Would you like to repeat that? Well, but all of the celestial beings who come to hear about Vimalakirti, you know, we're very impressed. So… You weren't on the list and you didn't get on tape. Okay. So… Okay, so another thing about Vimalakirti… Well, the basic thing about Vimalakirti is that he operates in the world. He's of the world. He goes into all the contexts in society. He doesn't try and, you know, kind of hold back from engaging in any part, any aspect of the world. And in each place he goes, he's the most accomplished and uses that as an opportunity to help develop beings and to enlighten all beings. So, part of the popularity of the sutra in Zen and especially in China and later in Japan is just that he's not, you know, he's just an ordinary layman in one sense.

[01:06]

He's also wealthy, which is interesting. I think I read last time about him being known as the best of landlords because he didn't engage in aggressiveness about ownership, stuff like that. So that's another aspect. And there's the aspect of Malakirti as the critic of all spiritual pretension and of all spiritual, not necessarily spiritual trappings, but of notions of spiritual purity, maybe. So we'll see more of that. But he criticizes the arhat ideal and advocates the bodhisattva ideal. Do you also, do I have to go, should I go over that? Arhat and Bodhisattva, any questions, let me just put it this way, any questions about any of this? From last time, any questions left over from last time? It's a very quick summary. I came armed with a question from Neeman Sang that isn't exactly about this, but it's about chapter five, something in chapter five.

[02:12]

Okay, do you want to, we are going to talk about chapter five today, but if you want to. That's fine, I'll wait. Okay, we may not get to cover all of chapter five, But are there any other questions about last week, about anything that came up last week? Kevin, you must have a question. I do, but it's on, my question is mostly concerned five and six. Okay. Because I got kind of lost after it. I understood that everyone turning down, but then it came to the room and stuff. That's weird. It's totally cool. So the next aspect of Himalakirti is, Well, the way that, for those of you who weren't here last week, the way that his criticism of the arhats... So, do all of you know the difference between arhats and bodhisattvas, just real basically? Arhat was the ideal in earlier Buddhism, in Theravada Buddhism, and still in Theravada Buddhism. The arhat is the one who's the practitioner who's fully purified their own defilements, their own cravings, their own anger.

[03:21]

greed, delusion, confusion, their own attachments, and in this sutra particularly, that ideal is put down. In Zen later, arhats are very highly respected as one example of the whole approach of the Mahayana, but the Mahayana particularly focuses on the Bodhisattva ideal, which is the practitioner whose intention is directed towards helping everybody awake together. So universal awakening. That this is not an enterprise that one can do by oneself, actually. That if there are others suffering out there, as Shariputra realized that... Well, I'm kind of inferring that about Shariputra's question, but I think it's a fair inference. That one can't completely be enlightened by oneself. How can you be enlightened in a world gone mad by yourself?

[04:25]

It doesn't make sense. So the point of bodhisattva practice is to awaken everybody. And of course, this leaps right into the inconceivable realm, which is what we're basically talking about in this class, the inconceivable chapters of the Malakirti. So this is beyond our usual conceptions and thoughts. And part of what the Malakirti does is to dispel the usual even though they're very wholesome and in some sense pure intentions, he dispels the notions of the main disciples of the Buddha who are considered arhats, who have purified themselves. So what happens is the sutra starts that Vimalakirti's sick. So Vimalakirti is an invalid, he's sick, and the Buddha asks his disciples to go call on him and ask after his health, and one after another they all say, because the last time I saw Vimalakirti, he showed me up, particularly in the area that I'm supposed to be most accomplished in practice. And after many arhats and also bodhisattvas give similar stories about this, the great bodhisattva Manjushri, the fearless bodhisattva of wisdom, Manjushri, says, OK, I'll go and call on Vimalakirti.

[05:37]

At which point, all of the other beings present, the other monks and disciples who had said they didn't want have to deal with Vimalakirti and all the other celestial beings and being some strange dimensions that are hanging out listening to the Buddha, say, oh, this is gonna be a really interesting discussion, let's go watch. So that kind of brings us to where we're at in the beginning of chapter five. Another question, was Vimalakirti maybe, I haven't read this whole sutra, but was Vimalakirti really ill? Yeah, so we're gonna start with that. We're gonna start with talking about what his illness was. So I'm, as I said, both of these are good translations. I think it helps to look at both of them. I'm kind of gonna be going from Thurman, just because I know it better. But if you're looking on Watson and see something that you want to call to our attention, please do so. In chapter, towards the end of chapter four, I think it is,

[06:39]

No, actually, it's in the end of Chapter 2, this introduction to this thing about the second half of Chapter 2. There's this introduction of this theme of the Malakirti's illness. So it's the bottom of 21 in the Thurman, and it's sort of the end of the second page. 34 in Watson. It says, at that time, out of this very skill and liberative technique, it's just been talking about how skillful the Malakirti is in terms of liberating beings. Out of this very skill, the Malakirti manifested himself as if sick. To inquire after his health, the king, officials, lords, and so forth of the town, thousands of other living beings all came and called on him. So this is before the Buddha's disciples even expressed their reluctance. And they asked Vimalakirti, and Vimalakirti gives this slightly more conventional description of his illness.

[07:58]

He talks about, friends, this body is so impermanent, fragile, unworthy of confidence, and feeble. It is so insubstantial, perishable, short-lived, painful, filled with diseases, subject to changes. So probably some of us here have experienced sickness and know that this is so, and this kind of, teaching was, in all of Buddhism, the truth of old age, sickness, and death. And so, Burton Watson gives an interesting translation. Why don't you read for us? Good people, this body is impermanent, without durability, without strength, without firmness, a thing that decays in a moment, not to be relied on, it suffers, it is tormented, a meeting place of manifold ills. Right. Yeah. Once these translations are poetic, they're good. So this is our situation, you know, and part of this is to show that our idea of self, of who we are, is limited and all the things that we might want to acquire and accomplish and hold on to in this body and mind, you know, eventually are going to dissolve, as this body will, and to not...

[09:11]

to not get too caught in attachments to self. So this is very basic Buddhist teaching in a way. But the bodhisattvas come to inquire after self and he kind of goes into this a little more. In chapter 5, which is called The Consolation of the Invalid, Dermot's translation of it, this thing about his illness is kind of mixed in with some of the stuff about his room, which I want to talk about. So we'll just, let's see, maybe we'll just take it in order. So, it begins with Manjushri just acknowledging to the Buddha, it is difficult to attend upon the Livcavi Vimalakirti. Livcavi is the kind of name of the tribe that he belongs to. He is gifted with marvelous eloquence concerning the law of the profound.

[10:16]

He is extremely skilled in full expressions and in the reconciliation of dichotomies. His eloquence is inexorable and no one can resist his imperturbable intellect. He accomplishes all the activities of the Bodhisattvas. He penetrates all the secret mysteries of the Bodhisattvas and Buddhas and so on. He plays with great super knowledges. So all of these things, by the way, Manjushri is considered the Bodhisattva of wisdom himself and is considered to be the expert in wisdom. And so all the things that he's saying about Vimalakirti are all the more impressive coming from Manjushri, who is generally considered to be the incarnation of wisdom. And at the end of that paragraph, Manjushri says, thus, although he cannot be withstood by someone of my feeble defenses still sustained by the grace of the Buddha, I will go to him and will converse with him as well as I can. And thereupon in the assembly, the bodhisattvas and disciples and all these gods and goddesses and celestial beings decide they want to go and watch this.

[11:23]

Meanwhile, the Malakirti thinks to himself, Manjushri, the crown prince, is coming here with numerous attendants. Now, may this house be transformed into emptiness. Okay, so the Malakirti's room is transformed into emptiness. This is kind of the beginning. Yeah, we'll see. This is what he's going to talk about. What does he mean by this word emptiness here? Magically, his house became empty. Even the doorkeeper disappeared. Except for the influence couch upon which Malakirti himself was lying, no bed or couch or seat could be seen anywhere." So then he welcomes Manjushri, "'Welcome, Manjushri. You are very welcome. There you are without any coming. You appear without any seeing. You are heard without any hearing.' So Vimalakirti's coming from this place where he's not going to substantiate any quality as non-empty, including coming, going, hearing, seeing.

[12:35]

And Manjushri agrees with him, also being an expert in emptiness, saying, householder, it is as you say, who comes finally comes not, who goes finally goes not. Why who comes is not known to come, who goes is not known to go, who appears is finally not to be seen. And this is kind of, so we talked a little bit about emptiness last time. So in a way, the basic teaching of emptiness in Buddhism is just that things are empty of separateness. Things are empty of inherent self. Each of those, each petal of each of those flowers is totally a product of rain, and nitrogen, and soil, and people working in the garden, and what they had for breakfast, and George Wheelwright, who gave us this farm years ago. Anyway, you can just branch off anywhere into all the aspects that make up any one petal or any particle of each of those petals.

[13:39]

So in that sense, everything is not separate from everything else. That's the kind of emptiness that he's talking about here in a way. So we'll come back to that, about this emptiness, but let's see, let's have some people read. Who would like to read Manjushri? Okay, well if you can be Manjushri. Who wants to be from Lama Kirti? Okay, Matt, why don't you two just read this next section up until... You both have thermin? Just read this, starting with good sir and then the full paragraph below that. Where's good sir? Manjushri says, good sir, is your condition tolerable? Oh, I see. Good sir, is your condition tolerable? Is it livable? Are your physical elements not disturbed? Is your sickness diminishing?

[14:40]

Is it not increasing? The Buddha asks about you. If you have slight trouble, slight discomfort, slight sickness, if your distress is light, if you're cared for, strong, at ease, without self-reproach, and if you're living in touch with the supreme happiness. I'll continue. Householder, whence came this sickness of yours? How long will it continue? How does it stand? How can it be alleviated? And Vimalakirti replied, Manjushri, my sickness comes from ignorance and the thirst for existence, and it will last as long as due to the sicknesses of all living beings. Were all living beings to be free from sickness, I also would not be sick. Why? Manjushri, for the Bodhisattva, the world consists only of living beings, and sickness is inherent in living in the world. Were all living beings free of sickness, the Bodhisattva also would be free of sickness. For example, Manjushri, when the only son of a merchant is sick,

[15:41]

Both his parents become sick on account of the sickness of their son. And the parents will suffer as long as that only son does not recover from his sickness. Just so, Manjushri, the Bodhisattva loves all living beings as if each were his only child. He becomes sick when they are sick and is cured when they are cured. You ask me, Manjushri, whence comes my sickness? The sickness of the Bodhisattvas arise from great compassion. Thank you. So this is the sickness, this is the way in which Vimalakirti is sick. Vimalakirti is sickness from the greed, hate, and delusion of all beings, of which he is one. So, this is the Bodhisattva sickness. And they go into this a little more, talking about the consolation of sickness. Then there's this, This discussion, this further discussion about emptiness, can we stand some more emptiness?

[16:44]

I'll let you two continue with this dialogue a little bit anyway. Householder, why is your house empty? Why have you no servants? Manjushri, all Buddha fields are also empty. What makes them empty? They are empty because of emptiness. What is empty about emptiness? Constructions are empty because of emptiness. Can emptiness be conceptually constructed? Even that concept is itself empty, and emptiness cannot construct emptiness. Can I stop in there? This is an important point, that emptiness itself is empty. What does he mean by construction? Is it a mental construct? Yeah, I think he's talking about... I don't know what Thurman's footnote says, but... that all things that are fabricated, that are conditioned, he's probably talking about conditioning in a sense, that everything that is, that all of the things of the world, including mental things, including mental qualities and spiritual qualities, are conditioned, are a product of various conditions.

[17:53]

And he's asking if emptiness can be constructed out of conditions. And he says even emptiness, even the concept of emptiness is itself empty. So emptiness is considered, so emptiness is, as I said last time, emptiness is not a thing. Emptiness is the way things are. Emptiness is the quality of form. Emptiness is the quality of all conditioned constructs. But even as each petal of those flowers is, empty of separate construction, of separate inherent identity, emptiness too is not a thing. So. Just the footnotes on that last exchange. Manjushri challenges Vimalakirti's use of the ultimate nature of emptiness, probing to see if Vimalakirti might be hypothesizing emptiness as something which could be constructed mentally or conceptualized.

[19:01]

Vimalakirti rejects that possibility, finally introducing the concept of emptiness of emptiness. That is, that emptiness is itself but a conceptual construction and, as such, is itself empty of substantial ultimate reality. Right. So emptiness is not a thing. Emptiness is not real anymore than anything else is real as a separate entity. So this is also talking about the mutual co-production of all things, the interrelation of all things. And it's that realm in which Vimalakirti is sick. But this point about his sickness coming from great compassion, he is manifesting his sickness as an opportunity to help develop all these beings who have come to his room. So his sickness is inherent in living in the world and is his way of helping to express the teaching and share the teaching and develop the teaching with the other beings who are calling on him.

[20:16]

So I want to skip down a little bit more. Malakirti says, Manjushri, I am sick only because the elements of living beings are disturbed by sicknesses. So, in a sense, he's sick because there is sickness in the world. Manjushri says, how should a Bodhisattva console another Bodhisattva who is sick? Why don't you read this section, Matt? Or does somebody else want to read for Malakirti? Somebody else want to read for Malakirti? He should tell him that the body is impermanent, but should not exhort him to renunciation or disgust. He should tell them that the body is miserable, but should not encourage him to find solace and liberation. That the body is selfless, but that living beings should be developed. That the body is peaceful, but not to seek any ultimate calm. He should urge him to confess his evil deeds, but not for the sake of absolution.

[21:23]

He should encourage his empathy for all of his own sickness, his remembrance of suffering experienced from beginningless time, and his consciousness of working for the welfare of living beings. He should encourage him not to be distressed, but to manifest the roots of virtue, to maintain the primal purity in the lack of craving, and thus to always strive to become the king of healers who can cure all sicknesses. Thus should a Bodhisattva in such a way as to make him happy. Good, thank you. I think there's a lot in this section. So, to tell another bodhisattva that the body is impermanent, but not to exhort renunciation or disgust. So, this is also a commentary in some ways on some of the attitudes of the monks or arhats who turn do practices to turn away disgust from the world.

[22:26]

So the Malakirti's whole position is not to turn away from disgust in the world, from the world. So to be sick and to see the impermanence of the body, to see the fragility of the body and of the physical and of the world without being disgusted by it or turning away from it or he's not involved in renunciation in that way. To not encourage the bodhisattvas to find solace and liberation, so not to get caught in emptiness, not to enter nirvana and turn away from the other suffering beings. So this is the direction of his bodhisattva attitude towards sickness. this line about he should urge them to confess evil deeds, but not for the sake of absolution.

[23:28]

So there's a kind of renunciation or confession here, but it's not in order to kind of get something. So to admit to being sick without trying to be cured, to just accept being one of the beings in the realm of suffering and in the realm of sickness. This is the way to be as a bodhisattva in that realm, to get dedicated to all beings. So he encourages the empathy for all living beings on account of his own sickness. Remembrance of suffering experienced from beginningless time and consciousness of working for the welfare of living beings. And he ends up by saying, thus should a bodhisattva console a sick bodhisattva in such a way as to make him happy. So this is happiness for the bodhisattva. I just don't understand exactly what they mean by, like in here it says, this is how Bodhisattva should comfort and instruct a Bodhisattva who is ill-suited.

[24:44]

This is the happiness of the bodhisattva, what he's describing here. So it also talks about not being... The actual description of it? Yeah. Like just describing it or like doing it? To actually follow these instructions is what is conducive of happiness in this bodhisattva realm. So to not be distressed in the midst of being sick. Well, I think it's kind of paradoxical, you know, because it focuses on being in this apparently miserable situation, being sick, realizing impermanence, confronting pain, realizing one does wrong and so forth and so on, and it's the condition of the bodhisattva to be happy there. Right. Not to turn away from the world. And that's how Bodhisattva gets happy.

[25:50]

But even to say it's miserable is a little bit too much. It's just the way it is. So he does not exhort the Bodhisattvas to renunciation or disgust. This is not a matter of disgust. This is where we live. This is just the world. Beings get sick. We get sick. We get old. We're going to die. It's also a real true advocation for the middle way. it's really what he's promoting here is to avoid all extremes and not be attached to those extremes and just sort of take this middle path. Right, not being caught in extremes of renunciation, not being caught in trying to avoid sickness either. So in a way you might see it as a koan, but do any of you see how there's a happiness there in living in sickness and not turning away from it. Sure, that would be great.

[26:51]

So I think part of the context for this though, it's interesting that this is mixed in with this room because what I want to focus on in these classes is the inconceivable aspects. So in addition to being a critic of of arhats, and in addition to being a philanthropist and a layman in the world, in addition to being an invalid, Himalakirti's a magician and a trickster and a teacher of the inconceivable. So he's, in all of these things, he's playing with our usual way of seeing things. So we think of of old age sickness and death as miserable, right? He's playing with our preconceptions about how we see our life and the world. And he's going to start doing this even more. And you know, the toe, Buddha's toe is just a kind of audre. Yes. Yeah. So are all these lives you lead as a leading businessman, are they all as if, as if illness is?

[28:05]

Yeah, I think, say that again. Are they all as if? in the same way that he's doing this, isn't he? As if, if anyone knows. Yeah, but he actually is ill. I mean, he actually is a businessman. He actually does go into the bars and taverns and help. He says he played as if ill. He manifested as if ill. Yeah, just like you were... He wasn't actually ill, but he manifested as if ill. That's right, and you are manifesting as if Martin. I don't know how Watson says that, but that's part of the teaching, that we all... Kirk is manifesting as if Kirk, and that flower is manifesting as if a flower. Manifestation is just the appearance, correct? Yeah, and it's real.

[29:10]

The terminology, so... It's real, but if we see it as a separate, inherent... fixed, mechanical kind of dead object that, you know, that's not what he's talking about. Isn't a manifestation more than an appearance, or not more than, but I mean its actual phenomenon is manifestation? It's phenomenal, yeah. and perform what my true self has to be. I need to be Vimalakirti who's ill, because that will help bring others to their true self by coming to see me as Vimalakirti, this O-guy, and then eventually they'll see their own true self in me and in themselves, and we'll all be our true selves, and it'll be really cool. It's a wonderful story, yeah. So, yes. Who, um... I like that as if, I mean, you know.

[30:23]

That's the tricky part. That's the trickster's part, I think. Yeah. The stage is set for this issue by Buddha's transformation of the appearance of the world. Yeah. As if a Buddha field, or as if full of shit, whichever you want to say. Yeah, Joel's shit. So Vimalakirti... So Manjushri asks... I'll read a little bit. Manjushri asks, how should a sick bodhisattva control her own mind? And Vimalakirti replies, Manjushri, this is at the top of 45 in Dharma, and a sick bodhisattva should control his own mind with the following consideration. Sickness arises from total involvement in the process of misunderstanding. from beginningless time." That's quite a statement, actually. It arises from the passions that result from unreal mental constructions. And hence, ultimately, nothing is perceived which can be said to be sick.

[31:24]

Why? The body is the issue of the four main elements, and in these elements there is no owner and no agent. There is no self in this body, and except for the arbitrary insistence on self, ultimately no I which can be said to be sick can be apprehended. Therefore, thinking I should not adhere to any self, and I should rest in the knowledge of the root of illness. The bodhisattva should abandon the conception of himself as a personality and produce the conception of himself as a thing, thinking this body is an aggregate of many things. When it is born, only things are born. When it ceases, only things cease." So this is to see that sickness is also an illusion. This is the as-if side. So he's manifesting as if sick and he's manifesting as if to malakirti. And the point of all this is going back to the sickness of the bodhisattva arises from great compassion. So the intention, the meaning of this is that he's putting on this show out of great compassion because he's willing to be sick for the sake of all these other illusory disciples and beings.

[32:38]

Yeah, this eliminates the as if. Thank you, Martha. In this way, the rich man, Vimalakirti, employed immeasurable numbers of expedient means in order to bring benefits to others. Using these expedient means, he made it appear that his body had fallen prey to illness. So we, a bodhisattva is sick as an expedient means. So this as if is to take on being taking some role as an expedient means to help other beings. That's the point of view of the Bodhisattva. Including death itself? Yeah. Oh yeah, definitely. I mean, the Buddha talks about, in the Lotus Sutra, about how he pretends to die for the sake of helping to educate beings. Yeah. Might be interpreting that the line, sickness arises from total involvement and the process of misunderstanding from the beginning of time, would be too literal to infer from that anything about the mind-body connection?

[33:47]

We're coming to the point now in medicine where we see a connection between mental process and manifestation of illness in the body, disease is dis-ease. Right, right. So, I mean, what he follows that with doesn't pertain to what I'm projecting or proposing, but that one line... Well, I think it does, actually. I mean, I think you're right, and I think the passions that result from unreal mental constructions are mental constructions contribute to our well-being or ill-being, you know. So yes, I think that certainly can be read into that. It makes sense to me. So I don't want to read the whole thing about the sickness, but maybe just point out that I think this is well worth reading in detail, but I do want to get to his room and the issues around that in chapter six.

[34:56]

Just a little bit more about what his suffering is and what his sickness is. just jumping around a little bit. What is the elimination of this sickness? It is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness. What is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness? It is the freedom from dualism. What is freedom from dualism? It is the absence of involvement with either the external or the internal. This is in the middle of 45 in Germany. So he's using his sickness as an education in emptiness. The last line in that paragraph, therefore one who sees such equality makes no difference between sickness and voidness. His sickness is itself voidness and that sickness as voidness is itself void. I don't know about the translation of void there because anyway this word emptiness is very tricky. I talked about this last time didn't I? Shunyata and alignment and that shunyata means dis-ease as you said.

[36:01]

I mean, no, I'm sorry, suffering, dukkha is dis-ease. And shunyata, emptiness, has to do with, again, with interconnectedness. But the point here is that he's using this opportunity of sickness, and the elimination of sickness is the elimination of egoism and possessiveness. So the sickness is kind of a metaphor for the condition of suffering. So he's taking on suffering thoroughly and he's the influence, he's suffering for all beings. and as a demonstration for all beings. Yes. I just wanted to remark that this is an astonishing long meditation instruction going step by step through the examination of self and objects. Right. And it doesn't require being sick to do it. That's right. Or we can acknowledge the sickness that we all are as we do it.

[37:06]

The fundamental sickness. Yeah, that's the level he's really talking about. It's a metaphor. But yeah, this is a very intricate and detailed meditation instruction which I recommend to you, and we can talk about it some more, but I want to talk about the Malakirti's expression of wonder and the inconceivable as kind of a cure. But Martin, you were ahead of time. is this whole philosophy, the use of vowel designations is itself void. Yes. So it's like a philosophy of the word, really. This whole teaching is an expedient means, of course, yes. And emptiness as a teaching is an expedient means. Emptiness is not a thing. Emptiness is a way of understanding something about our lives. Emptiness is not a real thing that exists out there somewhere else. Emptiness is about, is just a teaching about how we are.

[38:07]

And because it's words, it's empty. Right. And vice versa, yeah. It's just in general in my yarmulke philosophy there's a lot of, there's a good deal of focus on the issue of emptiness. certain areas are staked out, and emptiness is demonstrated in particular ways. So one of the fundamentally empty situations is things that arise dependent on something else. They are therefore empty by not having their own nature, because they arise only in dependence on something else. Anything that is a verbal designation of something then dependently co-arises, arises dependently upon that which it is a verbal designation of.

[39:07]

So all verbal designations are empty. So every time you can point out that something is a verbal designation, you can demonstrate shorthand, right away, just categorically, that it is by nature empty. Just leaping to that. And to talk about dependence and interdependence is another way of talking about the shunyata or emptiness. We are all interdependent, and therefore we are empty of inherent existence. This is the message again and again, but this meditation that he gives here, and that Manjushri is also an expert in giving, is a very detailed meditation instruction in how to really work with this and experience this. But the basic intention of it in the bottom of 43 is very clear, recognizing in his own suffering the infinite sufferings of these living beings. The Bodhisattva correctly contemplates these living beings and resolves to cure all sicknesses.

[40:09]

So that's a kind of clear statement of the intention that's operating here, to correctly contemplate the nature of all living beings and their interdependence and resolving to cure all sicknesses, that's through recognizing in her own suffering the sufferings of all beings. So there's a practical aspect of this. our own suffering, we can see how this is a reflection of how others are suffering too. When we see someone else suffering, we can empathize because we can see how that relates to our own suffering. And I think we can see that within all the beings within each of us too, within ourselves. So to be awakened to the truth of suffering is to resolve to cure all sicknesses, to really care and be concerned with illusory beings. And we can see how We can see how, just if you do it within yourself, to see some part of you that is wounded or hurt or suffering, and to see how that's illusory and conditioned and caused by various situations in your karma or life, whatever, and see how it's not essentially real, it's a product of various causes and conditions.

[41:28]

You can see in this that you want to make that better. or that you care about that, or even if you don't want to fix it, that you care. Just this impulse to caring. So what curing means here is an issue. Resolving to cural sicknesses, that's something that we can look at as the sutra progresses. But it has to do with seeing clearly what's going on. Yes? It's just a little confusing when you say that like a, I forget exactly what you said, but like some suffering is illusory. That sounds as if it was... Well, everything is illusory. I don't mean that it's not real. Yeah, like say somebody... Oh, wounds. Somebody's wounds. You know, somebody's been shot by a gun and then you say, oh, it's an illusion. The bullet hole is an illusion in a way that, you know, like you can think of illusion like... Okay, I meant illusory technically from the point of view of this kind of interdependence that any... any suffering or bad feeling.

[42:33]

I was thinking of it more in terms of psychological wounds, but even physical wounds. It's not something, by the steward's definition, it's not something that exists separate from other things in the world. It's a product of various causes and conditions. Therefore, it's not separately inherently existing. So how do we see, so in that sense, You could say illusory, you could just say it's part of the total interconnectedness. So illusory doesn't mean unreal, it's a different level of reality. But I want to get into some of the levels of reality beyond our usual ways of thinking about reality, because that's what Vimalakirti is talking about. So one of the things that happens in the beginning of this chapter is that Malakirti's house is empty and he welcomes Manjushri in. And then there's this dialogue that we've been kind of looking at. And I'm happy to talk about it more.

[43:40]

But, I mean, there's wonderful things in this chapter. But I want to jump, at least for a little bit, to the beginning of chapter six. Can we come back later to the other interesting things in this chapter? Absolutely. Yeah, in fact, we can come back, yeah, yes, yes. There's this wonderful thing at the bottom of 46, I'm sorry, I'm doing it right away. What is bondage and what is liberation? To indulge in liberation from the world without employing liberative technique is bondage for the bodhisattva. This little audio says it is not possible for one who is in self-bound to deliver others from their bondage. It's only possible if one who is in self-liberation is able to liberate others from their bondage. So when we come to classes here, in what discourse are we trying to entertain here? We're trying to study the Dharma together and figure out what this is about. In bondage.

[44:42]

Yeah? And bondage and in liberation. All of it jewels and chips. Well, coming from this place of great compassion towards all living beings, yeah, and that's wonderful, Kevin. We can return to you for our kind of emblematic statement of the reality of this class. Just as my sickness is unreal and non-existent, so the sickness of all living beings are unreal and non-existent. So that's also how a sick bodhisattva sees it. So we see our bondage as unreal, yet we don't try and get rid of our bondage. We don't try and run away from our bondage. We don't get caught up in our bondage by fighting against the ropes. Through such considerations, he arouses the great compassion toward all living beings without falling into any sentimental compassion.

[45:46]

So I mean, we could spend the rest of the five weeks just talking about what he means by sentimental compassion. So to see clearly. So there's this dynamic in Buddhism between compassion and wisdom. And that's what I'm trying to point out here, that in a way, the tone of the opening discourse of the sutra is wisdom, and throughout there's this wisdom teaching of emptiness, seeing into the essence of all things, seeing how there is not an inherent self, seeing the illusory quality of reality, seeing interconnectedness. But there's also compassion operating as the moving vehicle for this, the concern for beings. Compassion without the wisdom is sentimental compassion. Compassion that is caring for beings without actually doing the work of looking and seeing how we create this together is sentimental compassion.

[46:49]

So how do we move beyond sentimental compassion or, you know, the other side that he was warning about before is not getting caught in emptiness, not getting caught in wisdom, not getting stuck in liberation, but coming back. So there's, what would be, there's enslaving liberation too. There's getting caught in the pit of liberation. So if you, and that's partly what he's criticizing with the Arhats, because they are, in a sense, liberated. They have purified themselves of defilements, personally. But because they're not engaged, because Simola Kirti sees it in some subtle ways, they're not engaged in actually fully dedicating themselves to extending themselves to all beings, that's an uncompassionate wisdom. So there's a balancing here. of compassion and wisdom, and there's an exploration of what is wisdom, and there's the continual reminder that this project of investigating wisdom is motivated by compassion for the illusory beings, including oneself, but not excluding others, or the imagined others.

[48:03]

So, this is In a sense, that's enough. I mean, that's just to study how wisdom operates and what is insight. So wisdom, the English word wisdom implies kind of some body of knowledge. I talked about this some last week, I think, but another word for this prajna is insight, to see into the reality of things. So Manjushri is usually depicted as a young prince, 16-year-old often. because this wisdom is not a product of learning. This wisdom is not a product of lots of knowledge. This wisdom is something that comes up in samadhi. So this is why we talk about this in the meditation schools. This wisdom is something that we have already. It's not something that we have to acquire. It's something that we look within and we investigate. There's work to do in terms of fully interacting with wisdom, or fully expressing wisdom, or fully delving into wisdom.

[49:19]

But it's not something that we get from somewhere else. It's not something you get from outside. It's inside. So it's to see into the nature of things, which is empty and connected and not separate. And all of our feelings of being isolated and alienated are the coverings and delusions which hamper us from seeing this fundamental wisdom. But then that wisdom by itself is not enough without the compassion. We have to actually get sick, in a sense, and see how we're suffering. Does that make sense? My comment and a question. The comment is that I looked up Prajna in a Sanskrit dictionary. It appears that the Pra, as you know, is knowledge, and pra has some meaning of previous or prior to.

[50:20]

Thank you. So it's inherent knowledge, inherent wisdom. There is knowledge as a practice in bodhisattva practice too, but that's the knowledge after wisdom. It's not knowledge that one acquires in order to get wisdom. Wisdom is there. Wisdom is something we already have that we have to uncover. Which is why Manjushri is this young punk. He doesn't need to go to school. So the question is, on page 48, In an extension of Vimalakirti's discussion of how a sick bodhisattva conducts herself, Vimalakirti gives various instructions. One of them is, where one knows the four holy truths, yet does not realize those truths at the wrong time.

[51:28]

And this is part of a few instructions about not doing things at the wrong time or something like that. But Nin and San, earnestly, would like to know how you understand this, not realizing the four holy truths at the wrong time. What does that mean, at the wrong time? Well, I'll give a provisional response now, and I may have more to say about it at some other time, but all of these things about not doing these practices, these wonderful noble practices at the wrong time, has to do with the side of non-sentimental compassion, to see all the sick beings as they are and to respond appropriately to all of them. So this is why the Malakirti goes into all of these different situations. himself and knows how to be the best at each of those situations and to respond to the needs of the beings in those situations.

[52:34]

So everybody has a certain kind of... Each of us at different times and each of us at the same time have different spiritual tendencies and needs and confusions and sicknesses. So to emphasize the truth of suffering when one is... So, you know, the Four Noble Truths are the truth that there is dissatisfaction, that the world is dissatisfactory, that there is that dis-ease. And then the fact that there's an end, the fact that there's a cause to that is the second one, the fact that there's an end to that. And then the fourth is the way to live so as to be conducive towards the end of suffering, the end of that disease. And for someone who has already seen that there's an end to suffering, to keep emphasizing suffering might be a misapplication of the teaching, is one example.

[53:42]

For someone who has not yet really faced the fact that life is unsatisfactory, to tell them, well, there's an end to suffering, don't worry about it, you know, before they've even aroused compassion, that would be an inappropriate use of that teaching. Does that make sense? Okay, thank you. Any other questions about Chapter 5? Okay, I do want to talk about this, about the Malkiti's Doksonglin, because it's the name for the abbots in the Zen school, and it's, We can talk about this more next time, although I want to get into the goddess thing next time. By the way, I said last week that there'd be five classes. I can't be here for the sixth class, but it may be that I could be here the following week. Would people be interested in having a sixth class? I think it's the 17th, so we'd skip the sixth week. Would people be interested in that? Okay, well maybe we can do that.

[54:44]

in terms of scheduling and if there's something else going on. Anyway, so if we don't get, you know, I don't feel like we have to cover everything and we're not going to in this sutra, but I did want to get into the doksangha. Beginning of chapter six, All of this discussion about emptiness and wisdom and sickness has been going on between Manjushri and Vimalakirti and ostensibly all these other beings who follow Manjushri are there watching and listening to this. Somebody wrote it down so we can read it. And then it's explicit, Shariputra is one of these, disciple Shariputra is one of these people witnessing this and in this room, And they all seem to have managed to fit into this room of the Malakirtis, and we'll find out that it's a pretty small room. Actually, it's about a quarter of the size of this room. Anyway, Shariputra has the thought at the beginning of Chapter 6, there's not even a single chair in this house.

[55:50]

Where are all these disciples and bodhisattvas going to sit? And Vimalakirti reads the thought of the venerable Shariputra and says, Reverend Shariputra, did you come here for the sake of the Dharma or did you come here for the sake of a chair? And Shariputra replies, I came for the sake of the Dharma, not for the sake of a chair. Does he sound hurt there? I don't know. I do want to get into acting some of this out and taking parts here, but I'm going to go a little further first before we... And he might sound hurt. I think Shariputra is kind of... Shariputra is... More things happen to Shariputra in the sutra than you can imagine. We'll see next week some more of them. Reverend Shariputra, Himalakirti continues, he who is interested in the dharma is not interested even in his own body, much less in a chair. Reverend Shariputra, he who is interested in the dharma has no interest in matter, sensation, intellect, motivation, or consciousness.

[56:54]

The five standards for those of you He has no interest in these aggregates or in the elements or in the sense media. Interested in the Dharma, he has no interest in the realm of desire, the realm of matter, or the immaterial realm. These are all kind of conventional Buddhist teachings about the constituent makeups of the world and the universe. Interested in the Dharma, he is not interested in attachment to the Buddha, attachment to the Dharma, or attachment to the Sangha. Reverend Shariputra, he was interested in the Dharma, is not interested in recognizing suffering, abandoning its origination, realizing its cessation, or practicing the path. So this is the Four Noble Truths. So this is like the Heart Sutra right here. Do you hear it? He's saying no to all of the conventional teachings that Shariputra and all the disciples are steeped in. He's saying, if you're interested in the Dharma, you're not interested in those teachings, okay? And this is quite radical. This is an early Mahayana sutra, and he's just said, Malakirti is saying, no, if you're really interested in the Dharma, you're not interested in those conventional teachings, traditional teachings.

[57:58]

Why? And Malakirti continues, the Dharma is ultimately without formulation and without verbalization. Who verbalizes, suffering should be recognized, origination should be eliminated, cessation should be realized, the path should be practiced, is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in verbalization. So he's just verbalized the Four Noble Truths and said, if you're interested in that, you're not really interested in the Dharma. You're just interested in talking. The Reverend Shariputra, the Dharma is calm and peaceful. Those who are engaged in production and destruction are not interested in the Dharma, are not interested in solitude, but are interested in production and destruction. Furthermore, Reverend Shariputra, the Dharma is without taint and free of defilement. He was attached to anything, even to liberation. is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in the tainted desire. The Dharma is not an object." You can underline that one. He who pursues objects is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in objects.

[59:04]

The Dharma is without acceptance or rejection. He who holds on to things or lets go of things is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in the holding and letting go. And he's really cutting through every possible attachment here. The Dharma is not a secure refuge. He who enjoys a secure, comfortable refuge is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in refuge and security. The Dharma is without sign. He whose consciousness pursues signs is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in signs. So if you're interested in finding some sign or mark or You know, this is what the Dharma is. That's not the Dharma. That's just you're wanting to hold on to some definition or identification of what it is. The Dharma is not a society. He who seeks to associate with the Dharma is not interested in the Dharma, but is interested in association. So if you think the Dharma is community and you want to come and find a nice community to be secure in, that's interesting community.

[60:05]

That's not interested in the Dharma. The dharma is not a sight, a sound, a category, or an idea. He who is involved in sight, sounds, categories, and ideas is not interested in the dharma, but is interested in those things. Reverend Sariputra, the dharma is free of compounded things and uncompounded things. He who adheres to compounded things and uncompounded things is not interested in the dharma, but interested in adhering. Thereupon, Reverend Sariputra, if you are interested in the dharma, you should take no interest in anything. So he's pretty much blown away shortly by this. That's why nobody wants to see this. But when Vimalakirti had spoken this discourse to Shariputra, 500 gods obtained the purity of the dharma eye in viewing all things.

[61:13]

So there are all these gods who are hanging out watching all this. Then, okay, this is, then it really gets good. Then Vimalakirti turns to the Crown Prince Manjushri. Manjushri, you have already been in innumerable hundreds of thousands of Buddha fields throughout the universes of the ten directions. In which Buddhafield did you see the best lion thrones with the finest qualities? Where do they have the best chairs? So, you know, the guy wants a chair. Okay, he's going to get the chair. Lajashri applies. Noble Sariputra crosses the Buddhafields to the east, which are more numerous than all the grains of sand of 32 Ganges rivers and so forth. There's this universe called Merud Bhaja. What does Watson have the translation of some of this? Anybody following this in Watson? There's a Tathagata, a Buddha there, called Merupadiparaja. Anyway, I think I looked at it. It wasn't that interesting. And then it goes on to describe the body of this Buddha, which is 8,400,000 leagues in height.

[62:14]

And the height of his throne is 6,800,000 leagues. The Bodhisattvas there are 4,200,000 leagues tall and their own thrones are 3,400,000 leagues. Noble sir, Manjushri says to Vimalakirti, the finest and most superb thrones exist in that universe. At that moment, Vimalakirti, having focused himself in Samadhi, performed a miraculous feat such that this Buddha, Meruparajah, in the universe Merudvaja sent to this universe 3200,000 thrones. These thrones were so tall, spacious and beautiful that the Bodhisattvas, great disciples, Shakras, Brahmas, Lokapalas, all the gods and goddesses that are hanging around there had never before seen the like of these thrones. And they descended from the sky and came to rest. They all came to rest. These, how many are there? There's 3200,000 thrones all came to rest in the house of the Malakirti.

[63:15]

Oh, I found one. Yeah. He lies in a world called Sumeru Shape, and it's Buddha named Sumeru Lamp King. Sumeru Lamp King. So Sumeru is the, in all Buddhist cosmology, is the mountain that's at the center of the universe. Anyway, all of these chairs, they arranged themselves in the Malakirti's room without crowding, and the house seemed to enlarge itself accordingly. The great city of Aishali, where all this is happening, did not become obscured. Neither did the whole land of India, nor of the world of the four continents. Everything else appeared just as it was before, and yet all these immense thrones are in this little room of the Malakirti. Then the Malakirti says to the young prince Manjushri, let the Bodhisattvas be seated on these thrones, having transformed their bodies to a suitable size. then those Bodhisattvas who had obtained the super-knowledge transformed their bodies to a height of 4200,000 leagues and sat down.

[64:19]

But the beginner Bodhisattvas were not able to transform themselves to sit upon the throne. So Vimalakirti taught these beginner Bodhisattvas a teaching that enabled them to attain the five super-knowledges and having attained them, they transformed their bodies to a suitable height and sat down on their thrones. But still the great disciples were not able to seat themselves upon the thrones. And Tumala Kirti then turns to Sariputra and says, Reverend Sariputra, take your seat upon the throne. And Sariputra says, good sir, the thrones are too big and too high and I cannot sit upon them. And Tumala Kirti says, Reverend Sariputra, bow down to the Tathagata, Meruparadi Paraja, and you will be able to take your seat. And that happens. So this is the beginning of the unfolding of Vimalakirti as magician and trickster. Shariputra says, Shariputra is a great straight man.

[65:22]

He says, noble sir, it is astonishing that these thousands of thrones so big and so high should fit into such a small house. That the great city of Vaishali, the villages, cities, kingdoms, and continents, the abodes of the gods, and so forth, that all of these should appear without any obstacle, just as they were before. even with all these thrones. And Vimalakirti replies, Reverend Shariputra, for the Tathagatas and the Bodhisattvas, there is a liberation called inconceivable. So this is what I wanted to talk about in this class, this liberation called inconceivable. Now, of course, in a sense, this assumes that we've all mastered wisdom and compassion. And Martin, your point's well taken. Of course, we're still all in bondage. And yet, we have this wonderful story here. So we're going to read it anyway. The bodhisattva who lives in inconceivable liberation can put the king of mountains, Sumeru, which is so high, so great, so noble, and so vast, into a mustard seed. He can perform this feat without enlarging the mustard seed and without shrinking Mount Sumeru.

[66:26]

So this is the realm of the inconceivable liberation. And he does so without disturbing the gods. without disturbing anybody. And in fact, there are descriptions of this in which he says a little further on, Reverend Shariputra, I have shown you only a small part of the entrance into the domain of the Bodhisattva who lives in inconceivable liberation. Reverend Shariputra, to explain to you the teaching of the full entrance into the domain of the Bodhisattva who lives in the inconceivable liberation would require more than an eon and even more than that. I mean, this belies the idea that enlightenment is nothing special, as I think Robert Thurman pointed out in his talk. We talk about nothing special, and yet we evoke this extraordinary pantheon of beings and gods and chairs and seats.

[67:29]

Right. So this is a good question to look at this with, because based on the story about the Both are simultaneously happening. So one of the things about all these cheers appearing, and we're going to read more stories. I mean, we're just starting to get into this. So these amazing, miraculous tricks, inconceivable visions that Vimalakirti inspires, it's like the Buddha touching his toe to the ground and we see Green Gulch Valley as beautiful and full of jewels and wondrous and the frogs are singing to us. We can see the world that way. And we take our toe off and we see it the other way. So what's the relationship between nothing special, between, you know, Suzuki Roshi said, the world is its own magic. So how do we see this?

[68:33]

So this is quite an ornate, elaborate depiction of Bodhisattva, this great Bodhisattva Pantheon. What does this have to do with our own ordinary lives? I think that's actually the way to read this. Okay? Yes, Story. Well, it seems by looking at things in this extreme way that it makes the lesson more realizable. Because what he's talking about is as simple as me changing scenery, walking out the door. And it's about the mind being able to accept what changes within perception and not be affected, not sway. That's to believe. Does that make sense? I don't know, except for maybe the last part. So to try and hold on to any stability is also not part of it.

[69:36]

The stability is just in the intention to help all beings, including oneself. Right, but not pointing out the change, not leaving and pretending. Right. So a big part of this is to dispel our usual conventional ways of looking at the world. to see different, to transform our way of looking at the world, to see other possibilities of looking at the world, just to get unstuck from the ways we define what the world is. It's like, for those of you who've sat at Sashin, and you know, sometime on the fifth day you come out of the Zendo, and you know, what century is this? Well, it might be the 20th century, and who knows? You know, it's like, when one is not telling the world what it should be when it may see more of what's possible. So there are all these other realms which are implicit in this vision.

[70:42]

There are lots of different ways to look at this. So one of the questions as you're reading this is, well, how do you read this material? It's a good story. It's entertaining. And I think maybe that's the best level to read it on. you know, without trying to get anything out of it, but just, you know, read it and enjoy it as literature and see what that does to how you see the world. But also, as you pointed out, Martin, to look at it in terms of what does this have to do with ordinary, you know, everyday mind. Yes? or whatever, for them to do that to them, that's nothing special. Just like for us to walk from this room out to the outside and have this complete change of scenery, which really is pretty intense, nothing special, because we do it every day. These guys in Bodhisattva are like, well, I'll just change myself in 80,000 weeks.

[71:47]

Right. And to the frogs in the pond, to get into a car and drive up to the top of the, you know. And to anybody even to Any monk who studied this 100 years ago, to be studying this at night with electric lights, where's that at? In a way, this is easier for us to use as teaching because we're living in an age where our conventional view of the way things are has been unsettled a lot within our own experience already. In a sense, though, this is ordinary mind. This is our ordinary world. This is our secret life. Yeah, it is. I'm wondering also to what extent they're actually talking about an experience that has been referred to, I don't know the name of the book, but...

[72:54]

that there is an experience that can be had, that does arise in the cushion unasked for, that would actually be poetically described in this way. Right. And let me go a little further. I was going to… I mean, I'm just barely getting into the stuff I wanted to talk about, about this room, that they're in here. So let me just throw some more stuff at you and we'll talk about it more next time and we'll get it started on the Goddess next time. Mahakasyapa is another one of the great disciples of the Buddha who gets all upset because he sees this inconceivable liberation of the bodhisattvas and realizes that he's only an arhat and that he can't partake of this. This is on page 54 and 55 of Thurman. I just wanted to, you know, there's this wonderful capping phrase at the end of this chapter, before I start talking about the doksanru, So the Malakirti kind of reassures Mahakasyapa. Mahakasyapa, by the way, is the first sent ancestor after Shakyamuni, right?

[74:03]

Who's here, just another one of the, you know, lowly disciples. Why is he an ara as opposed to a bodhisattva? Well, he's also a bodhisattva. That's part of it. That actually is what I'm going to talk about right now. The last paragraph in this chapter, Reverend Mahakasyapa, just as a glowworm cannot eclipse the light of the sun, so Reverend Mahakasyapa, it is not possible without special allowance that an ordinary person can thus attack and deprive a bodhisattva. So the context of this is talking about all the beings who tempted and importune. Yes, the Bodhisattvas. Reverend Mahakasyapa, just as a donkey could not muster an attack on a wild elephant, even so, Reverend Mahakasyapa, one who is not himself a Bodhisattva cannot hassle another Bodhisattva. Only one who is himself a Bodhisattva can harass another Bodhisattva, and only a Bodhisattva can tolerate the harassment of another Bodhisattva.

[75:07]

This is well worth studying. Reverend Mahakasyapa, such is the introduction to the power of the knowledge of liberative technique of the bodhisattvas who live in the inconceivable liberation. So the fact that Mahakasyapa and even Shariputra are being harassed by this bodhisattva in Malakirti means that they're also bodhisattvas, you know. Okay. And anybody who Anybody who hassles another bodhisattva is a bodhisattva, and anybody who can be hassled by a bodhisattva is also a bodhisattva. So we're all here, okay? It's okay. We don't have to worry about who is and who isn't. Once you just hear about this stuff, we're in the room, and sorry, you have to deal with this inconceivable liberation. And one of the things about this room, okay, In the 7th century in China, as I talked about how popular the sutra was, so the sutra was very popular in China and the emperor sent an envoy to India to find the remains of the house of the Malakirti, where all this had happened.

[76:14]

And he went to northern India and the Indian Buddhists said, oh, we want to see where Malakirti was. And they showed him some ruins and he measured the ruins and it was fang zhang, it was ten square Zhangs, which is basically it's 10 square feet. It's almost identical. In Japanese, that's called Hojo. So this is the size of this room, this house, which Malakirti lived in, that all these thrones were in, that all these. Now, you know, we can think about, see, the Indians always have these, Indian Buddhists in India, Indian philosophy in general liked to use these huge, mind-blowing mathematical terms, and I'm sure they saw this as allegory, and they weren't so concerned with lineage or history. India's never kept track of history very much. The Chinese, however, were very concerned with history and lineage, and basically took whatever they could find out about the various Indian teachers, and we have these names we recite every morning here.

[77:21]

from Makasho, Makashapa to Wadidharma. Anyway, so the Chinese envoy measured this room and it was found out that it was 10 square feet. And ever since then, the abbot of a monastery in their house is, their quarters is called the Banzhang or the Hojo in Japanese. And all Japanese to this day, one of the main words, the names it's used for abbots of 10 temples is Hojo, Hojo-san. So, Hojo is Suzuki Roshi when he comes here. Suzuki Roshi's son visits here sometimes and he's referred to as Hojo-san. That's from the Malakirti's room. And the Doksan room, the room of the abbot, is considered to be Hojo. And some of the Hojos in Japanese temples are quite large and elaborate, but the basic name for it and the image for it is this room. And So this is a very important part. So I'm going to talk more about this in some of the literature that developed around this room.

[78:25]

And this all directly comes from the Vimalakirti Sutra. So the abbots are called Hojo-san, and their quarters are called Hojo, and it's from this room, the size of this room that Vimalakirti was in. And if you think about what Shariputra went through so far and what he's going to go through when we read the next chapter, and the reluctance of the bodhisattvas. The whole model for the Zen teaching, in a way you can see, I don't know, some of you may have experienced reluctance to go into the room and meet the teacher. But that's also where the Dharma comes forth. So this is really an important model for teaching in our own tradition. So we don't use these Japanese names, but Suzuki Roshi, who founded this temple, was called Hojo-san. by Japanese people. So this is very close to us. So there's a whole history and a whole tradition in East Asia, in Zen, and not just in Zen, of kind of hermit monks.

[79:30]

Ryokan, he had a little hut. It was probably pretty close to a hojo in terms of size. And some of the Japanese abbots, some of the temples I was at in Japan, their quarters are actually that size, still. Some of them have many rooms with for visiting teachers and dignitaries and so forth also. But those are also called hojo. And there's the Song of the Grass Hut, which I'll read a little bit of next time, by Shuto Sekito, our ancestor. Who will sing it to us? Well, I don't know the tune. Karen will sing it to us. Anyway, it's in the back, Cultivating the Empty Field. And then there's the wonderful Hojoki, which is one of the great classics of Japanese spiritual literature, which was written by, there's a translation by Burton Watson, there are others, but it was written by a man who lived contemporary with Dogen, a little older, lived in the late 12th century, and he actually lived in such a hut.

[80:32]

So there's this long tradition of kind of spiritual people, he wasn't a monk, so of practitioners living in these little huts based on this this legend, this relic that this Chinese envoy found in India, which may have, you know, we don't know. The scholars, of course, would say that the Malakirti never existed, and it's just a Mahayana myth, just like all these other great shares and everything. But maybe I'll close by reading just the beginning of the record of the 10-foot square hut by Kamonotsume. The river flows on unceasingly, but the water is never the same water as before. bubbles that bob on the surface of the still places disappear one moment to reappear again the next but they seldom endure for long and so it is with the people of this world and with the houses they live in. And then he goes on actually he describes a whole series of terrible calamities that happened in Kyoto in the late 12th century, in the early 13th century.

[81:38]

Whirlwinds and famines and earthquakes and fires and all this miserable, and wars, all this stuff going on. And then at some point, and he describes his own experience of moving to smaller and smaller quarters and trying to find a place where he could, you know, live peacefully. Now that I've reached the age of sixty, when life fades as quickly as dew, I've put together a lodging for my final days. I'm like a traveler who prepares shelter for one night or an aging silkworm spinning its cocoon. The size is not even one hundredth of that of the house where I lived in middle age. You might say that, as my years have grown in number, my houses have grown smaller and My present place is quite unlike any ordinary dwelling. It measures only 10 feet square and less than 7 feet in height. Since I never thought of it as a permanent residence, I did not divine to see whether this site was auspicious or not. It has a dirt foundation, a simple roof of thatch, and the joints are held together with metal fastenings.

[82:40]

This is so that if I decide I don't like this spot, I can easily move it. It would be no trouble at all to take it apart and put it together again. Two carts would hold it all with no other expense nor labor to pull the carts. Anyway, it's a wonderful little writing. But this whole kind of approach to practice and spiritual aesthetic comes out of this image of Vimalakirti's room. But also, you might consider the reluctance of the Bodhisattvas and the power of meeting with a teacher or meeting with someone like Vimalakirti and that model. Next time, we'll talk a little more about the room. what goes on there, but we'll also get into the next chapter, chapter seven, and the Malakirti's colleague in magic and mischief, and this is this goddess who lives in the Malakirti, this goddess Bodhisattva, so that's chapter seven for next time.

[83:44]

Any last questions or comments? Thank you.

[83:57]

@Transcribed_v004
@Text_v005
@Score_86.91