Good afternoon. This morning I talked about the story of dog's buddha nature, and who and move, with several varieties of the story. And I talked two traditional interpretations of this story. And one is in Momonkan, traditionally used in Rinzai tradition. And another is Shoyoroku, or Book of Celerity. And these two are very different. And now I'm going to talk on Dogen Zenjin's interpretation of this story. Maybe one thing I have to say before talking about this is better to forget everything I said this morning.

[01:07]

It's so different. It's page 91, the last paragraph of page 91. I first read the first half of the story and his comments. That is about, in this case, no buddhanature. A monk asks Chao-chu, Chenchi, Kashi, that is, Joshu, Does that dog have the buddha nature or not? The meaning of this question must be clarified.

[02:13]

It asks neither whether a dog has the buddha nature or whether it does not have the buddha nature. It asks, does a man of iron still practice the way? Chouchu, or Joshu, blundered into a poison hand, and his resentment may be intense, but it is a means of seeing half a real saint at last, after thirty years. Joshu said, Mu, or No. Hearing this word, of course, the course of practice to be pursued opened up. The Mu, The Buddha nature declares itself to be. The Mu, the dog, declares itself to be. Both must be utterances like Joshu's Mu.

[03:19]

So does the Mu a bystander calls out. Such a Mu is a sun with stone-melting power. The monk said, all sentient beings, everyone, have the Buddha nature. Why doesn't the dog? What this essentially says is, were there no sentient beings, there would be no Buddha nature. There would be no dog either. Essentially, it means what? Dog. Buddha nature. What need have they to be called Mu? A joshu said, it is because the dog exists in karmic consciousness. The meaning of these words is that existence for the sake of others is karmic consciousness.

[04:21]

Although his existence in karmic consciousness is existence for the sake of others, it is dog-moo. It is buddha-nature-moo. Karmic consciousness never understands the dog. How could the dog encounter the buddha-nature? Whether we speak of existence in karmic consciousness, existence for the sake of others, or of dogma, or buddha-nature, they are always karmic consciousness. This is the first half. Because Dogen Zenji respected Wanshi, the Chinese Soto Zen master who compiled, collected the one hundred koans and made poems and produced the material for Shoyoroku.

[05:35]

Dogen Zenji succeeded that story and consisted of two parts. In one part, in the Shoryo-roku, first, Joshi said, U, and second, Joshi said, Mu. But here, Dogen-zen changed the order. And I think this has some meaning. I mean, If Joshu first say U and then Mu, the interpretation by Bansho Joshu or even Wanshi that first Joshu gave the jewel and next take it away. But if Mu is first, then that interpretation is not possible.

[06:35]

I think that is And so Dogen didn't say anything about this change of order, but we must be very careful about this. And this is, I think this is my guess, but this is same as the, you know, in Section 8 and 9, Dogen discuss about Enkan's living beings have Buddha Nature, or U-Busho, and Isan's U-Busho. And I introduced a story from Shinji Shobo Genzo, or 300 Koans, entitled Shobo Genzo, collected by Dogen. But somehow, Dogen didn't quote that story. He only quote Enkans and I-san's saying of being u-bushō and mu-bushō. So he cut off the part of, you know, two monks, you know, talked with Yan-shan or Jō-san.

[07:46]

That is, you know, I-san said all living beings have no buddha nature. And Enkan said all living beings have buddha nature or u-bushō. And two monks from Enkan's assembly visited Isan and tried to figure out what Isan's meaning. But they couldn't. And they thought Isan teaching is not a Buddhist teaching. So one day, those two monks found Isan's major disciple, Josan, And we had a conversation. And they said, it's important to study Buddhism. So don't be lazy. So you should diligently practice Buddhism. That means your teacher's teaching is not a Buddhism.

[08:50]

And no Buddha nature. It's not a Buddhism. Then I think you remember. Daigyo-san made a circle with hands on the air and hold it and throw it away. And show his hands and he said the same thing. This is Buddhism. You should be patiently practice Buddhism. But those two monks didn't understand. And Togendrin, I think, Togendrin didn't like this idea. This is, again, same as, I think, Shoryoroku's interpretation of this koan. It's kind of a two-step. First, you should find the Buddha nature. Then, next, you should take it away, or throw it away, or be free from Buddha nature. So this is a kind of a two-step method. First, you have to understand it. and find it, and hold it.

[09:55]

And yet, that is not the end of the story, practice. We have to throw it away. We must become free from it. That is one kind of an atrocity of Zen practice. First, you discover Buddha nature, and practice it, and hold it. And after that, you need to throw it away, become free from that. and just practice. But Dogen didn't like this idea of two-step method. He is always discussing reality is only one, right now, right here. We cannot expect anything in the future. Or we cannot hold on something we did in the past. This is it. That's it. So, when we study not only Shobo Genzo, but Dogen's writings, the fact that he didn't write is also important.

[11:08]

So, we must be really carefully studying his writings, and to study the sources or materials he used and to find and we need to find what he didn't mention. What he, how can I say, leave it out is important to understand. I think that is why he put the new buddha nature first instead of u. So the question is very familiar with us. Does that dog have the buddha nature or not? And he said, the meaning of this question must be clarified.

[12:14]

That means it's not clear. I think, or we think, the meaning of this question is very clear, whether the Buddha and dog has Buddha nature or not. What else can this question mean? And actually, this translation doesn't translate one sentence. And I understand why he didn't translate. Because I also work on translation. This is nonsense. In a common sense, the Japanese sentence is Kusu to wa inu nari? You know, the question is kusu. Bussho ya matanashiya.

[13:16]

This is kusu. U is have. BUSHO is buddhanature. And O is not. So does KUSU have buddhanature or not? And this KUSU is a Chinese word for dog. But this is not Japanese. So Fat Dogen said KUSU is in his Japanese word for KUSU. So he said, kusu is inu. But if you translate this into English, a dog is a dog. And it's just a repetition of the same word.

[14:21]

So it doesn't make sense to translate. And this might not be important. But it can be very important. Dog is a dog. Dog is nothing other than dog. Dog cannot be a Buddha, or dog cannot be a Buddha nature. Dog is a dog, period. Same as, you know, Dogen said, in Shobo Genzo, Wakahane Haramitsu, Emptiness is emptiness, period. And form is form, period. So, Buddha, I mean, dog is dog, period. It can be very important expression. But this translator, you know, ignored it.

[15:24]

Because he thinks this is simply the explanation that kusu is for Japanese people. Kusu towa imo nani? That is, kusu is referred to, or kusu means a dog. Then he said, it asks neither whether a dog has the buddha nature or whether it does not have the buddha nature. So, according to Dogen, this question is not a matter of whether a dog has buddha nature or not. But this is really unique. He interprets this question as, does a man of iron still practice the way

[16:27]

The man of iron is Pekkan. Pekkan. Pek means iron. And kan is man. This expression, tekkan, appeared in some Zen texts within some koans. But tekkan means the person who is really deeply determined to practice buddhahood. So, the question Does, or is, the pekkan, is the idle person still practicing or not?

[17:31]

Means, it's not a question. And pekkan means the person who is practicing. Never, constantly, never stop practicing. So is pekkan still practicing? Means, kind of nonsense. It's not a necessary question. It's a matter of course. If the person is not practiced, he's not a Tekkan or Iron person. So if he's a Tekkan or Iron person, of course he's practicing. That means This question, does Buddha have Buddha nature or not, means according to Dogen, not according to the common way of reading this sentence, but at least according to Dogen, this means does Buddha nature have Buddha nature or not.

[18:36]

So this question is not really a question. And what they are talking about, using the example of Buddha nature, Dogu's Buddha nature, is how bodhisattva, very deeply determined bodhisattva, is practicing. Joshu blundered a poison hand, and his resentment may be intense, but it is a means of seeing how for a real saint at last, after thirty years. I'm not sure what Joshu blundered a poison hand means in English.

[19:43]

Blundered a poison hand. What does this mean? It doesn't make sense. It doesn't make sense. It is longer than supposed to be unintentionally. Unintentionally. Accidentally. Accidentally. Foolishly. Foolishly. But it sounds like a game, you know, like you take a card and you play a problem. It's a game, a competition. Longer is a mistake. So this means Joshua made a mistake with using a poison hand. So this poison hand is Joshua's hand or the monk's hand. So, he... Joshu made a mistake to deal with the poisoned hand of the monk.

[20:49]

That means, monk win. Joshu lose. That's what it means. Then it's okay. Then it's okay. Actually, in Japanese, there's no subject. So we cannot... it's difficult to tell who wins, who loses. Yeah. I think this poison came from Shoyoroku. Poison in Shoyoroku. So this question by the monk was a poison hand. And Joshu made a mistake, so he was poisoned. So even in Japanese, modern translation, translation into modern Japanese, depending upon the translator, different.

[22:03]

Someone said Joshu made a mistake. Someone said the monk made a mistake. My understanding is that Joshu made a mistake. Joshu mistakenly peeled with this poisoned hammer. And his resentment may be intense. That means Joshu made a mistake. and he may have an intense resentment. But, he said, it is a means of seeing half a real saint at last, after thirty years. This also came from one Zen story. This story is, again, one of the Basho's disciples, whose name was Sekkyo Eizo.

[23:04]

This person used to be a hunter, and he was always carrying the, what do you call it, arrow, bows and arrows, even after he became a monk. And for thirty years, whenever a monk visited him to ask Dharma, put an arrow on the bow and tried to shoot the person. And, of course, for 30 years, he couldn't find any two way seekers. But finally, one person visited. His name was Gichu. And then, Seicho tried to shoot the person. He didn't escape, but he opened his clothing and asked to shoot me. And that was, this thing was, by that Zen master, I have been looking for 30 years, looking for the two practitioners for 30 years.

[24:14]

And finally, I found half a person. He didn't say one person. Half a saint. Half a saint. So that means Joshu finally found a real practitioner. So Dogen praised that person who made this question. Does a dog have Buddha nature or not? I think no one else said such a thing. And Joshu said, Hearing this word, the course of practice to be pursued opened up. So Mu is an instruction to show how we should practice.

[25:20]

The Mu, the Buddha nature declares itself to be. The Mu, the dog, declares itself to be. Both must be appearances like Joshu's Mu. So does the Mu, a bystander called out. So I think the point is, in both Shoryo-roku, or Book of Serenity, and Mumonkan, gateless barrier, and in Zen teaching in general, word is something extra, or we should not caught up in words and concept. So how can we become free from word and concept, or logical way of thinking?

[26:30]

is one of the most important points in Zen. You know, it was very clear in the teaching of Umonkan. But Dogen's kind of, not idea, but attitude toward words is completely different from that kind of, you know, words cannot be truth or reality itself. Of course, words and concepts are incomplete copy of reality, but like a map or atlas. And yet a map or atlas is part of the reality. So it's really important we study how to use it. If we know, if we study how to use the map, the map is really useful kind of a tool to see, to understand the reality of the Earth. If we think the map itself is reality or the shapes in the map is a real thing, that's a mistake.

[27:36]

Of course, that is true. But that doesn't mean we should throw all the maps away and stop using it. But we have to study how the map was produced and that distortion occurred. So if we can, you know, how can I say, adjust that distortion, then we can see the reality through the map. So what we need when we study Dharma is to understand how, you know, the language, when we say, try to describe something or express something using words and concepts, that kind of distortion is made. And how we can adjust it.

[28:38]

And if we know how to do it, then the word and the concept is part of the reality. And all the Buddhas and ancestors and Buddhist masters have planned to, even the Buddha, Shakyamuni, planned to transmit, express, explain, and transmit the reality through using words and letters in the form of sutras, or commentaries on sutras, or the recorded sayings by Zen masters. Dogen considers these words in the sutra, or in the Zen text, is reality itself. And that is, the Buddha nature manifests itself, or expresses itself through words.

[29:44]

If the words are correct, and if we can adjust the distortion, That means if we know how to use words and language. So to say something is really important in Dogen. So reading books or studying sutras and having discussion to study each other is really important in Dogen. That is fact. Dōgen said in Dōtoku. Dōtoku is one of the Chakkabushōbu Genzo. Dōtoku. This Dō is saying Chinese character as way or path.

[30:48]

But this also means to say or to speak. And toku is to get or attain or be capable to. So dōtoku means, how can I say, when we have certain experiences or certain understanding, we have to create the expression using words. until you can express that experience or insight that is not really experience. And it's not really insight. So to express something using words is really important. Another word Dogen used in busho was do-shu. Same do and shu.

[31:50]

She means to get or take. So, we try to offer the expression what we experience and what we see. So, this mood that Buddha nature declares itself, this mood is How can I say? It's Buddha Nature's... Buddha Nature declared itself to be Mu. So this Mu is Buddha Nature's word, not Joshu's word. But Buddha Nature expressed itself through Joshu's mouth. And that word was Mu. And not only Buddha-nature, but the dog declares itself to be.

[32:56]

So this Mu is dog express itself as Mu. And that is, both must be utterance like Joshu's Mu. So Joshu's word expression Mu. is same as Buddha Nature's self-expression and Dog's self-expression. And so this, according to Doggen, this is really expression of reality itself. So it's not a matter of we should not cling to, or we should avoid, or we should think opposite, like woo. So does the more a bystander calls out. So anyone or all beings, not only Buddha Nature and Dog and Joshu, but all beings, when they try to express themselves, that should be Mu.

[34:13]

And such a move is a sun with stone-meriting power. Stone-meriting power. I don't know what this means, and whether this is true or not, but he said the sun has the power to merit a stone. And this means before Dogen, Quote from one Zen master's expression, a piece of rock in emptiness, kuuri ten no ishi. Yeah. That's what emptiness means. Within emptiness there is a piece of rock. So it's not really simply empty space. But emptiness is the way the lock, that means five scandals, are. So, here what Dogen is saying, my understanding is, even the lock is, that lock in that emptiness, is melted away.

[35:32]

That means really emptiness itself. Nothing else. So this is same as emptiness is emptiness, period. Then the monk said, All sentient beings, everyone, have the Buddha nature. Why doesn't the dog? Dogen says, what this essentially says is, were there no sentient beings, there would be no buddha-nature. There would be no dog either. Essentially, it means what? I think he can interpret these conversations in Chinese in a very unique way because he was not a Chinese.

[37:02]

And Chinese language is not his own language. When you study a foreign language, you have to figure out each and every word. and try to think what this is. And after that, we try to understand one sentence. So first, we need to think each and every word, instead of interpret one sentence. I think that's why he could interpret it in this way, I think. But Joshu, Monk's question to Joshu is, So, shujo, living beings, kai-u, kai-u all have, kai-u busho, kusu, or dog, ii jinmo, Mu.

[38:22]

So all living beings are all Wu or have Brahmacharya. The dog, for that reason, finds Mu. And Dogen's interpretation is Even though the monk said all living beings are... he separated this wu and busho and he read this as being. So if all living beings are all being, and that is Buddha-nature. Dog, four, fat, five, moo. And Dogen is saying is, you know, all living beings are Mu.

[39:27]

That is what Toshio said. All living beings are Mu. Then Buddha nature should also be Mu. And Kus is also Mu. And what does this mean? That means, what is this u? You know, this all being, kai u, is one strange thing. All others are mu. But what is this u? According to Dogen, that's a question of the monk. What is this U? What is really there, arriving, moving, arriving, eating, doing things?

[40:28]

What is this U? If living beings, Buddha nature and dog are all U, what is this U? So, dog... Buddha nature, fat meat have they to be called Mu. Zen Joshu said, it is because the dog exists in karmic consciousness. I'm not sure about this translation. The original word is イタ. イタウゴシキザイ. タ is, in this case, dog. タ is a third person. It or he or she. And u, as a common way of reading, u is have.

[41:47]

And goshiki, karmic consciousness. And zai is to be. So this means, and i is because. Because the dog, ta, or he, or it, have, Karmic Consciousness. Because Karmic Consciousness is still there. And dogs have Karmic Consciousness. That's why... Let's see... In the common way of reading, that's why dog has no buddhanature. But Dogen's way of reading this sentence is... 因 yīn is because, but another meaning of this Chinese character is for the sake of.

[43:02]

For the... sake of. Ta can mean other. And so he did this as one word. I ta u. The being for the sake of others. And the being for the sake of others means bodhisattva. To live. You know, the very basic definition of what bodhisattva is, is Ordinary living beings are living, being moved or led by karmic consciousness, making karma. Being moved by karmic consciousness, therefore we create karma and we create suffering. But this is a definition of ordinary being, living beings.

[44:09]

But one of the definitions of bodhisattva is... So, this is the way of life of ordinary beings is called gosho, gods and sho, life based on karma or karmic consciousness. So the expression is gosho no donpu, ordinary beings who lived based on karma. That is ordinary living beings that is transmigrating with six realms of samsara. But the definition of bodhisattva is bodhisattva is a person who is living with vow. Vow? The exponential expression is GAN SHO.

[45:10]

GAN is say GAN. GAN SHO. GAN is VOW. So living based on VOW. Because of VOW. Because of the four Bodhisattva VOWs, especially the first one. sentient beings are, beings are numberless. We vow to free them or save them. That is first vow. And if sentient beings or living beings are numberless, there is no time we can save them all. To save them means save them all. So this vow means we don't become Buddha or we don't enter nirvana until all other beings are in nirvana. That means we vow to be the last person to enter nirvana. We, you know, try to ask other people to go first.

[46:18]

And if all living beings have this vow, it's kind of a strange thing. No one is there. You know, everyone says, please go ahead. I was wondering, you know, if truly that compassion is coming out of heart spontaneously, what does it mean to be the last person entering the nirvana? Being the last or first doesn't make any difference. The same thing you mentioned, to be at the first step of the mountain or being on top of the mountain, does it make any difference if you're in the practice? So any other question could be... It doesn't make any difference to be in Bodhisattva or to be the last person to enter or the first person to enter. So this is another idea of, you know, how we, how can I say, create the Buddha Land in this shore, not to the other shore.

[47:23]

So no one go to the other shore. All people stay here. That means first step and last step is the same place. And that means compassion. Does it make sense? Anyway. So, Bodhisattvas vow to stay in samsara, to work with all beings, to help all beings and, you know, to go ahead. And if all beings live in the same attitude, then we don't need to go there. Now, if all people live with that attitude, then that is nirvana. No one is self-centered, trying to help others, serve others. So, you know, bodhisattva is, how can I say, transmigrated again, not again, same as ordinary living beings who have karmic consciousness.

[48:41]

Or we can say bodhisattva is a person who has karmic consciousness, therefore we don't stop transmigrating, but the purpose Our motivation is different. Because, not because we are ignorant and we crave things, but because we live being led by vow, we cannot stop transmigrating. And that is what this dog means, or dog's karmic nature and buddha nature means. As for bodhisattva, we have still karmic consciousness. And yet, because this dog is a bodhisattva, this dog cannot give up this karmic consciousness in order to stay in this world, to work with others.

[49:46]

That is what it means. Isn't this a very unique way of reading this sentence? No one can live in such a way. So itau is bodhisattva. The being for the sake of others is the beings of karmic consciousness. And that is Buddha. That is dog. So dog has karmic consciousness in order to continue to practice other bodhisattva. If dog give up karmic consciousness, the dog has to give up the vow. So we keep karmic consciousness in order to continue bodhisattva practice. So both are there. We live with karmic nature in order to work and practice as a bodhisattva.

[50:50]

So, the meaning of this word is, please. Pardon? Ganshō, yes. Gans is vow. Shō is life or living. And, you know, the name of MGMC. Temple name of Minnesota Zen Meditation Center is Gansho-ji. That's what Katagiri-shi meant, which is being led by vow. And that means bodhisattva. So the meaning of this word is that existence for the sake of others is nta-u. is karmic consciousness, is a being of karmic consciousness. This is his way of reading this sentence.

[51:54]

Although his existence in karmic consciousness is existence for the sake of others, it is dogma. So, this way of life is mu. It's not because he clings to the karmic consciousness as a self or ego. But to continue to practice as a Bodhisattva, he, the dog, does not give up karmic consciousness. So, it's not... So, that fat mu means empty. It's not... It's clinging, but it's not clinging. There's no self-nature there. And that fat dog, Moo, and Buddha-nature, Moo, means. So it's really different from, you know, common understanding of the Koan story.

[52:59]

So karmic consciousness never understands the dog. Karmic consciousness never understands the dog. Understand is EI in original. And this EI also means to encounter, to meet. So, consciousness never understand, never meet with dog. Because these are one thing. Shōhaku cannot meet Shōhaku, or Buddha cannot meet Buddha, and the dog cannot meet the dog, and buddha-nature cannot meet the buddha-nature. So there's no subject-object separation. So how could the dog encounter the buddha-nature?

[54:03]

Because buddha-nature and dog are one thing, and karmic consciousness And life as a bodhisattva is one thing. Karmic consciousness and being or life as a bodhisattva for the sake of others is one thing. We cannot separate into two. And this is good point. That is bad point. So the idea, you know, The common idea about buddha-nature, buddha-nature is something precious like gold within that. That is, that Dogen tried to negate that idea. You know, our life has kind of a combination of two parts. One is precious, another is dirt or trash.

[55:05]

So if we want to be enlightened, we cut off this dirt part, then we become dirt. That kind of very simple calculation. A plus B equals C, so if we take B from C, it becomes A. Very simple calculation, but according to Dogen, our life is not such a simple thing. No, we have both, and we cannot separate into two. These are one thing. So, whether we speak of existence in karmic consciousness, exists existence for the sake of others, whether we are and we are both. Or of dogmu or buddhanaturemu, they are always karmic consciousness. So our practice is not, you know, like a karmic consciousness, like a cancer, cause of problems.

[56:16]

So if we have surgery and take karmic consciousness out, then Only the broad-suffering part left. But such a, you know, surgery is not possible. Because this is one thing. So from one side, this is entirely karmic consciousness. And from another thing, including karmic consciousness, this is entirely Buddha-nature. That is what Dogen said in the very beginning. Entire being is Buddha-nature. It's not a part of it. A monk... This is the end of the first section. And now, he starts the second question, right? Yeah. A monk asked Joshu,

[57:18]

Does that dog have the buddha nature or not? Let me read until the end of this section. A monk asked Joshua, does that dog have the buddha nature or not? This question signified that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshu. We thus see that making occurrences and posing questions about the Buddha nature are ordinary rice-eating, tea-drinking occurrences in the lives of Buddhas and Patriarchs. He also said, it has, or u. The manner of this has, or u, is not the has, or u, employed by exegetes of the doctrinary schools.

[58:32]

It is not the has, or I don't think this is has, this is being, u. posited by the Sarvāstivādin scholars. You must go beyond them and learn the Buddha being. Buddha being is Joshu's being. Joshu's being is the dog's being. The dog's being is Buddha nature being. These beings are all U. The monk said, if it already has the Buddha nature, what's the use of its pushing into such a bag of skin? This monk's utterance asks whether Joshu's being is present being, past being, or established being, and we should have to reply that the original being

[59:38]

In Joshu's utterance, appears to refer to one being among various other beings. But, in fact, it is original being, shining alone. Should original being be something that pushes into? Should it be something that does not push into? The act of pushing into this bag of skin is a cause of erroneous striving, but it is not therefore in vain. Joshua said, it's because it does it knowingly. It's deliberately transgressed. As a mundane utterance, these words have long circulated in the world, but now it is Joshu's utterance.

[60:40]

He is saying that, in transgressions on purpose, in full knowledge of what it does, there are probably few people who would not have doubts about this. The words pushing into are difficult to understand in this context. But in fact, they are not really needed here. Not only that, if you want to know the undying man in his heritage, hermitage, sorry, hermitage, you must not leave your own bag of skin. The undying man, whoever he may be, is never at any time separated from his bag of skin. To transgress knowingly is not necessarily pushing into such a bag of skin.

[61:44]

Pushing into such a bag of skin is not necessarily knowing and deliberately transgressing. It has to be deliberately transgressing because it is knowing. You should be aware that this deliberately transgressing may, as such, contain concealed within it daily activities that constitute the emancipated body of suchness. This is what is meant by pushing into. At the very time, the daily activity constituting the emancipated body of suchness is concealed within it. It is concealed from you and from others as well. But, although that is indeed true,

[62:47]

Do not say you are not yet free of ignorance. You leader of donkeys, you horse followers. And that is not all. The eminent priest, Yan Chu, said, you may learn all there is to know about the Buddha Dharma, But in doing so, you completely falsify the bearing of your mind. Hence, even if your partial halfway study of the Buddha's Dharma has long been in error, for days or even months on end, It still cannot be anything but the dog pushing into such a bag of skin. It is a case of knowingly transgressing, but that itself is no other than being a better being.

[63:55]

Do you understand? I don't think so. But I need to talk. Yeah, that is a problem. So, this is the second half of this conversation. A monk asked Joshua, does that dog have the Buddha nature or not? This is a very familiar question. But Dogen said, this question signifies that the monk has skillfully gotten hold of Joshu, gotten hold to grasp, catch, same as Isan Reyu said about the story between Obaku and Nanga, Obaku and Nansen, and Obaku

[65:04]

Cat caught the tiger. So, here, Dogen said, this monk who made this question called on Joshu. So, again, this monk wins and Joshu loses. This is completely opposite understanding. We thus see that making utterance and posing questions, so question and answer about the Buddha nature is, he said, ordinary rice eating, tea drinking, that is we do every day. We eat, you know, rice, not in this country, but in Japan, three times a day.

[66:11]

and we drink a lot of tea. So, this means Buddha nature is something we should really study and practice and understand and express within our day-to-day lives. It's not a philosophical topic for only Zen masters or Buddhist philosophers. We have to do it in our daily lives. as an ordinary meal and tea. So nothing special. Anyway, Joshi said, U, this time. And the manner of this not-house, I think this is U, being. The manner of this being, or U, is not the U, or being, employed by an exegete of the doctrinal schools.

[67:17]

It is not the U posited by the Salvati-Vardhan scholars. This means this U, used by Joshu. is a Chinese character, wu, is a trans... can be, not can be, is one of the translation of Sanskrit word, bhāva, that means being or existence. And in Buddhist Abhidharma, the Abhidharma masters analyses this being, in the case of Adharmakosha, into 75 beings, or dharmas. And this particular school is called Sarvāstivādin. Sarvāstivādin literally means people who insist that being, Shōhōjutsu, that being really exists.

[68:28]

in past, present, and future, in three times. So they said being is not empty. It has fixed nature. And that Dogen said, Joshu's wu, or being here, is not that kind of wu. Third Dogen, not Dogen, but Joshu discusses is Buddha-Being, Butsu-U. You must go beyond them and learn the Buddha-Being, Butsu-U. Buddha-Being. And he said, Buddha-Being, Buddha-Being is Joshu's Being. And Joshu's being is Dogu's being, or U, Dogu's U. So in this part, Dogu talks about U, not Mu.

[69:41]

So Buddha as U, or U aspect of Buddha. It's there. And Buddha has function. So it's not Buddha. is not a fixed entity. Buddha is impermanent, same as Buddha-nature. So, Joshu-u is Buddha-u. It's impermanent and without fixed self-nature. And Joshu's u is Dogu's u. And Dogu's u is Buddha-nature's u. So these are all wu, same wu. That is wu, actually, you know, working, functioning and living. You know, such as, you know, this being is not a fixed entity, but often there is a

[70:50]

Examples such as a waterfall is used. This being is like a waterfall. There's no, for example, Niagara fall. There's no such things called a waterfall. It's just a, that is just a, how can I say, correction of the certain shape of the land and flow of water. So Niagara fall is just a name of this happening. It's not a fixed entity or existence. It's always changing. So we cannot say, no, there is Niagara Falls as a fixed entity. But as a concept, Niagara Falls is always Niagara Falls forever. It doesn't change. And yet, the real thing is always changing. The water is different each moment. The water that makes the fall is different.

[71:58]

And the shape of the land is also little by little changing. So there's no fixed entity called Niagara Falls. So it's not there. And yet, you know, Actual Niagara Falls and the picture of the Niagara Falls are different. This is really Niagara Falls in my imagination and actual one are different. It's really there. And the photo or picture or my imagination is not really there. So, it's not really fiction. It's there. It's there. Really there. And it's moving, and changing, and living, and practicing. And yet, there's no such fixed entity called Niagara Falls. And this wu, or butsu wu, joshu wu, Buddha's wu, or dog's wu, are the same wu.

[73:00]

It's there, and it's always changing. It's actually living, and practicing. And in order to do so, this Buddha Wu, or Joshu Wu, or Doguzu Wu, needs to ask him back. Or shape. Does it make sense? Say it again. In order to do so, A dog, or a Buddha, or a joshu, need a skin bag. Bag of skin. That means form and karmic consciousness. You know, in order to live with these five skandhas, we, shohaku, need these five skandhas and this karmic consciousness.

[74:09]

And that is what he is saying next. The monk said, if it already has the buddha nature, what is the use of it pushing into such a bag of skin? So somehow, buddha nature, that might be formless, pushed into the bag of skin and become a dog. So why buddha nature needs to get into that skin bag. That means, if I, a bodhisattva, needs to give as a karmic person, called shohak. And this is also a problem. The monk's question is, Another marker?

[75:12]

Oh, thank you. KI U I JI MA KYAKU TO YU So the translation is already there. If it already has the buddha nature, if the dog already has buddha nature, again, for fat, the reason the buddha nature or the dog To is to push, and nu is enter, so push into.

[76:16]

That is the meaning of pushing into the means. So five buddha-nature needs to be pushed into the skin bag of the dog. If it's buddha-nature, it has no form. It's not limited. And it has nothing to do with South or North. It's not an individual thing. Why Buddha-nature needs such a skin bug as a dog, in this case? And again, Dogen's way of reading this sentence is different. He said, kono so, ah, I'm sorry, I'm speaking in Japanese. This monk's utterance asked whether joshu's being, joshu's u, is present being, past being, or established being.

[77:22]

These present being, past being, or established beings come from this word, kin-u. Already being. Already being is the word established being. So, if the dog already has buddhanature, he said, the buddhanature is ki-u, already there, already being, or established being. And he asked whether this established being is present being or past being. Established means it's already there before this present moment. So it has some process. So it's not simply present being at this moment.

[78:26]

And yet it's not a past because it's present. So what is this established key means is his question. And we would... This is same question as whether living beings have buddha-nature from the very beginning, or buddha-nature appears only when we practice. If, in fact, this king means. And Dogen narrates both, like before. It's, Buddha nature is not something we have from the very beginning. And Buddha nature is neither, also, not something we can get when we practice in certain way, at certain time. then what this Q means?

[79:29]

It's there. But is it really there from the beginning or only this moment? And we would have to reply that the original being, original being, is also the translation of Ki-U in Joshu's utterance. So Dogen reads this in Joshu's saying. Dog has a Buddha nature, but Buddha nature is Ki-U. It's already being, or established being, and yet it's not existence from the very beginning, and it's not something we can gain at certain times when we practice some particular thing.

[80:31]

And he, this translator, translates this cue here as original being. I'm not sure this translation is good or not. But original being in Joshu's utterance appears to refer to one being among various other beings. But in fact, it is original being shining alone. Shining alone means You know, this being is only one thing. In the expression he used in the beginning of this Buddha-nature is entire being. Entire being is shining alone. That means nothing else.

[81:35]

So we cannot say it exists here. or it was there, or it will be in the future, but it is always already there. And this is shining alone, means nothing else. This is only this moment, this moment, this moment. As Dogen said in Uzi, only this moment. And the next moment, again, this is only moment. And again, next moment, that is only moment. So this is only thing which is shining. Should original being, this Q, being, original being be something that pushes into Why this original being, or already being, or established being, that is Buddha nature, being something that pushes into?

[82:50]

This is your question. Or should it be something that does not push into, into this skin bag of a dog? somehow, you know, he or her original being as Buddha nature is enter the skin bag. Later Dogen said this enter is a problem. Because this original Buddha nature and a skin bag is one thing. It's not a matter of this enter that. But this is one thing. And this is our practice. Buddha nature practice within this skin bag. This skin bag. So the act of pushing into, and this is pushing into, the act of pushing into means this is our practice. Somehow Buddha nature pushing into this so-called skin bag and do something.

[83:57]

This is practice. The act of pushing into these bags of skin is a case of erroneous striving. So whatever we do is erroneous. Mistake. But it is not, therefore, in vain. This is really unique. So whatever we do is a mistake. But this is Dogen's. Not only Dogen, but in one of the famous saying in Zen, from one mistake to next mistake. That is process of our practice. So, we are mistake. And our practice is mistake. Keep making mistake. If we know that whatever we do is mistake,

[84:58]

Then we don't need to cling to, you know, we did so much, or we did such a great thing. So we can be humble, be peaceful, and just keep going. The other day you were saying that, you know, the body of a man is like a house for either the Buddha nature or spiritual intelligence. So when I'm hearing you, it's one that you're saying that your Buddha nature and the Dalai Lama's being are one. So how would you compare that to the previous statement? That is the idea of a so-called center, a non-Buddhist teacher. He has a self, is like an owner of a house, and has it burned, that owner. get out and buy another house. That is not Buddhist idea.

[86:00]

Hia Dogen said, we are, our Buddha nature is not like the owner of the house. Okay? So at the time of death, how would you express corpse? That is, I think, one of the points discussed in the next section. Yeah, as one, cut into two. Well, it's time to stop. I hope I can finish tomorrow morning. If you want to move from here, you can. That's right.

[87:01]

@Text_v004
@Score_JJ