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. In the case of study group, we have every week on Monday. It's an ongoing thing, so I don't care about, you know, we don't need to finish it within certain period. But in the case of Genzoe, I'd like to finish But my desire, finish this within five days. So please be patient. Let's see. Section 8 was about the things of Enkan Sai-an. And his saying was, all living beings have Buddha nature, or are, or who Buddha nature.

[02:06]

And in Section 9, Dogen comments on Isan, Isan's saying, all sentient beings or living beings have no Buddha nature. First, let me read that section. Sun Master Ta Yon of Mount 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, their variants were some beings of outstanding capacity who rejoiced in it. Those thrown into wandering doubt by it were not unknown either.

[03:17]

Satyamuni expounded all sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature. Herquay expounded, 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, Yenkan 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 preacher 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 graveyard, and in the way of his Dharma father, the Dharma son, Yen Kahn, is still a callow youth. The principle at work in Tāke's words is the principle of all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. That does not mean that Take's no-Buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition, for it is present right there, received and maintained in the scriptures he embodies within his own house.

[05:34]

It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be Buddha nature? How could they have a Buddha nature? If a sentient being had a Buddha nature, he would belong with the devil heretics. It would be assuring in the 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 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 chuan, 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 Take 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 Take, 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 Dogen is asking to those two Zen masters. So, you know, all sentient beings or all living beings, in this case, the original word is shu-jo. So I think living beings is better than sentient beings. Usually sentient beings is a translation of u-jo. But the word used here is shu-jo. That means all living beings. So all living beings have Buddha nature is a traditional Mahayana Buddhist teaching from the Parinirvana Sutra.

[10:05]

Until the 19th century, many Buddhists believed that all those sutras, including Mahayana sutras, were the actual records of Shakyamuni Buddha's sayings. So it's very kind of difficult to doubt what is written in the sutras. So until then sutra has pretty much authority. But somehow this Zen Master, Hisan Reiyu said the opposite thing from what the Kalinibbana Sutra or even what the Buddha said within the Kalinibbana Sutra. That is, all sentient beings without exception have Buddha nature. But here Dai Isan said, all living beings have no Buddha nature.

[11:19]

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-Buddha nature, but those thrown into wondering doubt why it was not unknown is rather more natural to question why all living beings have Buddha nature. Sakyamuni expounded, all sentient beings without exception have the Buddha nature. Take, Take's isan, expounded, all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. So again, u-Buddha nature and nu-Buddha nature.

[12:24]

Nu and nu. So somehow there are two heads, two sides, two pieces in Buddha-nature, u and mu. This is a point of Dogen's discussion about Buddha-nature. And the words 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.

[13:27]

it is understandable that doubt 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 having no Buddha nature is alone preeminent. That means Isandeyu's saying or expanding Dharma, no Buddha nature, is superior to all Buddha nature. Or Shakyamuni's saying, all sentient beings have Buddha nature. And with his words, have the Buddha nature or U-Buddha nature, Yen Kang was a person who said, all living beings, U-Buddha nature in the Section 8, seems to be putting out a hand in concert with the old Buddha Shakyamuni.

[14:59]

So Enkan said, so Enkan said same thing with the Shakyamuni, the Buddha. But Dogen said, nonetheless, it cannot help being the 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 of two men holding up one staff came from, I think, from a record of Rinzai. 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.

[16:02]

Now, Take is different. In his case, one staff swallows up both men. So in this case, in the case of no busho, both men, means Shakyamuni and Enkan, was swallowed within this stuff that is Buddha nature. So these two men disappeared. Only the stuff stayed. That means only Buddha nature stayed. So he, Dogen, praised Take or Eastern saints, no Buddha nature. And this expression, one staff swallowed up, came from one koan story. Not a story, but one koan. That is a thing of unmen, or unmon in Japanese.

[17:08]

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 Staff Changes into a Dragon. So when Unmen gave a formal Dharma discourse at the Dharma Hall, he had a staff. And this staff changed, transformed into a dragon. The main case is as follows. This is a very short one. It said, young men, or Unmen, 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.

[18:24]

So this staff became a dragon and swallowed the universe. So this staff became a dragon and that dragon swallowed the universe. mountains, rivers, the great earth, where are they to be found? So one star become a dragon and that dragon swallowed entire universe means the entire universe becomes the staff, becomes the dragon. That means, in this case, unmon. Unmon swallows the entire universe. So this entire universe becomes unmon. This is the expression of, you know, jin sai ji ko, or all power-building self.

[19:31]

So we and all living beings within the entire universe is one thing. Then, if so, here, Un-don said, mountain, river, the great earth, where are they to be found? This can be interpreted in two ways. Therefore, there's no such things called mountain, river, the great earth as object of this person. Those have become part of me, part of my life. 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 earthlings and all the other things with which we have to work together.

[20:44]

What are they? So here the point is the oneness and two or more-ness, duality or many-ness. You know, there are many things within this world and I am only one of them. But if, you know, 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.

[21:47]

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 deluded sentient beings that are transmigrating within samsara and live with a lot of suffering are 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 one thing, there should be no distinction.

[22:50]

We are one with the mountain. Why then is it all divided into two sides? In this case, Wu and Mu. Somehow we have to divide into two sides. Whenever we use any word, we divide the one entire reality into two. If Wu is together with Mu, or Buddha and human beings, delusion, enlightenment, all these dichotomies, when we use language, any words or concept, and we cannot think without using those words and concepts. That means how we use our brain is to make distinction into two or more, and we make a separation.

[24:06]

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. Because we think in this way, somehow we feel the way we are living, our condition is not healthy. It's full of problems. And there should be a better condition or a better situation. So that's why we start the way. We start to find the better or healthy way of life. If we don't think in this way, there is separation or negation or question about our condition, how we live, what is the condition of our life at this moment.

[25:12]

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's 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 the path. How can we reach there, from here? That is all about Buddha's 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.

[26:15]

We want to accomplish something. This kind of activity is possible because we can think of 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. So this is a starting point, I think, is civilization or human culture. kind of creating a dream or vision or idea, and we are not there yet. So we don't want to make effort to go that way, that direction. And this is the same in both cases of seeking satisfaction of our desires and seeking nirvana or enlightenment or liberation from the desire.

[27:37]

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. 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.

[28:44]

And as we studied, the twelve links of causation, Buddha thought the cause of suffering is this dichotomy of consciousness and nama rupa. And contact, nama rupa is an object of consciousness, this dichotomy. And these two, contact, and we have present or unpleasant sensations. Therefore, we want to be something present, and we don't want to be together with something unpleasant. So we chase after something present and we try to stay away from something unpresent and get something somehow they come to me more often.

[29:50]

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. And more often we are not so successful and sometimes we feel our life is a failure. and we feel like our held-wellers and no condition lasts forever. As far as we live in this attitude, our life, you know, becomes transmigration within many different conditions. In traditional Buddhism, it's only the six realms of samsara, but not only six, but many more and numberless.

[30:53]

And each moment, not only from previous lifetime to this lifetime and different lifetime to the next lifetime but in each moment within this lifetime we transmigrate within different conditions 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 we can avoid. contact with object 13 degree.

[31:57]

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 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 path to avoid contact. But somehow they think, and Mahayana Buddhists think, you know, within contact, we need to go beyond this dichotomy.

[33:00]

And this is what all those Buddhist teachers and also the 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 object, then we don't need to chase after something or escape from something, but we can live in peace together with those objects. And at that time, nama rupa ceased to exist as a nama rupa, as an object of this person. But we see that all beings, within this network of interdependent origination as one body. And in his poem, Dogen described, not described, but expressed this way of life, you know, one person,

[34:12]

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. 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 the mountain is object. and with something. It's basically the basic structure of how we think. I do something, or I think about something.

[35:21]

So subject, object, and some kind of relations between these two. And the thing they discussed about oneness or, in this case, a staff or a dragon swallows 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 ordination, and we are connected with all beings. Therefore, we cannot say, I am here and all others are objects of my desire, of my thinking. That is what one's sorrow at the entire universe means. So we see, not we are, but we see that we are part of the mountains.

[36:26]

We see that I am only part of this interconnectedness. So there's no such thing called me or subject or self. But to swallow up the entire universe means for myself and all beings become one. Not become, but 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.

[37:30]

And yet here is another problem. That means, so this is interdependent origination. each things are interconnected. So this person, each one of the beings is interconnected, so there's no independent entity. That is what oneness means. But still, mountains, mountains, and this person is this person. What is 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 things called interdependent.

[38:36]

So in order to be interdependent, we need both independence and dependence. 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 means Shakyamuni and Enkwan, but this could be interpreted as this one statement, swallow up Mu and U. And yet, in Shobogenzo Uji, being kind, Dogen said, not only swallow up, but also vomit.

[39:44]

So we should swallow up and also at the same time we should vomit. That means we should clearly see the separation or interdependence of each and everything. I'm not you, you are not me. I'm not Buddhist. That means I'm not a Christian or Islam. So that separation is also part of this interconnectedness. That makes the discussion kind of 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 Dōgen is discussing. We are one with everything and yet we are different.

[40:47]

That's the very source of the problems or difficulty to understand this reality we are living in. 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. is the point of this discussion. And there's no fixed answer. This is within our life, in the process of searching the way.

[41:55]

We need to go through this difficulty when we may go this way, and next moment we may go that way. 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.

[42:56]

Anyway, I return to the text. Of course, national teacher Yen-Kan was a child of Matsu. Take was Matsu's grandchild. Yet in the way of his Dharma grandfather, Dharma grandson, Takwe, proves to be an old grey beard, that means very matured. And in the way of his Dharma father, the Dharma son, Yenkan, is still a carol youth, that means Dogen prays or appreciates Isan's mood show, or no-Buddha nature. The principle at work in Take's words is the principle of all sentient beings have no Buddha nature. This does not mean that Take's

[44:05]

know Buddha nature is boundless and lacks definition. It's boundless and lacks definition means simple oneness. There's no distinction or definition. The original expression Dogen uses without jōboku, jōboku is, you know, Traditionally, Japanese carpenters, not only Japanese but Chinese carpenters also use thread with ink to make a straight line, to write a straight line. That is jōboku. And that jō means thread or rope, and boku is ink. So in order to make a straight line, a carpenter is this tool. And this making a line is making separation.

[45:11]

To make it clear, this is important. And from outside of this line, it's not important. So making things clear means making separation. And the fact Dogen is saying about it sounds more Buddha nature is this more Buddha nature is not simply oneness without any distinction or definition or line or function of our mind that makes the 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.

[46:15]

And the scripture is sutras. So when he tried to express what he read in the sutras, within his life. That means then 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, Ethan'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 understand and express, expound how life is, how our life is.

[47:23]

And so until this sentence, Dogen Zenji kind of plays an essence expression of no-Buddha nature, and then he discusses what no-Buddha nature means. It should be probed further. How could all sentient beings be Buddha nature? How could be Buddha-nature is u-gu-sho. How could they have a Buddha-nature? And another way of reading this u-gu should have Buddha-nature. So what Dogen is saying is living beings cannot have, cannot be something which is not living beings. And if Buddha-nature is a concept, 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 the Buddha nature, he would belong with the devil's heretics. You know, if sentient beings have such a thing called Buddha nature, besides one's own, how can I say, life or being as a sentient being, that thing is something like They believe heretics because something extra. It's not a real thing.

[49:33]

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 assuring enough Deidre 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, thinking mind, and try to make a connection with these two, that kind of activity

[50:48]

is against, not against, but is, how can I say, fictitious. 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. 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. And also, here the essential point is, even though you seek the Buddha-nature, that means we don't have Buddha-nature yet.

[51:59]

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 negates 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 negates both possibilities. So do not imagine it is a matter of Chan drunk and Li getting drunk. Chan and Li are very common family name in China.

[53:03]

So that means common people. And when one person drink beer, another person become drunk. That means if better 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. Then both are true. We cannot say, you know, this person drink and we like a kind of a oneness. That means when I drink beer, that person drunk. It's really kind of a nice things to think.

[54:06]

But it's not the, it's not real 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 Saokiro said, what I'm saying, what I'm talking now is my understanding from my own experience of practice and studying. So I cannot share with you. But what I'm talking now in front of you is part of your life experience. And from that, you develop or cultivate your understanding and practice and find a way for your own.

[55:17]

So, you know, she's moving back and forth complete independence and complete oneness, and try not to avoid kind of a 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. Hyakujo said, to preach that sentient beings have the Buddha nature is to disparage Buddha Dharma and Sangha.

[56:26]

To preach that sentient beings have no Buddha nature is also to disparage Buddhadharma and Sangha. I'm not sure disparage is a good word or not here. I think it's more like a slander. Slander or abuse. Or, yeah, maybe slander is the best word. If we say we have all living beings have or are Buddha nature, we surrender the Buddha Dharma, or three treasures. And if we say we have no Buddha nature, or we are not Buddha nature, then we surrender the Buddha Dharma and Sangha also. Yes? Is it the same word as the first step that we find yourself in? Fubo, Samboka, yes. So that means we... violate the tenth precept, of the ten major precepts.

[57:31]

If 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 surrender the three treasures. Therefore, whether it is have Buddha nature or have no Buddha nature, both end up by disparaging or surrendering the three treasures. Whichever we say, we surrender the three treasures. That means both Enkan and Ethan surrendering three treasures. That is against the Buddhist precept or Bodhisattva precept. But Dogen, kind of a question to both Isan and Hyakujo.

[58:36]

But this Parachan is Hyakujo, Hyakujo Ekai, 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. That means even if we slander or against those that appreciate, we have to say something. And when we say something using words, it must be woo or moo. That means, you know, when I received the 10 major precepts from my teacher, Ujjamaa said during the precept ceremony, the teacher, preceptor, read each of the 10 major precepts.

[59:46]

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 fourth precept, that is, do not make false spins. And Ujjamura said, if you are asked that you keep this precept or not, and if I say, yes, I will, he said, that is a first violation of the precept. And I think that is true. And so as a bonsattva, we have to break the precept. And I have to say, yes, I will keep the precept of not, you know, living a lie. And that is a lie. So even if we have to break the precept, still we have to say something.

[60:50]

That is what Gogen is saying, whether u or nu busho, and both are not two. And Dogen asked to Ethan 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 the 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 a 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, who or who are, you know, surrendering their free treasures, and yet, have you seen what is Buddha nature or not? And in the next section, Dogen quotes Hakujo's saying, and I think he did.

[62:57]

I mean, Hakujo 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 talks about Buddha nature, someone is listening to that Buddha nature. Both the person who is speaking and the person who is listening are Buddha nature. So there's no way we can get out of Buddha nature and think about Buddha nature, because everything is an expression or manifestation of Buddha nature. Even question about it, even negate about it, even fight against it, that is all Buddha nature.

[64:01]

And next question from Dogen is to Dakei. 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 Nkan. 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 this is dogon's logic he you know change all the part of the sentences and question from each and every angle and he didn't give us the answer

[65:11]

So he's showing us how to question and we need to inquire as our practice. There's no, 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. It's Dogen's thanks to us. I don't think he's thanks to Hyakujo and his son. 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 we have to say it. We have 20 more minutes, so I'd like to talk on Section 10.

[66:28]

In this section, Dogen Zenji quotes another saying of Hyakujo Ekai. And it seems Dogen Zenji likes this saying, so he didn't question so much, but he just followed. Chon Master Tachi of Mount Pochon, this is Hyakujo, addressed the assembly, Buddha is the highest vehicle, the highest of all wisdoms, the person who maintains the Buddha way. It is Buddha being Buddha nature. This Buddha being Buddha nature is . So it can be Buddha have Buddha nature, or Buddha is being Buddha nature, or .

[67:37]

I think he quote 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 means Buddha is being able to utilize a way that is utterly unhindered. It is unimpeded, impeded wisdom, unimpeded wisdom. In all this, it readily utilizes cause and effect.

[68:44]

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 standards, it is like a gate freely opening. It suffers no restriction by the five standards. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters unhindered. Thank you. Inasmuch as it is thus, distinctions between high and low, intelligent and ignorant, are immaterial.

[69:49]

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 a thing of Shakyamuni. So she's talking about Buddha, but this Buddha is not Buddha as a person, but Buddha as a reality itself. And this reality is a highest vehicle. Vehicle means like a car, which carry as human beings or living beings into nirvana from samsara. And this is our biggest viku, most luxurious viku, which all living beings can get on and being carried. That's why it's called highest viku.

[70:54]

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. And actually we are part of it.

[71:56]

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 awakened 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 been impeded or hindered or obstructed by life, but means free.

[74:03]

Negotiating death, you know, in 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 any time we may die. So negotiating death, it is not hindered by death. So we use life and death freely. This is what You know, Arthur Braverman wrote a book on five Zen teachers in Japan, Sawaki Roshi, Uchiyama Roshi, and Yokoyama Sodo Roshi, and Kato Kozan Roshi, and one Japanese woman, Zen play, Zen teacher, whose name was, I forget her name. Anyway, he entitled the book

[75:08]

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, participated life and death, giving and dying within the Zen. That is the expression of freedom. even though we live and die, but we are not hindered by life and death. But we use the process of living and dying for the sake of dharma or to practice.

[76:18]

So our process of living and dying is a process of practice. Negotiating the five skandhas, it is like a gate-free reopening. It offers no restriction by the five skandhas. This means even though we are, you know, five skandhas and objects are also rupa materials and other things, even though we're negotiating, we're living together with the object, but we are not obstructed by the object. It goes and stops at will, leaves and enters unhindered. This is wherever we are. You know, we cannot stop, but we are coming and going.

[77:23]

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, are immaterial. you know, differences or classification 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, so the life of ant and life of human beings are the same thing.

[78:29]

according to Hyakujo. Whether we are born as an ant, whether we are born as human beings, or any other form of life, we are just freely coming and going as the five skandhas. We just move as a part of 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 an ungraspable or wondrous. So if we can give with such an attitude, this life or this world becomes really Buddha land. That is what Hyakujo is saying. And the rest of this section is Dogen's comment on this thing.

[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 Dogen called this is undestructible body of ours. Undestructible body means Buddha's body. But he said this, our body, concrete body, that is a collection of five skandhas, are undestructive. This expression came from another koan of, I think, Joshu. Joshu, someone asked Joshu, what is the undestructive nature, that is Buddha nature, and Joshu said five skandhas.

[80:43]

Four great elements and five skandhas should I go on. But the monks asked again, those are destructive, those are allies, stay for a while and disappear. So those five skandhas cannot be the undestructive nature. So the monk asked again, what is undestructible nature? Then Joshua again said, four great elements and five skandhas. So this is Buddha's body that is undestructible. That means this does never appear and never disappear, as the 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.

[81:47]

Our present activity moment to moment, so our very concrete activity in each moment, are gate freely opening. The gate of five skandhas are really freely open. does not suffer impediment from the five skandhas. Five skandhas, you know, given this abstract five skandhas, they are so free, always, you know, changing. But only this person don't like it. I don't want to change. What is the basic problem? I love, you know, being like this, so I don't want to disappear. That is our most basic program as living beings. We are born and as we have within our life as living beings, we have two very basic, contradicted, not nature, but well,

[83:01]

I don't know the word, but that is all living beings have to die. That is one real, undeniable reality. And another reality is all living beings don't want to die. We want to do it forever, but we have to die. This is what Uchamro 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 Togen Zenji 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 Shōbōgen no Shōji. Actually, I put out 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 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 would like to go back home. Okay. It was the same day of show. Pardon? Day of show. Excuse me. There and car. There is this. Car is fat. And show is nature. Right? Oh. The book and the show left seem to be more of a duality that's being brought together rather than reading them the other way.

[88:46]

So it's sort of like the origin and the name. Oh, Ka is unnamed, and Sho is named. What did I say? My question is, if I take this direction, the next sentence, which is to say they do show, I don't understand why you ask show. You don't, you didn't, what did you say? You didn't understand what? Why I say show, why not just say they do show? For the next one.

[89:47]

In other words, I never was good at math about A equals B. It's closer by a job, or I mean, where he uses more the whole network is. So I just didn't want to ask Joe back in here. This one. Am I making yours? Opposition being between the dirt and the gold. Named and unnamed. They mean this concrete being, right, in the conversation, the boy.

[90:54]

And the boy's 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. I think I'm reading the sentence correctly, maybe, because when I see that it's his death, and then I'm finding out the two sides of the way, or whatever. And then I don't know, again, why you, in fact, you say it's death. It seems clear to me. To me, there is something concrete that therefore it is fixed.

[91:58]

as a boy, seven-year-old boy. And ka is something not conditioned. And those two are the two aspects of that 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. Yeah, that is my understanding. Something conditioned and something unconditioned. or karmic and not karmic, I think.

[93:30]

That is my understanding. Of course, you know, there are many possible ways of interpretation. So you can, you know, develop your own interpretation. Okay. Please. Some kind of Buddha nature. So in practice, you don't quite expect to be in touch with him. In practice, it may or may not appear. You don't... In touch?

[94:32]

You mean Buddha nature? Yeah. But if it appears, you don't deny it either. That's why I... Well, I think what Dogen is saying is Buddha nature is always appearing, always here. Each and every being is Buddha nature within our practice. So, of course, sometimes we lose sight of it, but our practice is to return to that reality of interdependence of the nations. To me, sitting here 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 walking to the Zen.

[95:33]

I mean, I think our daily activities to me is part of my Zen. Well, my problem is one possible avenue is to not cling. 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 bring to the door open? Yeah. Okay. You got a problem? Well, yeah, because I mean, I am bringing a certain preferred way of being out of practice into work.

[96:42]

I'm saying I don't like work. I mean, I like to work in a certain way. So I'm kind of bringing a certain way of being. as thing you know, right? It's everything. So that's clinging. Is that clinging? Well, I prefer, I mean, I choose to be a certain way. It can be clinging, but it can be the way things are. I mean, let's see. you know, we use Oryoku in certain ways. And that is originally in Soto Zen tradition, originally described by Dogen. And yet, you know, at each monastery, they used in slightly different way. And we have clinging to a certain way.

[97:46]

were first trained somehow. I don't want to change. This is cringing, but if we see that each and every form is not the point of this eating, then you know, we can open our hand. 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 is That might be a problem.

[98:50]

But as Dogen said, even if that is against Buddhist precept, 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 woo or moo. And even though both are false statement, somehow we have to make choice using Oryogi this way or that way. And both are clinging. But somehow we cannot eat without using some kind of form. Well, let's say we laugh at the circumstance, things evolve naturally as they come on. So the idea of living under Doden's tradition is that you let the light flow right through. And the outcome is to your best benefit.

[99:57]

I think so. Well, I don't want to work then. It's up to you. Absolutely. It'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. I slap my hand, I thought I made a choice, and now I just have to do that. You then move on. So in your instance, you've got to choose to work. Whatever the consequences of that are, You've been given the choice all along the line. There's a difference between making those choices, which is a factor of living, being caught by the consequences of the choice. Yeah, you know, without making a choice, we cannot do anything. And in order to make a choice, we have to make distinction and make judgment which is better. So I think what we have to keep examining is, what is the standard or yardstick of this choice?

[101:12]

If this is my selfishness, then this is a preference which creates samsara. But it might be for the Dhamma. I mean, if we awaken to the reality of interconnectedness, that awakening requests us to do certain things in certain way. That is 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 meaning in dharma. So the things and the way things are,

[102:17]

can request us to give 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 try not for so we should avoid that way of life why if we destroy or disturb other people that means we disturb ourselves so we try not to disturb others This try not to disturb others is a kind of a preference. But it's also a kind of a request or a 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

[103:26]

happening inside of me when I make any choice or judgment. Well, I feel like the common part, you know, that the choice is informed by one's practice, the decisions. And the quality of practice determines. Quality of practice? Yes. Whether you live with the decision or not, hopefully if the practice is right, most decisions are in the right place. I would like to live away, but choices are many. Yeah, I think that all the people want to live in that way. Yeah. But, you know, you have to come to certain clarity all the time.

[104:30]

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 even a little bit more clear. And that is one That is possible, and sometimes I feel that way. But if that is the purpose of our practice, then more often we experience opposite, even opposite.

[105:34]

Then is that not a practice or not? is another constellation. 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 why we practice. Without, you know, this direction, you know, there's no reason to do it. Oh, I have more, but I'll bring it up next time. Okay. Please keep asking. Please. Is this an accurate statement? Are living and dying issues creating too many effects of contamination? Is that accurate? Life and death is used freely. Are living and dying issues creating too many effects of contamination?

[106:36]

Yes. Uh, used. Going back to the part where you were talking about life, the balance of self, the life, the life, the balance, step, and the connection. Mm-hmm. I don't like that word, used, used or used. Okay. Why don't you put it instead of that? That's basically, yeah. Why don't you work with genius instead of that? Mm-hmm. Maybe in this translation, it said utilized. Right. Is used and utilized the same? Okay. Okay. Thank you very much.

[107:32]

@Transcribed_UNK
@Text_v005
@Score_87.72