issues really to manifest our Buddha nature? Is that accurate? Life and death is used freely. Living and dying is used freely to manifest our Buddha-nature? Used. Going back to the part where you were talking about life does not obstruct life, life does not obstruct Buddha-nature. I don't like that word, use, use or used. What would you put it instead of that? The basic meaning is, yeah. What word would you use instead of that? Maybe in this translation it says, utilized. Utilized. Right.

[107:17]

It's used and utilized same. Okay. Thank you very much.

[107:27]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ