In the realm of thinking, there's a thought that I wonder if running the tape recorder during periods of silence is helpful to people. I don't know if the tape recorder picks up the sound of the stream, If someone listens to the tape and hears the silence and the sound of the stream, I hope that that is helpful. I hope it's worth the electricity that runs the tape recorder and the expense of buying the tape. I hope that studying the self is helpful to set people free from I hope that studying the self may

[01:38]

reach a point where the students of studying the self realize the lack of inherent existence of this self, and not only understand the lack of inherent existence of the self, but also understand the conventional existence of the self. I hope that becoming more skillful in the presentation of emptiness aids the presentation of conventional objects. I hope that developing skill in the presentation of conventional objects aids the presentation

[02:51]

and realization of emptiness. So the master of the school of emptiness, Fahyin, asked the superintendent How come he never came and asked about the Buddha Dharma? And Director Tsu, I cannot deceive you, sir. When I was studying with the Zen master Ching Fung, In the booklet record it says, Ching Lin, the place of ease and joy in the Buddha Dharma.

[04:03]

Fa Yan said, With what words did you enter this understanding? And Director Tse said, When I asked Ching Fung, what is the self of this student, he said, the fire god is here to look for fire. That's a good statement, but I'm afraid perhaps you don't understand it. Could you say a little bit more to help me? Before I go on, I just want to say, please notice what the emptiness master

[05:19]

Feng said, when asked, what is the self of this student, of this Zen student, he said, he was here to look for fire. What is the self of this student? The fire god is here to look for fire. What did he say the self was?

[06:23]

Did he say that the self existed inherently? Did he say that the self lacked inherent existence? Did he say that the self lacked inherent existence? but still had some mere existence? Did he affirm the nominal existence of the self and not affirm the inherent existence

[07:26]

and thus avoid the extreme view of permanence and eternalism? Did he refute the inherent existence of the self and not refute the mere existence of the self and thus avoid the extreme of annihilationism? Did he give the middle way response to the question, what is the self of this student? What is the self of the student? Did he give back pure, ungraspable light? Fa Yan thought that he did.

[08:44]

Thought that he responded in the middle way. Good words, but I'm afraid you didn't understand. So then the director tried to explain. The fire god belongs to fire. So, I understand that fire looks for fire, and self looks for self. Ayan said, Yes, indeed. He did not understand. If Buddhadharma were like that, it would not have been transmitted up till now. Then the director, Tsu, was distracted. and angry and went away. But as he was walking down the road away from the monastery, he thought to himself, the master is a renowned teacher of emptiness.

[09:51]

Throughout the country, students have gathered to study with him, perhaps to his criticism of me. So he went back to Faya and apologized. and asked for further instruction. Fa Yan said, Ask me your question. Dr. Tse said, What is the self of this student? Fa Yan said, The fire god is here to look for fire. Upon hearing this statement, Shren Tse had a great realization of Buddha Dharma. To me, it's rather interesting that when this story was told in the Blue Cliff Record, it sounded different

[11:10]

In the booklet record, the director is recounting his interchange with Master Ching Fung. He said, I asked Master Ching Fung, what is Buddha instead of what is the self? What is Buddha? And Master Ching Fung said, The fire god is here to look for fire. Some people might think, oh, what is Buddha is the same question as what is the self. Well, kind of it is. What is that? What is X? What is X? What is X? The fire god is here to look for fire.

[12:24]

Does that work for all X's? Yes, it does. What is X? Well? What is the self of X? Well? If I don't want to mislead people, then I have to say something like, the ancestors, the fire god is here to look for fire. To answer that question, what is X, or what is the self of X, then I want to refute.

[13:30]

But if I want to tell you, or tell myself and you at the same time, what something is, I want to refute, I want to say, I want to negate that it has an inherent existence, that it has its own existence, that it has a non-dependent existence. I want to say, no, that's not what it is. But I doubt that it has a designated existence, namely, it's X. Didn't I say X? Matter of fact, I went out of my way to say X. So you'd know that I was talking about X, that I was speaking of X. I could even say all Xs. I designated all Xs. So I don't want to refute that because that would be nonsense. Because that's what I'm talking about. And matter of fact, I want to affirm.

[14:38]

When I'm talking about this, actually ask me to affirm. Well, X has got this name, X. And I want to affirm, I don't want to affirm that X has got its own inherent existence. I don't want to affirm that. I do want to refute that, and I want to refute that. That's what I want to say about X, all Xs. In short, the fire god is here to look for fire. But even though I don't want to mislead people, I do want to test people. So I say a fire god is here seeking fire. So we can see if you would like to elaborate on that, would like to get conceptually involved with that, or whether you'd just as soon wake up.

[15:38]

He heard it. The fire god is here to look for fire. He heard it and he... What did he do? He didn't just avoid the extreme of eternalism and avoid the extreme of annihilation, avoid the extreme of everything does not exist and avoid the extreme of everything exists. He didn't just avoid all views and just face the music. He figured, well, the fire god is in the realm of the fire, and therefore the fire god is, you know, even though the fire god is in the realm of the fire, and the self, even though it's the self, is seeking the self. And he had insight, because he's so smart. The second time, however, he did not do that. He just woke up. to what the self is, or to what Buddha is.

[16:46]

What is Buddha, by the way? The Fire God is here to look for fire. Who are you? Who am I? The Fire God is here to look for fire. Now this comment, this little story, this nice story about Fa Yan and the director, to another story about Fa Yan. This story goes like this. A monk named Hui Zhao said to Fa Yan, Hui Chao asks, what is Buddha? Fa Yan says, you are Hui Chao.

[17:58]

Can you see that that answer refutes the inherent existence of Buddha? Can you see that? What is Buddha? You are David. Do you see that that answer refutes the inherent existence of Buddha? Did you see that? See it? No? You must. You see the inherent, when I say, if you say, what is Buddha? And I say, you are Brian. Did I just talk about the inherent existence of Buddha? No. I'm telling you what Buddha is. Buddha is, you are Brian. I'm not saying Buddha is Brian. I'm not saying the inherent existence of Buddha is Brian. I didn't say that. I said you are Brian, because you are, right? That's your name, right? That's your nominal... That's your... Brian.

[19:21]

You are Brian. You ask me what Buddha is, I say you are Brian. Did I refute the inherent existence of Buddha if you ask me what is Buddha? I mean to, did I? I'm not saying I proved it. I'll just say I negate it. I say, no, Buddha is not, doesn't have some inherent existence. Obviously, I'm just talking about your name. You ask me, I'll tell you your name. So, nobody thinks that the inherent existence of Buddha is name. No. But I don't refute the mere designation You are David. You ask me what Buddha is? I affirm the mere designation of Buddha.

[20:26]

You are David. You are Wei Chao. You are Brian. I affirm that, but I don't affirm the inherent existence of Buddha. Emptiness is freedom from elaboration of duality. Emptiness is freedom from elaboration of non-dependence. Duality is non-dependence. Duality is you and me. rather than I depend on you. I depend on you implies that we each lack inherent existence.

[21:34]

Emptiness is you and me. Emptiness is freedom from elaborations of our non-dependence. Usually we are spending some time elaborating on dependence. Usually we're elaborating on inherent existence. Please notice that the masters of emptiness are able to present words.

[23:06]

Fa yin's mastery of the emptiness of all phenomena, the lack of inherent existence of everything, allows us to use conventional expressions. A monk asked him, What is one drop from the font of Tsao-Chi? Tsao-Chi is the temple of the Six Ancestors. What is one drop from the font of the Six Ancestors' temple? And Fa Yan said, It is one drop from the font of the Six Ancestors Temple.

[24:11]

The monk who asked the question was and withdrew. However, in that assembly was another monk named Da Shao, later known as National Teacher Da Shao. When he heard that, he was greatly enlightened. Fa Yan, understanding emptiness, prevent conventional objects. It is one drop from the font of Tsao-Chi. Hearing that conventional object, the future national teacher was greatly awakened.

[25:20]

He's the same person who wrote the verse in Case 32. Crossing the summit of the mystic peak. It's not the human world. Outside the mind there are blue mountains. Filling the eyes are blue mountains. If you're studying the self, then maybe you could ask, what is the self of this student? If the answer is the fire god is here looking for fire, what is your way now?

[26:34]

Are you in the middle hearing that? When you hear that, are you now in the middle? When you said, what is the self of the student, where did that question come from? Did you ask that question? Well, none of you asked that question, so I guess it's too hypothetical. But if you would ask a question like that, what would you be depending on at the moment of asking? Can you imagine what you might be dependent on? Perhaps somebody should ask the question. What are you depending on at the moment of asking that question? What does that question depend on?

[27:39]

Everything. Everything? Yes. Would you care to tell us what you mean by everything? I asked? Did it depend on me asking? Is that what you're saying? Okay, so what's that? Me asking. What's that for you? From the place the question came from, what's this business about, you know, you asked, what is that? For you, what is that? For the nominal you, hey, Vicki, you, what was that? It was a request. Yes, and what was that request for Vicky, for the nominal thing, the nominal self? What was that request? Well, while she's thinking, what's the answer?

[28:45]

Huh? What kind of conventional reality? Self-ignorance is not conventional reality. What? Designated what? What was that? She said that. What is it? It's a sound. Wasn't it a sound? It's a sound. Everything. We got everything. So everything. What is everything? You know, sounds, right? That was a sound, right? Or maybe you saw my body going. Maybe it was a sight and a sound. So it was that. What else was it besides a sound? In other words, it was a skanda. Wasn't it? The first skanda was involved here in this. She was relying... Her question, the question, what is the self of the Zen student, was dependent on sound. What else was it dependent on? Language, yeah.

[29:49]

Hearing, yes. What else? What? Formations. Formations. She could tell us what formations, but we know there must probably be... What else? Consciousness. Yes. What else? What? Feelings. Feelings, yeah. What else? Concepts. Perceptions, concepts. Were any of the skandhas missing probably for you, Vicki, when that question was asked? Probably not. Probably not. So probably depending on when this question was asked. Most... And in addition to the usual, there was me asking somebody to ask it, which is part of it too. But just any old time, any old thoughts gone as you've got, you could ask any time, any place, no matter what's going on, you could say, well, what is the self? you ask wouldn't that is it can you conceive of is it possible is it reasonable does any scripture say you think actually is possible or do you have any kind of experience that you could ever ask that question what is the self of this person of this student could you ever ask that question without relying on this just nonsense you're always like got five skandhas there that you're asking the question relying on that right

[31:09]

There's always an experience, and the experience is five skandhas. Unless you're in some special trance, words are just four. This is a fundamental point that the questions, the study of the self, and all of our questions about the self, our questions about Buddha, must be in dependence on some experience. There's no questions coming out of nothing. Like there's no experience and there's a question because there would be no experience of the question then. The question relies on experience on this body and mind. Okay? So, I asked, You know, what does the student who's asking the question, what is the self of the student?

[32:20]

I had to get somebody to ask the question, so I got to ask her. Because you might not know until you ask the question that it was coming from five aggregates. But if you try it, you'll notice every single time you ask that question, it'll depend on that. And even every time you think about the self. or look for the self, looking for the self even if you don't find it. The looking depends on the five aggregates, depends on an experience. All phenomena, even the phenomena of believing that phenomena inherently exist. The conception, the misconception that I inherent or the misconception that I don't exist at all.

[33:24]

These various conceptions, they don't arise all by themselves, they arise out of experience, out of five aggregates. All day long, experience, experience, experience. If you ask questions about the self, it comes from there. Now, asking questions about the self, someone who understands emptiness can ask that question. Someone who doesn't understand emptiness can ask that question. If someone who doesn't understand emptiness asks the question, like this monk, what is the self of this Zen student, then even not understanding, he still might have the right attitude, or a pretty good attitude.

[34:29]

He asked the question in two crucial times. One time he asked the question, and when he got the answer, He responded one way. In the other case, he asked the question and got the same answer and responded in another way. What was the difference between the two ways he responded? He heard the God of fire is here looking for fire. He heard that one time and he responded in such a way that he didn't understand emptiness. In the other case, he listened to it and he did understand emptiness. Well, you're skipping ahead by...

[35:39]

Because he looked at this person who had not been coming to see him, and he said, how come you haven't been coming? And this person told a story about being told that the fire god is here seeking fire. He told that story. When he heard that story before that moment of relating the story, he did not understand the teaching. We're not yet into him explaining it. In fact, back then, he did explain, but Fa Yan didn't ask him yet to explain. He just said, what was the occasion for your awakening? And when he told that story, Fa Yan felt that he didn't understand the teacher's good words. And in fact, when he asked him to then explain, When he explains, then you say, well, how can you explain without having some problems, did you say?

[36:44]

It turns out that when you understand emptiness, you can explain without getting in more trouble. And when you don't understand emptiness, even if you shut up, you get in more trouble. By being skillful in the presentation of emptiness, In the meditation on emptiness, you're more skillful at talking in a way that's in accord with understanding of the middle way. When you don't understand the middle way, being quiet becomes an issue. Because your mind will still be making these conceptual elaborations of duality. You cannot stop your mind from conceptually elaborating on duality. You cannot stop your mind from conceptually elaborating on non-dependence if you understand non-dependence, if that's what you think is going on. It turns out, strangely, not always, but usually in these Zen stories, when the superintendent doesn't come to the teacher because they have an understanding, they don't understand emptiness, that they don't go.

[38:03]

When you do understand emptiness, you go and pay your respects because you are skillful at paying your respects because you understand emptiness. You're good at conventionality. The thing is, go see the teacher. Don't think, oh, I don't have to go see the teacher because I already understand. This is elaboration of duality. Do you understand? Me and the teacher, that's duality. So you elaborate that with me enlightened monk, me enlightened teacher, me no needsy teacher, because me enlightened. This is elaboration of non-dependence rather than me and teacher interdependent, no inherent existence between us, therefore must meet. Because, not because me enlightened and teacher enlightened, because teacher and me dependent, I depend on teacher.

[39:12]

Because me, five skandhas, see teacher. Teacher, I see, I hear teacher. This is five skandhas. This is experience based on seeing teacher. Therefore, no inherently existing me, just five skandhas, give me rise to sense of self. So this monk, because he didn't understand non-dependence, because he didn't understand dependence, emptiness, dependent co-arising, because he did not understand, when he heard that teaching, he continued to not understand. But the second time when he heard the teaching, he responded differently. And then he had no... It turns out the second time he didn't understand anything. But he could have. All right? The second time he heard the fire god is here to look at fire, he didn't say anything the second time. But he could have.

[40:14]

The fire god is here to look for fire is the same as it's one drop from the font of Cao Xi. And De Shao, I mean De Shao, When he heard that, he woke up. But Dasha was in the same boat as the superintendent because he had come and he brought with him his group. He was already a teacher of Zen. And his group was a traveling group. Traveling Zen theater, right? And they went from monastery to monastery. So they were at... And... Am I going too fast? And he didn't go see Fa Yan. He was just sort of, he sent his monks to go enter the room. He said, you guys go study with them. I'll just sort of sit here in the guest room.

[41:18]

But then when Fa Yan said that to the other monk, it's a drop, it's one drop from the font of Tsao-Chi he woke up. He heard it. He heard the way the superintendent heard the second time. What is that way of hearing? What is that way of hearing the sound, the presentation of the Dharma? What's the difference between the two cases? Yes. Yes. And when the shau woke up, he wasn't quiet. Okay, Noah? What did he say? Do you want to know what he said, Noah? Huh? He said, crossing the summit of the mystic peak. This is not the human world.

[42:19]

Outside the mind there are no things. Blue mountains fill the eyes. So he could talk. He understood emptiness. He could talk. His conventional presentation came into full bloom because he could understand. Okay? It is possible to talk. As a matter of fact, that's very important, I think. This case 32 is strongly making the case that when you understand emptiness, if you stop and have nothing to say, it's okay for a few minutes, but you should present the conventional. Yes, Sonia? Put an end to conceptual elaboration. Not just to take a pause, but actually set the person for conceptual elaborations.

[43:21]

First of all, conceptual elaborations of all concepts, and then finally conceptual elaboration of non-dependence. So, the other famous case of like this is, Fa Yen is talking to Shushan, another master. And Fa Yen says to Shushan, a hair's breadth difference is like the distance between heaven and earth. How would you, how would you express that in experience? A hair's breadth difference is like the distance between heaven and earth. Fayan says, that's good, but how do you get it like that? And Shishan says his standard thing of, I'm just like this. How about you, teacher? And Fayan says, a hair's breadth difference is like the distance between heaven and earth. What was the question dependent on?

[45:04]

I just saw stuff. You just saw stuff, but you said everything. But everything... Right. Yeah, okay. Body-mind. Then when you said skandhas, then I could see skandhas. Yes. What's the question? I don't know. So it seems like in the conceptual world if I'm looking for skandhas, I see skandhas. And if I don't, Well, you don't have to see skandhas. It's quite all right. But you can say skandhas, you can say body-mind, you can say everything. When you said everything, I thought, well, that's fine, that's true, because skandhas are... Everything is five skandhas. Five skandhas accounts for everything. But we don't have to say skandhas. But when you say everything, in fact, don't you mean body-mind? And you say, well, no, not necessarily. I don't necessarily think that way, but... In fact, it's everything, but also everything does include body-mind.

[46:13]

I just want to make sure that we remember, if she says everything, just remember that that does include body-mind. Everybody knows that, right? But could we just specifically mention that so we don't forget that we mean body-mind? Because actually it's everything, but actually it's not everything out there. It's my body and mind that I'm experiencing. And if I say skandhas, that's fine too, but it's this body-mind. It's the body-mind. So I just wanted to experientially relate it, and also not just in general, like general, it's related to experience, but specifically my physical and mental experience at the moment, I'm using the question, the idea of self, and perhaps the idea of an inherently existing self is based on there's some experience.

[47:14]

I'm not totally spaced out, fortunately. Nobody is. Everybody somewhat has some experience at the moment that is necessary for them to come up with the idea of a self. or the question about the self, or the study of the self, or the freedom from the idea of self, it has some experiential basis, and I just wanted to connect to that. Because once we connect to that, then we can say things like, well, is this self something different from the experience that it depends on? Is it the same as the experience it depends on? We can start doing this kind of thing. Is it in the experience it depends on? Does it cover the experience it depends on?

[48:16]

And so on. And you can actually look to see what is this thing, what phenomenally, experientially, what is this self. And part of what it is, is that it depends on some moment of experience, not depend on something. But in fact, we carry the idea of a self that doesn't depend on anything, even though it does depend on something. And if you can juxtapose the self on your body-mind experience with your idea that your self does not depend on something, look at the two of them, then you're starting to refute the belief that you exist all by yourself, not in dependence on other beings.

[49:32]

You start to refute duality. You start to put an end of elaborations of duality. You start to see that self is something that depends on your moment-by-moment experience. Okay? In the story, whatever stage of meditation these monks were in, the monk Hui Jiao, the superintendents, the national teacher De Xiao, And so, Hui Zhao says, Hui Zhao says, what is Buddha? Fa Yan says, your name is Hui Zhao.

[50:38]

Did he wake up? Didn't say. The superintendent, he says, what is the self? The teacher says, the fire god, He is here to look for fire. He did. Next time he did. What was the difference in the way he was aware of himself, of his experience? That in one case, he was there with the body and mind, hearing some words, having an experience, the self, not independence, or not thoroughly seeing the dependence of this sense of self that he was asking about with his experience. In the other case, he saw. Same words, same experience, difference between the two ways.

[51:42]

When you hear the fire god is here looking for fire, when you hear that, when you have that experience, what's the experience such that you feel that there's a self that's independent of that experience, and you feel it is not independent, or the self that is dependent on, a self which has no life separate from. What's the difference between those different ways? Well, I just said what the difference is. So, in these stories, in some cases, the monks, having the experience of self in its in its non-inherent existence. But also, non-inherently existing means they saw the self does depend on whatever experience is happening. Whatever sense of self, it cannot be separated away. And also we can look at all the different ways that you might think it could be separate and none of them will hold up.

[52:47]

But also, it's not that it's totally eliminated either, because the sense of self can arise. So, what is Buddha? He didn't say, you're not there. He could have, but he didn't. He said, your name is blah blah, or you are hui jiao. The fire god is here. looking for fire. In the beginning of Nagarjuna's fundamental verses on the Middle Way, he says, there's nothing that arises from itself or from another or from both or from no cause.

[54:09]

This self does not arise the experience you're having this moment. It doesn't arise from itself. It doesn't arise from itself that you're having. And it also doesn't arise depending on nothing. It depends on what's happening.

[54:46]

@Transcribed_v005
@Text_v005
@Score_88.12